Karnataka High Court
Sri Gurunatha, S/O Rangappa Naikodi vs The Government Of Karnataka on 11 September, 2012
Author: N.K.Patil
Bench: N.K.Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.V.PINTO
WRIT APPEAL No.1043/2007 (GM-CC)
BETWEEN:
SRI GURUNATHA, S/O RANGAPPA NAIKODI,
AGE 25 YEARS, OCC UN-EMPLOYED,
R/AT MARUTHINAGAR, GOKUL ROAD,
INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, HUBLI. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R.M. JAVED, FOR SRI. C.R.SHIVAPUJI, ADV.)
AND
1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
DEPT. OF SOCIAL WELFARE,
M.S.BUILDING, BY ITS SECRETARY,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER,
DHARWAD DIST, DHARWAD.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
DHARWAD DIST, DHARWAD.
4. THE TAHSILDAR,
HUBLI TQ, AT HUBLI, DIST DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.JAGADISH, GOVT. ADV.)
2
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT
PETITION NO.24784/2002 DATED 06/02/2007.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
N.K.PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant assailing the correctness of the order impugned dated 06/02/2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.24784/2002, has presented this appeal.
2. The appellant/petitioner had filed writ petition 24784/2002 assailing the correctness of the endorsement dated 29.05.2002 vide Annexure "F" communicated to the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad and subsequent endorsement dated 16/05/2002 vide Annexure-K issued by R-3 and had sought for a mandamus directing respondent No.2 not to accept the report submitted by the CRE Cell, Belgaum, on 13/03/2002 in respect of the caste verification is concerned as the same is not applicable to him as per the Government Order dated 11/03/2002 vide Annexure "H".
3. The appellant/petitioner contends that he was selected for the post of Civil Police Constable by order dated 28/04/2001 3 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Dharwad/3rd respondent and his selection was subject to certain conditions that he shall produce SSLC certificate, school leaving certificate, Income certificate, caste certificate, Rural candidate certificate etc. It is the case of the appellant/petitioner that he has all the records including the caste certificate issued by the competent authorities. When things stood thus, based on the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector, Hubli, the Tahsildar, Hubli issued caste certificate certifying that he belongs to "Tokare Koli" caste. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent addressed a letter on 16/06/2001 to the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad requesting him to send the caste verification certificate pertaining to him and the Hubli Rural Police have issued a communication to him on 16/05/2001 instructing him to appear before the District Commissioner, Social Welfare Department Dharwad and that the District Social Welfare Officer/2nd respondent, on 29.05.2002 wrote a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad stating that the caste verification certificate pertaining to him could not be issued on the ground that the District CRE Cell submitted a report on 13/03/2002 to the effect that he does not belong to the Tokari koli caste and 4 therefore his caste certificate has not been issued. Further, the 3rd respondent wrote a letter to the Tahsildar, Hubli to submit his report pertaining to his caste. Pursuant to the said letter, the Tahsildar, Hubli, by his letter dated 19/07/2001 wrote a letter to the 3rd respondent stating that the appellant belongs to 'Tokari Koli' caste as per the Government Circular dated 17/09/1994 and the Social Welfare Department, on 03/03/1997 confirmed the caste certificate issued to him. In the meanwhile, the Government of Karnataka issued an order dated 11/03/2002 stating that the benefits of reservation in admission to the educational institutions and educational concession extended to Pariwara, Koli and other communities accordingly cease and all persons of these communities who have claimed S.T. Caste certificates shall surrender them to the issuing authority for cancellation and shall not be liable for penal action and further the benefits of reservation obtained by the persons belonging to these communities in educational and employment based on the wrong caste certificate issued by the competent authorities as ST and which have become final may not be disturbed. Based on the presumption and assumption and without affording an opportunity 5 to the appellant, respondents 2 and 3 have issued an endorsement which was impugned in the writ petition. The said petition had come up for consideration before the learned single Judge on 06/02/2007. Learned Single Judge after going through the materials on record, disposed of the petition granting the appellant one month's time from the date of receipt of the order to approach the competent authority and on such application being filed by him, within three months thereafter the concerned authority was directed to pass orders in accordance with law. After filing of the petition there was an interim order to reserve one post to the appellant and the said benefit shall continue till the competent authority concludes the enquiry. In the event if appellant is considered to be belonging to scheduled tribe, it is for him to approach the concerned department seeking for his appointment. Assailing the correctness of the order passed by the learned single Judge, the appellant/petitioner has presented this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
6
5. After careful perusal of the order impugned we do not find any error much less material irregularity as such committed by the learned single Judge in passing the order impugned. The said writ petition was disposed of granting one month's time to the appellant from the date of receipt of the order to approach the concerned authority by filing an application redressing his grievance. Instead of exhausting the said remedy, the appellant has chosen to file this appeal. Therefore, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the order nor we find any merit as such to consider the relief sought in this appeal. Therefore without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, writ appeal filed by the appellant stands disposed off.* as follows:
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Kmv * incorporated v/o.dt. 05/10/2012 made on I.A.No.3/2012.7
1] The appellant is permitted to file necessary appeal before the Regional Commissioner, Belgaum, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment along with application under Section 14 of the Limitation for condoning the delay in filing the appeal;
2] If such appeal along with application is filed by appellant, the Regional Commissioner, Belgaum is directed to consider the same and condone the delay in filing the appeal and thereafter decide the matter on merits of the case, in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE BMV*