Karnataka High Court
Sri L Jayaprakash @ Jayyappa vs The Director on 3 January, 2024
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
WP No. 32968 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 32968 OF 2018 (GM-CC)
BETWEEN:
SRI L. JAYAPRAKASH @ JAYYAPPA,
S/O LAKSHMANA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
WORKING AS: JOINT CHIEF SECRETARY &
VIGILANCE OFFICER, BANGALORE
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
CENTRAL OFFICE, SHANTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 027.
...PETITIONER
[BY SRI KASHINATH J.D., ADVOCATE (PH)]
AND:
1. THE DIRECTOR,
TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
1ST FLOOR, LOTUS TOWER,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE DISTRICT CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 102,
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
3. SRI K.S.JAYADEVAPPA,
S/O CHOWDAPPA NAYAK,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
VICE PRESIDENT OF ALL INDIA
VALMIKI SANGHA, SHIVAMOGGA,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 102.
4. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT,
TECHNICAL EDUCATION BUILDING,
PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI C. JAGADISH, SPL. COUNSEL FOR R1, R2 & R4 (PH);
SRI SAGAR B.B., ADVOCATE FOR R3 (PH)]
-2-
WP No. 32968 of 2018
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS PERTAINS TO IMPUNGED ORDER DATED 18.07.2018
PASSED IN APPEAL NO.CR7/2016-17 PASSED BY R1; QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.07.2018 PASSED IN APPEAL
NO.CR7/2016-17 PASSED BY THE R1 AS PER ANNEXURE-A IS
ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW, AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION IS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 07.07.2023, THIS DAY, THE COURT, PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs:
"To call for records and issue writ or direction or order or any other writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 18.07.2018 passed in Appeal No.CR7/2016-17 dated 18.07.2018 (Annexure-A) etc."
2. Sri Kashinath J.D., learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner entered service of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation ('KSRTC' for short) as Divisional Security Inspector, in 1984 and after 36 years of service retired in 2020, as Class-1 Officer (Super Timescale). It was submitted that due to nature of his job as Vigilance Officer, petitioner conducted investigations against corrupt officials of KSRTC and based on his reports several employees were dismissed from service. It was submitted that with intention of wrecking vengeance against him for above reason, some of such employees filed complaint with Civil Rights Enforcement Cell ('CRE Cell' for short), disputing his caste status, even though -3- WP No. 32968 of 2018 he was appointed in 1984 under General Merit category. It was submitted that petitioner belonged to Beda-Valmiki caste, which was not Scheduled Tribes ('ST' for short) when he underwent schooling. Therefore his school records do not mention him as belonging to ST. It was submitted that subsequent to inclusion of Beda-Valmiki-Nayaka and other synonymous castes in ST in 1991, he obtained relevant certificates and availed promotions. It was submitted that horoscope of petitioner's father of year 1930, mentioned name of his grandfather as Bedara Kariappa. It was submitted that said document was submitted to Mysore State Electricity Board (MSEB) on 07.01.1950 at time of appointment as Lineman, as horoscope was considered proof of person's caste, date of birth etc. It was submitted that petitioner secured his father's service records from concerned authorities by filing applications under RTI Act, later. And further that same was verified by Investigating Officer, service Book of his father mentioned his caste as 'Beda (Valmiki)'.
3. It was further submitted that school records of petitioner's elder brother Sri Kumar S/o Lakshmana, who studied Class-I in Government Higher Primary School, Kalehalli, during 1962-63, showed his caste as 'Valmiki', while school -4- WP No. 32968 of 2018 admission records of petitioner of Class-I and II at Government Higher Primary School, Holalur Taluk, Shimoga District, also showed caste as 'Valmiki'. Even school admission records of his other brothers Kumar, Nagaraj and Chandrakanth, who studied at same school showed their caste as 'Valmiki'. Subsequent school records from Government Primary School, Daskoppa, Anandapura, Sagara Taluka were likewise.
4. But, school records of Primary Boys School, Ripponpet, where he studied Class-III upon his father's transfer, incorrectly showed his caste as 'Palyagar' due to clerical error by school staff and same continued in later school records. At Government High School, Surahonne, it was shown as 'Poliyagar' and there was error in his name as Jayappa L, instead as Jayanna L. It was submitted that during investigation, I.O. visited petitioner's ancestral village Nyamthi, Honnali Taluk and obtained statements of residents, collected school admission records of petitioner and his siblings and Service Book of his father. It was submitted that IO's report mentioned that Rachappa (Petitioner's uncle), his brother Ramanna (Petitioner's second uncle) lived in Valmiki Street, Nyamthi, while Lakshmana (Petitioner's father) had left village on employment with MSEB. It mentioned that Rachappa, -5- WP No. 32968 of 2018 Ramanna and Petitioner's father belonged to Valmiki caste, but petitioner and his siblings belonged to Poliyagar or Palegar caste and not to Nayaka or Valmiki caste. It was contended that such conclusion was perverse, especially, when petitioner's father, uncles and his siblings belonged to Valmiki caste. Said conclusion ignored report of Tahsildar, Honnali and Deputy Tahsildar, Nyamthi, who had conducted spot panchnama and recorded statements of residents of Nyamthi, as per which Sri Jayappa @ L. Jayaprakash was native of Nyamthi village, where his ancestors resided and they belonged to Valmiki (Beda) caste. Though I.O. had called for report from Tahsildar, Honnalli, before said officer submitted his report, I.O. had sent incorrect and incomplete report to ADGP, CRE Cell, which was later sent to Chairman DCVC, Shimoga.
5. It was submitted that neither Palyagar or Poliyagar existed as a caste in Karnataka or elsewhere. It was submitted due to fact that petitioner did his schooling at different places, error in his subsequent school records would not alter his caste, as it was likely due to fact that his father was able only to sign his name.
6. It was submitted that in his 36 years of service in KSRTC, petitioner was given 57 cash awards and 7 appreciation -6- WP No. 32968 of 2018 letters for his excellent and blemish free service. And during his service, petitioner successfully 'trapped' 24 officers/employees including Smt. Vidhya Raikar (Divisional Mechanical Engineer), Sri U.S.Karigowdar (Security and Vigilance Officer) and Sri K. Nisar Ahmed (Trainee Establishment Supervisor) who were dismissed from service. Said dishonest officers had formed a syndicate due to common professional grudge against petitioner and filed false complaints against petitioner alleging that he did not belong to Valmiki caste and obtained employment/promotions based on false caste certificates.
7. It was submitted that IO had recorded statements of tainted officials namely, Smt. Vidhya Raikar; Sri U.S.Karegowdar, and Sri K.Nisar Ahmed, even though same was of any evidentiary value. It was submitted that on 21.10.2016, DCVC ordered that petitioner belonged to ST caste of Valmiki, Beda, Nayaka, as per reports submitted by Tahshildar, Honnali and Shimoga and caste certificate to that effect was to be issued. Against such positive finding, respondent no.1 relied heavily on report of I.O., even though it suffered from glaring errors. It was submitted that proceedings before respondent no.1 were conducted in hasty manner ignoring relevant material resulting in erroneous order. -7- WP No. 32968 of 2018 Therefore, order of respondent no.1 appellate authority called for interference and sought for allowing writ petition.
8. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon following authorities:
i. Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. v/s Additional Commissioner and Ors., reported in 1994 (6) SCC 241.
ii. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. v/s A. Guruswamy, reported in 1997 (3) SCC 542.
iii. Union of India and Anr. v/s GTC Industries LTD., Bombay, reported in 2003 (5) SCC 106.
iv. Bahadursingh Lakhubhai Gohil v/s Jagadish Bhai M Kamalia and Ors., reported in 2004 (2) SCC 65.
v. V.C Banaras Hindu University and Ors. v/s Shrikant, reported in (2006) 11 SCC 42.
vi. State of Maharastra and Ors. v/s Ravi Prakash Babulal Singh Parmar and Anr., reported in 2007 (1) SCC 80.
vii. State of Uttaranchal and Ors. v/s Sunil Kumar Singh Negi, reported in 2008 (11) SCC
205.
viii. Chikkanna v/s District Special Welfare Officer and Ors. in W.P.no.13173/2008, D.D. on 23.01.2009.
ix. ORYX Fisheries Private Limited v/s Union of India and others report in reported in 2010 (13) SCC 427.
x. Kranti Associates Private Limited and Anr.
v/s Masood Ahmed Khan and Ors., reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496.
xi. Dayaram v/s Sudhir Batham and Ors., reported in 2012 (1) SCC 333.
-8-WP No. 32968 of 2018 xii. Anand v/s Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and Ors., reported in 2012 (1) SCC 113.
xiii. Ayub Khan Noorkhan Pathan v/s State of Maharastra and Ors., reported in 2013 (4) SCC
465. xiv. R.S. Mahadev v/s B.R Gopamma and Ors., reported in ILR 2021 KAR 4585.
xv. Sujata Das v/s State of Odisha and Ors., reported in 2023 SCC Online Ori 749.
xvi. Nagendra Yadav v/s Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr., reported in 2023 SCC Online Del 1422.
xvii. Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v/s State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 326.
xviii. Popatrao Vyankatrao Patil v/s State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in 2020 (19) SCC 241.
xix. S. Neelkantappa v/s State of Karnataka in Crl.P.no.4915/2016, D.D. on 04.01.2023.
9. On other hand, Sri C. Jagadish, Special Counsel for respondents no.1, 2 and 4 and Sri Sagar B.B., learned counsel for respondent no.3 sought to oppose writ petition and contended that petition was without any merit. Learned Special Counsel, submitted that for determination of caste of a person, entries in his father service records would not be final and conclusive. It was submitted that benefit of reservation provided under Constitution was confined only to persons genuinely belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes -9- WP No. 32968 of 2018 as a measure of positive protection granted them to balance Socio-Economic and other disabilities suffered by them due to ages of suppression/oppression. As per report at Annexure-J submitted by IO, petitioner belonged to Palyagar caste, which was not among Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.
10. It was submitted that Class-IV school records of petitioner's father at Annexure-R1, showed his caste as 'Paleyagar Nayaka', neither of which were SC/ST. It was submitted that petitioner failed to produce any records to establish that he belonged to Valmiki caste. It was submitted that school transfer certificate of petitioner issued by Sharavathi National High School, Hariga, Shimoga on 27.05.1976 at Annexure-R3, showed his caste as Paleyagar. Likewise, school admission register extract issued by said school in respect of petitioner's brother L. Chandrakanth at Annexure-R4 and transfer certificate at Annexure-R5, reflected his caste as Hindu Paleyagar. Attention of this Court was drawn to fact that said admission register was countersigned by petitioner's father K. Lakshman. It was submitted that there was no acceptable explanation for change of petitioner's caste from Paleyagar to Valmiki.
- 10 -
WP No. 32968 of 2018
11. It was submitted that as per Section 4-A (5) of Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Act, 1990, (for short 'Act'), entire burden to establish one's caste was on person claiming it and Rule 7-B of Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Rules, 1992 (for short 'Rules'), mandated withdrawal of all monetary benefits secured on basis of false caste certificate.
12. It was submitted that while recording its finding, DCVC had exceeded jurisdiction and recorded finding about petitioner's caste contrary to material on record. Said error was rectified by respondent no.1 - Appellate Authority. Such being case, when competent authorities had arrived at finding of fact based on material available, petitioner was not entitled for any relief.
13. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon following authorities:
i. State of Maharashtra v/s Milind and Ors., reported in AIR 2001 SC 393.
ii. Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of A.P v/s Laveti Giri and Anr., reported in 1995 (4) SCC 32.
- 11 -WP No. 32968 of 2018
iii. State of T.N. and Ors. v/s A.Gurusamy, reported in 1997 (3) SCC 542.
iv. Bank of India and Anr. v/s Avinash D. Mandivikar and Ors., reported in 2005 (7) SCC
690.
v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. v/s. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar and Anr., reported in 2007 (1) SCC 80.
vi. Rani Dattatray Pawar Alias Rani Umesh Shinde v/s State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in 2013 (3) SCC 690.
vii. Raju Ramsing Vasave v/s Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar and Ors., reported in 2008 (9) SCC 54.
viii. Kailas v/s State of Maharashtra, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 793.
ix. M. Nageshwar Rao v/s State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2011 (2) SCC 188. x. Dayaram v/s Sudhir Batham and Ors., reported in 2012 (1) SCC 333.
14. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record.
15. From above, it is not in dispute that while in service in KSRTC, petitioner availed benefit of reservation on basis of caste certificate that his caste was Beda Nayaka included in ST. While petitioner claims that as per entries in horoscope of his father submitted to MSEB at time of his appointment as Lineman, caste was mentioned as Valmiki and eve petitioner's initial school records correctly showed his caste Valmiki,
- 12 -
WP No. 32968 of 2018merely due to error by school authorities at time of making entries in subsequent schools, respondents had arrived at erroneous and perverse conclusion that he belongs to Paleyagar caste which was not ST and therefore he would be disentitled from claiming and retaining benefits obtained from such reservation. On other hand, as per findings of respondents, entire school records of petitioner and his siblings consistently showed their caste as Paleyagar and therefore, petitioner was not entitled to retain benefit claimed on basis of false records showing his caste as Valmiki.
16. Main grounds urged was that report of Tahsildar/Deputy Tahsildar which was based on statements of residents of petitioner's ancestral village, to effect that petitioner and his ancestors belonged to Beda Valmiki caste, was ignored by respondent authorities. It is also contended fact that caste of petitioner's father and his siblings was accepted as Beda Valmiki and which would be conclusive and which was accepted by original authority as well as certifying authority. However, appellate authority reversed said findings without proper consideration or justification in hasty manner.
17. Perusal of order passed by DCVC and respondent no.1 - Appellate Authority would reveal that entire school
- 13 -
WP No. 32968 of 2018records and service records of petitioner, his siblings and his father are not consistent insofar as caste status. While I.O. whose report is considered by both authorities relied upon later school records, petitioner seeks reliance upon earlier school records.
18. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra), has issued direction to streamline procedure for issuance of Social Status Certificate, for their scrutiny and approval as follows:
"13. ........ For that purpose, it is necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval, which may be the following:
1. The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub-Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level.
2. The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may be, shall file an affidavit duly sworn and attested by a competent gazetted officer or non-
gazetted officer with particulars of castes and sub-castes, tribe, tribal community, parts or groups of tribes or tribal communities, the place from which he originally hails from and other particulars as may be prescribed by the Directorate concerned.
3. Application for verification of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee shall be filed at least six
- 14 -
WP No. 32968 of 2018months in advance before seeking admission into educational institution or an appointment to a post.
4. All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer high-er in rank of the Director of the department concerned, (II) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities.
5. Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in over-all charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged in the pro forma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of
- 15 -
WP No. 32968 of 2018dead bodies etc. by the castes or tribes or tribal communities concerned etc.
6. The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the vigilance officer if he found the claim for social status to be "not genuine" or 'doubtful' or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issue show-cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post with acknowledgement due or through the head of the educational institution concerned in which the candidate is studying or employed. The notice should indicate that the representation or reply, if any, would be made within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice and in no case on request not more than 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice. In case, the candidate seeks for an opportunity of hearing and claims an inquiry to be made in that behalf, the Director on receipt of such representation/reply shall convene the committee and the Joint/Additional Secretary as Chairperson who shall give reasonable opportunity to the candidate/parent/guardian to adduce all evidence in support of their claim. A public notice by beat of drum or any other convenient mode may be published in the village or locality and if any person or association opposes such a claim, an opportunity to adduce evidence may be given to him/it. After giving such opportunity either in person or through counsel, the Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-à-vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof.
7. In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars
- 16 -
WP No. 32968 of 2018given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be followed.
8. Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the parents/guardian also in case candidate is minor to appear before the Committee with all evidence in his or their support of the claim for the social status certificates.
9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day-to-day proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. If after inquiry, the Caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be false or spurious, they should pass an order cancelling the certificate issued and confiscate the same. It should communicate within one month from the date of the conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the parent/guardian and the applicant.
10. In case of any delay in finalising the proceedings, and in the meanwhile the last date for admission into an educational institution or appointment to an officer post, is getting expired, the candidate be admitted by the Principal or such other authority competent in that behalf or appointed on the basis of the social status certificate already issued or an affidavit duly sworn by the parent/guardian/candidate before the competent officer or non-official and such admission or appointment should be only provisional, subject to the result of the inquiry by the Scrutiny Committee.
11. The order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
12. No suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie.
- 17 -
WP No. 32968 of 2018
13. The High Court would dispose of these cases as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months. In case, as per its procedure, the writ petition/miscellaneous petition/matter is disposed of by a Single Judge, then no further appeal would lie against that order to the Division Bench but subject to special leave under Article 136.
14. In case, the certificate obtained or social status claimed is found to be false, the parent/guardian/the candidate should be prosecuted for making false claim. If the prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of the accused, it could be regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude, disqualification for elective posts or offices under the State or the Union or elections to any local body, legislature or Parliament.
15. As soon as the finding is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the certificate obtained was false, on its cancellation and confiscation simultaneously, it should be communicated to the educational institution concerned or the appointing authority by registered post with acknowledgement due with a request to cancel the admission or the appointment. The Principal etc. of the educational institution responsible for making the admission or the appointing authority, should cancel the admission/appointment without any further notice to the candidate and debar the candidate from further study or continue in office in a post."
19. Perusal of report submitted by I.O. at Annexure-J does not reveal that it was prepared in conformity with direction issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Peculiar Ethnological, Anthropological traits, deity rituals, customs of
- 18 -
WP No. 32968 of 2018marriage, death ceremonies of concerned caste or tribe are not at all enquired into or considered.
20. In its recent decision, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M.V. Chandrakanth v/s Sangappa1, has re-iterated principle that normally caste of children would follow caste of their father. Perusal of Service record of petitioner's father at Annexure-S1 would indicate caste as Beda (Valmiki). Admittedly, petitioner's father served in a public authority namely MSEB. Annexure-S3 - extract of school particulars of petitioner and his siblings issued by Government Model Higher Primary School, Holalur would mention caste of Sri Kumar and Sri L. Jayanna as Valmiki while that of Sri Nagaraja as Paleyagar (Valmiki) and that of Sri Chandrakanth as Paleyagar. Annexure-S4 - school admission register extract issued by Government Higher Primary School, Daskoppa, Anandpur mention caste of petitioner and his two siblings as Valmiki.
21. But, petitioner obtained certificate at Annexure-B on 02.08.1992 from Tahsildar, Shimoga that he belongs to Nayaka caste - a ST. Said certificate is obtained after inclusion 1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 934
- 19 -
WP No. 32968 of 2018of Valmiki among ST. Though in report submitted by I.O. there is reference to statement about family customs etc., neither report of Tahsildar/Deputy Tahsildar at Annexure-M nor report of I.O. at Annexure-J traverses said aspects. Even perusal of order passed by DCVC at Annexure-K or impugned order passed by Appellate Authority at Annexure-A discloses any such consideration. Unfortunately, neither DCVC nor Appellate Authority had called upon Tahsildar, Shimoga, who had issued certificate at Annexure-B about basis on which it was issued or consideration.
22. Section 4-A(3) of Act requires Tahsildar on receipt of application to hold such enquiry as he deems fit and on satisfying himself regarding genuineness of claim to issue caste certificate. Rule 3-A of Rules contemplates verification of information, documents and such other materials furnished by applicant. In fact Sub-rule-3 thereof contemplates examination of school records, birth registration etc., and examination of parents, guardians or such other persons who have knowledge of social status of applicant and in case of applicant claiming ST status, Tahsildar is required to take into account Anthropological and Ethnological traits, deity rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies and such other matters. Tahsildar is also authorized to
- 20 -
WP No. 32968 of 2018require assistance of any officer for purpose of satisfying himself regarding genuineness of claim.
23. Neither of authorities proceeded on said basis before recording divergent conclusions. Indeed, placing reliance on any one document as conclusive proof of claim by applicant has been held to be contrary to law by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Milind's case (supra). It is held in Mah. Adiwasi's case (supra) that sufficient corroboration by other material available or collected during enquiry, is necessary.
24. There is heavy reliance upon or reference to report submitted by I.O. which is admittedly during investigation on allegation of obtaining false caste certificate and tinkering with school records. Admittedly, said prosecution ended with filing of B-report as per Annexure-L1. Therefore, report of I.O. cannot be sole basis of conclusion by authorities.
25. Admittedly, notified castes in Entry no.38 of ST insofar as Karnataka are as follows:
"Naikda, Nayaka, Cholivala Nayaka, Kapadia Nayaka, Mota Nayaka, Nana Nayaka, Naik, Nayak, Beda, Bedar, and Valmiki".
26. Certificate at Annexure-B obtained by petitioner certifies him as belonging to Nayaka caste of which Valmiki is
- 21 -
WP No. 32968 of 2018claimed to be sub-caste. There is no material available or placed on record to substantiate such claim. Since petitioner has obtained caste certificate as belonging to Nayaka caste notified as ST, scope of enquiry by authorities would be to ascertain genuinity of such claim and declare correct caste of petitioner.
27. For failure to have held enquiry and assigned reasons for their respective conclusions as contemplated in Mah. Adiwasi's case (supra), impugned order passed by respondent no.1 at Annexure-A as well as order passed by respondent no.2 at Annexure-K would require to be quashed. Despite fervent prayer by learned counsel for petitioner for giving positive finding about petitioner's caste by this Court based on horoscope and service register of petitioner's father as well as Class-I and II school admission records of petitioner and his siblings, I am not inclined to do so for want of corroboration as contemplated under the Act/Rules namely Anthropological and Ethnological traits, deity rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc.
28. For above mentioned reasons, though counsel on both sides have sought to rely on innumerable decisions,
- 22 -
WP No. 32968 of 2018having due deference to ratio laid down therein, I pass following:
ORDER Writ petition is allowed in part, impugned order dated 18.07.2018 passed in Appeal No.CR7/2016-17 dated 18.07.2018 at Annexure-A as well as order dated 21.10.2016 passed by DCVC
- respondent no.2 at Annexure-K, are quashed. Matter stands remitted back to respondent no.2 for fresh enquiry in light of observations above and keeping in mind ratio laid down in decisions referred to by both parties herein.
To facilitate early conclusion of such enquiry, and as all parties are represented, they shall appear before respondent no.2 without awaiting notices on 01.02.2024 and cooperate for early conclusion without seeking unnecessary adjournments.
Respondent no.2 is directed to endeavour to dispose of matter within outer limit of 45 days from date of appearance hereinabove indicated.
Sd/-
JUDGE GRD