Bangalore District Court
Satish vs State Of Karnataka on 10 December, 2021
KABC010212552020
TITL E SHEET FOR JUDGEMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF V ADDL.CITY CIVIL COURT
AT BENGALURU
(CCH.No.13)
Present: Sri. C.D. KAROSHI, B.A., LL.M.
V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU
Dated this the 10th day of December, 2021
O.S.5978/2020
PLAINTIFF :Satish,
S/o Chowdappa,
Aged about 37 years,
R/at No.38, 1st Main Road,
Near Amba Maheshwari
Temple, Vrushbhavathi
Nagara, Bengaluru North,
Bengaluru-79.
(By Sri. RM, Advocate)
-Versus-
DEFENDANTS : 1. State of Karnataka,
Rep. By its Chief
Secretary, Vidhanasoudha,
Ambedkar Veedi,
Bengaluru-01.
2. State of Karnataka,
Rep. By its Commissioner,
For Public Instruction
Education Department,
New Offices Nrupathunga
Road, Bengaluru-01.
2
O.S. No.5978/2020
3. Dy. Director of Public
Instructions, Bengaluru
North Sub Division,
Near Shikshakara
Sadana, K.G. Road,
Bengaluru-09.
4. The Block Education
Officer, Bengaluru North
Taluk, Rajajinagara,
Behind RTO Office,
Adjacent to Basaveswara
High School,
Bengaluru-10.
5. The Principal,
St. Lawrence High
School, No.135,
Kamakshipalya,
Bengaluru-79.
(D.1 to 4- I ADGP
D.5- Ex-parte)
Date of institution of the Suit : 27/11/2020
Declaration &
Nature of the Suit :
Mandatory Injunction.
Date of commencement of 25/11/2021
:
recording of evidence
Date on which the Judgment 08/12/2021
:
was pronounced
Total Duration Year Months Days
:
01 00 11
[ C.D. KAROSHI ]
V ADDL.CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU
3
O.S. No.5978/2020
-: J U D G E M E N T :-
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the
defendants for the relief of declaration and mandatory
injunction along with other reliefs.
2. Brief facts are as under:-
That, in the school transfer certificate of plaintiff's
minor daughter by name Kum. Likitha.S issued by the 5 th
defendant wrongly/by oversight in column No.7 her religion
name/caste has been mentioned as 'VOKKALIGA' instead of
her correct religion name/caste as 'GOLLA'. It is further
averred that the plaintiff requested 4th and 5th defendant to
rectify the same, but they suggested him to approach before
the competent civil court and to obtain judgment and decree
to correct his minor daughter's case in all her educational
records.
Further it is averred that, plaintiff issued a legal notice
to the defendants on 14/09/2020 calling upon them to give
direction to the defendant No.3 to 5 to correct his daughter's
caste in all her educational records, but despite receipt of
legal notice the defendants failed to comply the same, as such
if the plaint is not allowed the plaintiff will be put to great
hardship and injury which cannot be compensated in terms
of money. Cause of action arose to file the suit when the
defendants received legal notice dated 14/09/2020 and on
subsequent dates. On these grounds prayed for decreeing
the suit.
4
O.S. No.5978/2020
3. The defendant No.1 to 4 appeared through the
learned I ADGP and filed written statement of defendant No.3
and memo of adoption by remaining defendants contending
that, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law
or on facts. The particulars furnished by the parents of the
student which were supported by the documents will be
entered in the school records during the admission and the
same will be continued in the educational records. Further
contend that, as per the circular issued by the Education
Department there is no provision to change the caste of the
student in the school records, as such averments made in
para 2 to 10 of the plaint are denied as false and the plaintiff
be put to strict proof of the same. Though, there is no mistake
or fault on the part of the defendants, but plaintiff seeking
change of caste in the school records of his minor daughter.
In such circumstances, if suit is decreed the defendants will
be put to lot of hardship and plaintiff has to bear cost of
litigation spent by the Government. Suit is barred by
limitation. Further contend that, the plaintiff has not made
his daughter as a party to the suit and not complied under
Order 32 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure. The suit is bad
for non joinder of necessary parties and there is no cause of
action arose for the suit. On these grounds prayed for
dismissal of the suit with cost. Defendant No.5 remained ex-
parte.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, this Court has
framed the following issues:
5
O.S. No.5978/2020
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that his daughter's caste is
'GOLLA' and not as 'VOKKALIGA' ?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of
mandatory injunction as sought for ?
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff in the present form is
maintainable in the eye of law ?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit reliefs as sought
for ?
5. What order or decree?
5. In order to prove his case the plaintiff examined
himself as PW-1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to
10. No oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of
the defendants.
6. Heard the arguments. The learned I ADGP has
referred judgment in the case of Dharmanna Vs. Dy.
Commissioner dated 14/02/2014, judgment in RSA
No.155/2015 dated 29/11/2016 (copies not furnished) and
Government of Karnataka circular ಸಸಂಖಖಖ: ಶಶ.ದಶ.ವ. ಜಶ.ತ.ಪ-
08/2019-20, dated 20/04/2020.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 : In the negative
Issue No.2 : In the negative
Issue No.3 : In the negative
Issue No.4: In the negative
Issue No.5: As per final order for the
following:
6
O.S. No.5978/2020
-: R E A S O N S :-
8. Issue Nos.1 to 3 :- I take these issues altogether
for my discussion, as the facts overlap and for the sake of
convenience.
9. It is worth to note that admittedly the plaintiff has
filed the above numbered suit for the relief of declaration to
declare that his daughter's caste is 'GOLLA' and not as
'VOKKALIGA' and also sought the relief of mandatory
injunction to rectify the same in school records/transfer
certificate of his daughter. In this regard the plaintiff has
filed an affidavit in lieu of oral evidence by reiterating the
entire averments of the plaint, examined himself as P.W. 1, as
such I feel that again it is not necessary to reproduce the
same. In order to support his oral testimony, PW-1 got
marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to 10.
10. During the course of cross-examination also it has
been elicited that, his minor daughter Likitha.S is aged about
16 years and he has filed the present suit for declaration of
caste and rectification of school records i.e. in the transfer
certificate issued by the school authority as 'GOLLA' instead
of 'VOKKALIGA' which came to know about two years back
only. Further though P.W. 1 denied the suggestion that, as
per the information given by the parents only the caste of his
daughter has been continued in his school records like Ex.P.5
transfer certificate and there is fault on the part of the
parents only, but admits that he has not given any
7
O.S. No.5978/2020
application seeking rectification of the school records pertains
to caste of his daughter to the Thasildar or DDPI concerned.
11. It is worth to note that, the defendants 1 to 4
have filed written statement and also seriously challenged the
evidence of P.W. 1, but did not step into the witness box.
Defendant No.5 remained ex-parte. In such circumstances
this court has to appreciate the oral and documentary
evidence available on record only.
12. It is the case of the plaintiff as argued by his
counsel that, plaintiff belongs to caste 'GOLLA' as per entries
made in his transfer certificate Ex.P.4, but school authorities
have wrongly entered caste of his daughter in Ex.P.5 transfer
certificate 'VOKKALIGA', accordingly he has sought the relief
of declaration and injunction. Per contra the learned I ADGP
argued that plaintiff has neither made the minor plaintiff as
party to the suit nor approached the concerned authority
prior to filing of the suit as such in view of the government
notification dated 20/04/2020 and judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court and our Hon'ble High Court in RSA
No.155/2015 dated 29/11/2016 suit is not maintainable
and this court has no jurisdiction to try the same.
13. The relevant last two paragraphs of the Karnataka
Government Notification- ಸಸಂಖಖಖ ಸ4(4) ಕಕ.ದಕ.ವ.ಜಕ.ತ.ಪ-08/2019-
20 dated 20/04/2020 relied by the learned I ADGP reads as
under:-
8
O.S. No.5978/2020
ಸಸುತಖತತತ್ತೋಲಖ ಸಸಂಖಖಖಖ್ಯೆಃ ಸಕಇ 93 ಎಸಎಡಿ 2017 ದಿನಶಸಂಕಖ್ಯೆಃ 06-09-
2017 ರ ಕಸಂಡಿಕಖ (3) ರಲಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಕಖಳಕಸಂಡಸಂತಖ ಇರಸುತತದಖ.
ಮಶನಖ ಸರತ್ತೋರ್ವೋಚಚ್ಚ ನಶಖಯಲಯದ ತತ್ತೋಪರರ್ವೋಗಳಸಂತಖ ಸಿವಲ್
ನಶಖಯಲಯಗಳಿಗಖ ಜಶತಗಳ ಬಗಖಗ್ಗೆ ನಿರರ್ವೋರಿಸಸುವ ಅಧಿಕಶರ ಇಲಲ್ಲಿದಖತ್ತೋ
ಇರಸುವರದರಿಸಂದ, ಸಿವಲ್ ನಶಖಯಶಲಯಗಳಳು ಶಶಲಶ ದಶಖಲಶತಗಳಲಲ್ಲಿ
ಜಶತ ಬದಲವಶವಣಖ ಬಗಖಗ್ಗೆ ನಿತ್ತೋಡಿದ ಆದಖತ್ತೋಶಗಳನಸುನ್ನು ಶಿಕ್ಷಣ ಇಲಶಖಖಯಸು ಉನನ್ನುತ
ನಶಖಯಶಲಯಗಳಲಲ್ಲಿ ಮತ್ತೋಲಲ್ಮನವ ಸಲಲ್ಲಿಸಿ, ಸತಕತ ಆದಖತ್ತೋಶಗಳನಸುನ್ನು
ಪಡಖಯಬಹಸುದಸು. ಶಶಲಶ ದಶಖಲಖಗಳಲಲ್ಲಿ ತಪರಪ್ಪು ಜಶತ ನಮತದಶಗಿದದ್ದರಖ ಶಿಕ್ಷಣ
ಇಲಶಖಖಯಸು ಅದನಸುನ್ನು ಸರಿಪಡಿಸಬಖತ್ತೋಕಶದಲಲ್ಲಿ ಸಸಂಬಸಂರಪಟಟ್ಟ ಅರರ್ವೋದಶರರಸು
ಮೊದಲಸು ಜಶತ ಪಪ್ರಮಶಣ ಪತಪ್ರ ಪಡಯಬಖತ್ತೋಕಶಗಿದಖ ಮತಸುತ ಅದರ ಆಧಶರದ
ಮತ್ತೋಲಖ ಮಸುಸಂದಿನ ಕಪ್ರಮ ಜರಸುಗಿಸಬಹಸುದಸು. ತಹಶಿತ್ತೋಲಶದ್ದರರಸು ನಿತ್ತೋಡಿದ ಜಶತ
ಪಪ್ರಮಶಣ ಪತಪ್ರದಲಲ್ಲಿ ಸಸಂಶಯಗಳಿದದ್ದರಖ ಅಥವಶ ಅದರಿಸಂದ ಬಶಧಿತರಶದವರಸು
ಮತ್ತೋಸಲಶತ ಕಶಯದ್ದ 1990 ಕಲಸಂ 4(ಬ) ರಡಿಯಲಲ್ಲಿ ಕಸಂದಶಯ ಇಲಶಖಖಯ
ಉಪವಭಶಗಶಧಿಕಶರಿಗಳಿಗಖ ಮತ್ತೋಲಲ್ಮನವ ಸಲಲ್ಲಿಸಬಹಸುದಸು. ಶಶಲಶ
ದಶಖಲಶತಗಳಲಲ್ಲಿ ಮಸುಖಖತಖತ್ತೋಪಶಧಶಖಯರಸು ಯಶವರದಖತ್ತೋ ವಚಶರಣಖ ಇಲಲ್ಲಿದಖ
ಪತ್ತೋಷಕರಸು ನಿತ್ತೋಡಿದ ಮಶಹಿತ ಮತ್ತೋಲಖ ಜಶತಗಳನಸುನ್ನು ನಮತದಿಸಿರಸುತಶತರಖ.
ಆದದ್ದರಿಸಂದ ಶಶಲಶ ದಶಖಲಶತಗಳಲಲ್ಲಿ ನಮತದಿಸಿರಸುವ ಜಶತಯತ್ತೋ ನಖನೈಜ ಜಶತ
ಎಸಂದಸು ಪರಿಗಣಿಸಲಸು ಸಶರಖವಶಗಸುವರದಿಲಲ್ಲಿ.
ಆದದ್ದರಿಸಂದ ಶಶಲಶ ದಶಖಲಶತಗಳಲಲ್ಲಿ ತಪರಪ್ಪು ಜಶತ ನಮತದಶಗಿದದ್ದಲಲ್ಲಿ
ಸಸಂಬಸಂರಪಟಟ್ಟ ಅರರ್ವೋದಶರರಸು ಮೊದಲಸು ಜಶತ ಪಪ್ರಮಶಣ ಪತಪ್ರ ಪಡಖದಸು
ಸಸಂಬಸಂಧಿಸಿದ ಶಶಲಶ ಮಸುಖಖಸಸ್ಥರಿಗಖ ಅರರ್ವೋ ಸಲಲ್ಲಿಸಲಸು ತಳಿಸಸುವರದಸು ಹಶಗತ
ಸದರಿ ಜಶತ ಪಪ್ರಮಶಣ ಪತಪ್ರದ ಆಧಶರದ ಮತ್ತೋಲಖ ಶಶಲಶ ದಶಖಲಶತಗಳಲಲ್ಲಿ
ಜಶತ ತದಸುದ್ದಪಡಿ ಮಶಡಲಸು ಮಸುಖಖಶಿಕ್ಷಕರಸು ಸಸಂಬಸಂಧಿಸಿದ ಕಖತ್ತೋತಪ್ರ
ಶಿಕ್ಷಣಶಧಿಕಶರಿಗಳ ಮಸುಖಶಸಂತರ ಸಸಂಬಸಂಧಿಸಿದ ಉಪನಿದಖತ್ತೋರ್ವೋಶಕರಸು (ಆಡಳಿತ)
ಇವರಸುಗಳಿಗಖ ಪಪ್ರಸಶತವನಖ ಸಲಲ್ಲಿಸಸುವರದಸು, ಉಪನಿದಖತ್ತೋರ್ವೋಶಕರಸು (ಆಡಳಿತ) ರವರಸು
ಪಪ್ರಸಶತವನಖಯನಸುನ್ನು ಸಸುತಖತತತ್ತೋಲಖಯಸಂತಖ ಪರಿಶಿತ್ತೋಲಸಿ, ದಶಖಲಖಗಳಳು ಸರಿ ಇದದ್ದರಖ
9
O.S. No.5978/2020
ಜಶತ ತದಸುದ್ದಪಡಿ ಮಶಡಲಸು ಆದಖತ್ತೋಶ ನಿತ್ತೋಡಸುವರದಸು. ಸದರಿ ಆದಖತ್ತೋಶದಸಂತಖ
ತದಸುದ್ದಪಡಿಯಶದ ನಸಂತರ ಶಶಲಖಯ ದಶಖಲಶತ ವಹಿಗಳಲಲ್ಲಿ ಉಪನಿದಖತ್ತೋರ್ವೋಶಕರಸು
(ಆಡಳಿತ) ಇವರಸು ದದೃಢತ್ತೋಕರಿಸಸುವರದಸು. ಈ ಸತಚನಖಗಳಸಂತಖ ಕಪ್ರಮವಹಿಸಲಸು
ರಶಜಖದ ಎಲಶಲ್ಲಿ ರಲಶಲ್ಲಿ ಉಪನಿದಖತ್ತೋರ್ವೋಶಕರಸು (ಆಡಳಿತ), ಸಶವರ್ವೋಜನಿಕ ಶಿಕ್ಷಣ
ಇಲಶಖಖ ಮತಸುತ ರಶಜಖದ ಎಲಶಲ್ಲಿ ಕಖತ್ತೋತಪ್ರ ಶಿಕ್ಷಣಶಧಿಕಶರಿಗಳಳು, ಸಶವರ್ವೋಜನಿಕ ಶಿಕ್ಷಣ
ಇಲಶಖಖ, ಇವರಿಗಖ ತಳಿಸಿದಖ.
14. So on careful perusal of the said notification now it
is clear that even otherwise as per the several decisions of
the Hon'ble Apex Court of India and our Hon'ble High Court,
Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to determine or declare caste
of a person/student. Further if the civil court has already
declared such caste, then the education department has to
challenge it before the Appellate courts. In case of wrong
mention of caste in the school records as happened in the
present suit, the concerned applicant has to get caste
certificate from the Tahsildar and if found any doubts or
aggrieved by the same he has to file appeal before the Asst.
Commissioner.
15. Further in last para of the notification it is stated
that if there is a mistake or wrong mention of caste in school
records like Ex.P.5 transfer certificate issued by the
concerned school authority then the applicant has to get the
caste certificate from the Tahsildar and then to move an
application before the concerned school, in turn the Head
Master of the said school has to forward the same along with
documents to DDPI (Admin) through concerned BEO,
10
O.S. No.5978/2020
thereafter he has to pass necessary orders by certifying the
same so as to rectify the school records pertain to wrong
mention of caste belongs to the applicant.
16. In the case on hand it is evident from the perusal
of Ex.P.3 that, though the P.W. 1 has obtained backward
class certificate of his daughter showing it as she belongs to
GOLLA caste, but it appears that he did not approach the
Thasildar concerned or District Caste Verification Committee
before approaching the School Authority, which indicates
that, P.W. 1 did not comply the above mentioned procedure as
per the government notification dated 20/04/2020 referred
supra.
17. It may be noted that, though Ex.P.4 transfer
certificate issued in the name of plaintiff reflects the caste as
'GOLLA', but in order to substantiate his contention he has
not produced any endorsement from the office of concerned
BEO, DDPI, Social Welfare Department, Caste Verification
Committee or Asst. Commissioner before this court for
having approached the said authorities or challenged the
wrong entries regarding his daughter's caste made in Ex.P.5
by the school authority.
18. It is to be noticed that, as per Ex.P.6 to 10 though
the plaintiff has got issued statutory notice to the defendants
prior to filing of the suit, but for the reasons assigned supra
without approaching proper authorities, the plaintiff cannot
11
O.S. No.5978/2020
file a suit before the Civil Court seeking declaration or
mandatory injunction to rectify the school records by the
defendants as the same is not maintainable in view of
Section 9 of CPC that too without arraying minor daughter as
party to the suit or seeking permission to prosecute the suit
as next friend.
19. In this regard, our Hon'ble High Court by referring
the decision rendered in ILR 2014 KAR 5389 has observed in
RSA No.155/2015 dated 29/11/2016 referred by the learned
I ADGP as available in official web that, even otherwise for
any corrections in the documents pertaining to the school
records like marks card or transfer certificate pertaining to
the plaintiff or his daughter he has to approach the
competent authority for rectification or correction of the said
documents including caste certificate or income certificate
etc., and not the civil court, which can correct the school
records. So in view of the aforesaid ratio laid down in the
judgments of our Hon'ble High Court suit before this court is
not maintainable and this court has no jurisdiction to try the
suit. For these reasons, arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for plaintiff do not have weight and cannot be
accepted. On the other hand arguments advanced by the
learned I ADGP holds good. Hence, Issue No.1 to 3 are in
the negative.
20. Issue No.4:- In view of my discussion made supra
while dealing with Issue No.1 to 3, suit of the plaintiff is liable
12
O.S. No.5978/2020
to be dismissed without cost with liberty to approach the
concerned authority. Hence, I answer Issue No.4 in the
negative.
21. Issue No.5 :- For the foregoing reasons, I proceed
to pass the following;
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed, with liberty to approach the concerned authorities as per Government Notification- ಸಸಂಖಖಖ ಸ4(4) ಕಕ.ದಕ.ವ.ಜಕ.ತ.ಪ-
08/2019-20 dated 20/04/2020.
No order as to cost.
Office to draw decree accordingly.
[ Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in the Open Court on 10th day of December, 2021 ].
[ C.D. KAROSHI ] V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiff :
PW.1 Satish List of witnesses examined on behalf of Defendants:
- Nil -
List of documents marked on behalf of Plaintiff :
Ex.P1 - Xerox notarized copy of Aadhar card of P.W. 1 Ex.P2 - Xerox notarized copy of Aadhar card of plaintiffs daughter.13
O.S. No.5978/2020 Ex.P3 - Copy of Caste certificate/Form-E of plaintiff's daughter Ex.P4 - Xerox notarized copy of Transfer Certificate of P.W. 1 Ex.P5 - Xerox certified copy of transfer certificate of daughter Likhitha S. Ex.P6 - Office copy of Legal notice Ex.P7 - Postal receipts (3 in Nos) Ex.P8 - Postal Acknowledgements (3 in Nos) Ex.P9 - Postal endorsement. Ex.P10- Postal Track record (1 No.) List of documents marked on behalf of Defendants:
- Nil -
[ C.D. KAROSHI ] V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU 14 O.S. No.5978/2020 Operative portion of the judgment pronounced in open court vide separate judgment:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed, with liberty to approach the concerned authorities as per Government Notification- ಸಸಂಖಖಖ ಸ4(4) ಕಕ.ದಕ.ವ.ಜಕ.ತ.ಪ-08/2019-20 dated 20/04/2020.
No order as to cost.
Office to draw decree accordingly.
[ C.D. KAROSHI ] V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU 15 O.S. No.5978/2020 16 O.S. No.5978/2020