Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Karnataka High Court

Nethaji Kendra Vidya vs K Somashekhar on 29 April, 2025

                          -1-
                                       WA No.842/2024



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

                      PRESENT
      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
                         AND
         THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

         WRIT APPEAL NO. 842/2024 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

NETHAJI KENDRA VIDYA
SAMSTHE (REGD),
BALLAMAVATI, MADIKERI TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 214,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
                                           ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MAHESH A.S, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    K. SOMASHEKHAR,
      S/O LATE KRISHNA NAYAKA,
      AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
      RESIDING AT NO.499(1),
      HOUSE NO.3, NETHAJI EXTENSION,
      KUSHAL NAGARA,
      KODAGU DISTRICT-571 234.

2.    DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
      INSTRUCTIONS (SECONDARY),
      NEW PUBLIC OFFICES,
      NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
      K.R. CIRCLE,
      BENGALURU-560 001.
                                       ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. L. SIDDAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR
   SRI. S. ANILKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1,
   SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA FOR R2)
                                  -2-
                                            WA No.842/2024



     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 01.04.2024 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.16493/2022.

     THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 24.03.2025, COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT' THIS DAY, V KAMESWAR
RAO J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM:     THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
           AND
           HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF


                        CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) This intra-court appeal has been filed by the Nethaji Kendra Vidya Samsthe (Regd.), Ballamavati, Madikeri Taluk, Kodagu District, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 01.04.2024 in Writ Petition No.16493/2022, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the Respondent No.1 by stating in Paragraph-14 as under:

"14. In view of the above, this Court proceeding to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

(ii) The order dated 21.08.2019 vide Annexure-

D passed by respondent no.1 is hereby quashed.

        (iii)     Respondents      are    hereby      directed    to
                reinstate    the   petitioner    to     his   former
                position      forthwith     and         grant     all
                consequential benefits."

2. The facts to be noted from the record are that, Respondent No.1 contested his dismissal order in the light of the determination that, his Nayak Caste Certificate on which appointment as a Craft Teacher was made in the year in 1997 was allegedly fake.

3. The Respondent No.1 was appointed as a Craft Teacher in the School run by the appellant herein on a post which was reserved for Scheduled Tribe Candidate. It was the case of Respondent No.1 that, after 21 years of continuous and unblemished service, the appellant acting upon the report from the Tahsildar of K.R. Pet Taluk, Mandya District, alleging that the Respondent No.1 has falsified his community status, was put under suspension under Rule 16 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Recruitment and terms and Conditions of -4- WA No.842/2024 Service of Employees in Private Aided Primary and Secondary Educational Institutions) Rules 1999 (in short, 'KEI (Recruitment T & C Etc. ) Rules, 1999]. It is noted that the District Caste Verification Committee ('DCVC' in short), Mandya District, held that, the Respondent No.1 belong to the 'PARIVARA' Community instead of 'NAYAKA' (Scheduled Tribe) as claimed by the Respondent No.1, which resulted in his dismissal on 21.08.2019.

4. An appeal filed by the Respondent No.1 with the Director, of Department of Scheduled Tribe Welfare and Appellate Authority, Bengaluru, having stayed the DCVC's order, the appellant did not reinstated the Respondent No.1 by citing pending final orders. However, on 04.03.2023, the Director of Tribal Welfare ie., the Appellate Authority set aside the DCVC's order. Despite that, the appellant nor the Respondent No.2 i.e, the Director of Public Instructions (Secondary) had reinstated the Respondent No.1.

5. The case of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that the Caste Certificate produced by -5- WA No.842/2024 the Respondent No.1 at the time of his appointment in the year 1997 was found to be fake by the DCVC. It is noted by the learned Single Judge that the Appellate Authority has set aside the finding recognizing inclusion of 'PARIVARA' as a synonym of 'NAYAKA' Caste by the Constitution (ST Orders) (Amendment Act) 2020, and as such the initial determination of the fake certificate is rendered invalid.

6. The learned Single Judge in Paragraphs, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 13 has held as under:

"5. The Amendment Act of 2020 explicitly includes 'Parivar' as a synonym of the Nayak caste, effectively reverting back to the Presidential Notification of 1950. This inclusion retroactively validates the petitioner's caste status as Nayak, which was the basis of his appointment in 1997.

6. The crux of this case lies in the actions of Respondent No. 1, who relied upon the recommendation of the District Caste Verification Committee to justify their decision to dismiss the petitioner. However, it has emerged during the proceedings that Respondent No. 1 overlooked a had crucial factor that the Appellate Authority had -6- WA No.842/2024 previously granted a stay on the decision of the District Caste Verification Committee. This oversight raises significant doubts about the validity of the dismissal process undertaken by Respondent No. 1. the Nayak

7. The petitioner, belonging to the Nayak community as evidenced by school records and transfer certificate, contests the dismissal on various grounds. When considering the validity of caste certificates and their synonyms, this Court must delve into the legislative intent behind such provisions. Furthermore, the duty of the Court extends to ensuring that administrative actions are fair, just, and in compliance with constitutional principles.

8. Furthermore, subsequent developments have shed new light on the petitioner's community status. The Appellate Authority, after due consideration and in accordance with the 2020 Constitutional Amendment, has determined that the petitioner indeed belongs to the Parivar community, which is synonymous with the Nayak community. This determination effectively nullifies the basis upon which the District Caste Verification Committee recommended the petitioner's dismissal. Given the petitioner's 21 years of service and the subsequent validation of his caste status by the 2020 Amendment Act, it is imperative to grant indulgence to ensure that substantial justice is served.

9. This Court emphasizes the importance of upholding principles of fairness and equity in matters of employment and caste validation. If the caste in question is found to be synonymous with Nayak caste, the Court recognizes that this isn't a fresh inclusion by amendment but rather a clarification or affirmation of existing legal status."

                     X     X     X       X

       "13.        The     dismissal           of     the   petitioner        by

Respondent No. 1, based on the order of the District Caste Verification Committee, is hereby declared null and void. The failure of Respondent No. 1 to acknowledge the stay granted by the Appellate Authority is deemed a procedural error, further undermining the validity of the dismissal. Therefore, observing the above factors, this Court declares the dismissal order issued against the petitioner to be unsustainable and in violation of natural justice. The petitioner's appointment as a Craft Teacher in 1997 on the basis of the Nayak caste certificate stands validated by the inclusion of 'Parivar' as a synonym of the Nayak caste in the 2020 Amendment Act. Considering the determination by the Appellate Authority regarding the petitioner's community status, the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with full benefits and privileges as per his previous employment."

7. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant before us is that, the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order erred in saying that the Appellate Authority has set aside the finding of the DCVC, by recognizing the inclusion of 'PARIVARA' as synonym to 'NAYAKA' Caste and consequently the initial determination of the fake certificate is rendered invalid, this according to him is because recognizing the inclusion of 'PARIVARA' as a synonym of the 'NAYAKA' Caste in terms of Amendment Act 2020, is prospective in nature and not retrospective. It is his submission that the learned Single Judge while passing an order, erred in saying that the Amendment Act of 2020 explicitly includes 'PARIVARA' as synonym of the 'NAYAKA' Caste effectively reverting back to the presidential notification of 1950, which will retrospectively validates the petitioner's caste stated as 'NAYAKA', which was the basis of his appointment in 1997. According to the learned counsel, the learned Single Judge while passing the order has not taken note of the fact that the -9- WA No.842/2024 Respondent No.1's appointment as a Craft teacher in the year 1997 on the basis of 'NAYAKA' Caste Certificate stands validated only in the year 2020 and not before that and hence, according to him it is the position as was existing on the date when the petitioner obtained caste certificate and got appointment as a Craft Teacher that need to be seen and not any subsequent development, which has taken place.

8. We are not impressed by the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, primarily for two reasons i.e., -

i) In terms of Amendment Act 2020, the NAYAKA Caste of which he had produced the certificate in the year 1997 was recognized by including 'PARIVARA' as Synonym to the NAYAKA Caste by the Amendment Act of 2020. So in that sense, the inclusion of 'PARIVARA' as synonym of the 'NAYAKA' Caste, retroactively 'NAYAKA' Caste validates the petitioner's caste status as 'NAYAKA' belonging to Scheduled Tribe; and

ii) The law in this regard is well-settled by the Full Bench decision of this Court in Jayanna Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District and Others reported in AIR 2012 KAR 173, of which a reference

- 10 -

has been made in the order passed by the Appellate Authority, wherein at Paragraph/s No.14 the Full Bench of this Court has inter alia held that, inclusion of any Caste or Tribe subsequently would have restropsective effect and would therefore revert back to Presidential Notification of 1950 under Article 341 of the Constitution of India. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-

14. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the original grantee's name was "£ÁAiÀÄPÀ" in vernacular/Kannada.

How this is to be spelt in English is the abiding question that arises even before us. If we translate it as 'Naikda' or 'Nayaka', then it was included in 1950 Presidential enumeration. If we are to translate it as 'Naika' or 'Nayak' then it is to be found in the subsequent amendment of 1991 only. The translation should have been made with greater care by the Assistant Commissioner and thereafter by the Deputy Commissioner. We are certain that the Schedule Tribe is the same, attracting only the variant spelling in the translation. Both the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner have erroneously

- 11 -

concluded that since "£ÁAiÀÄPÀ" (Naika or Nayak) was included as a Schedule Tribe only in 1991, the grantee did not fall within the purview of the PTCL Act and erroneously restored the land to the State. This error would not have manifested had the two authorities perceived the legal position that all entries in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order 1950 original or subsequent are only elucidatory and clarificatory in nature. To sum up, after careful cogitation we are of the conviction that the view expressed by the Division Bench in Krishnappa and Rangaiah has to be preferred. In these circumstances, assuming that "£ÁAiÀÄPÀ" was included as a Schedule Tribe in 1991, we shall nevertheless answer the Reference by stating that every inclusion would have retrospective effect and would therefore revert back to the Presidential Notification of 1950.

X X X X

9. So, for the reasons stated by the learned Single Judge and additionally for our reasons, as

- 12 -

enumerated above, we find, there is no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal being without merit, is dismissed.

Sd/-

(V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE Sd/-

(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE KGR*