Karnataka High Court
Reshma W/O Shridhar vs The Deputy Commissioner And Ors on 17 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:253
WP No. 203018 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.203018 OF 2024 (GM-CC)
BETWEEN:
RESHMA W/O SHRIDHAR,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF
TOWN MUNICIPALITY, HUMNABAD,
R/O INDIRA NAGAR, HUMNABAD,
DIST.BIDAR - 585401.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHAITANYAKUMAR CHANDRIKI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
Digitally signed CUM CHAIRMAN,
by RENUKA DIST. CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE,
Location: High D.C.OFFICE BIDAR - 585401.
Court Of
Karnataka
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BASAVAKALYAN
DIST.BIDAR - 585401.
3. THE TAHASILDAR,
HUMNABAD,
DIST.BIDAR - 585401.
4. SHIVAPUTRA MALAGE
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: SOCIAL WORKER,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:253
WP No. 203018 of 2024
R/O H.NO.1-96, INDIRA NAGAR,
HUMNABAD, DIST.BIDAR - 585401
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C. JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1
TO 3;
SRI. SHIVAPUTRA S. UDBALKAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THEREBY
FURTHER ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI
THEREBY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY 2ND
RESPONDENT AS AT ANNEXURE-K DATED 28.06.2024 BEARING
NO. ¸ÀA/PÀA/eÁw.DzÁAiÀÄ/¹.Dgï/04/2023-24. B) FURTHER BE PLEASED TO
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THEREBY
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.09.2024 PASSED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS AT ANNEXURE-L IN BEARING
NO.¸ÀA:PÀA/c and v/¹Dgï-62/2024-25.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.¸ÀA/PÀA/eÁw.DzÁAiÀÄ/¹.Dgï/04/2023-24 dated 28.06.2024 passed by -3- NC: 2025:KHC-K:253 WP No. 203018 of 2024 the respondent No.2 cancelling the caste certificate which was granted to her on 15.05.2019 by the respondent No.3.
2. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order bearing No.¸ÀA/PÀA/c and v/¹.Dgï-62/2024-25 dated 19.09.2024 passed by the respondent No.1 confirming the order passed by the respondent No.2 cancelling the caste certificate.
3. The petitioner claims that she contested the election to the post of Councillor in Ward No.1 of Town Municipality, Humnabad as a person belonging to scheduled caste. She was declared as returned candidate. Respondent No.4 lodged complaint/s dated 14.12.2020 and 31.12.2020 before the respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively that the petitioner had obtained a false caste certificate from the respondent No.3 and therefore, sought to declare the election of the petitioner as void. The petitioner contends that she belongs to Yelam Reddy caste which was categorized under IIIA. Later, she married a person belonging to scheduled caste on 10.04.2014. She had obtained a caste certificate on 26.03.2015 as belonging to Category IIIA and that in the year 2016, she adopted the Buddhism religion. She claimed that in -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:253 WP No. 203018 of 2024 the year 2019, when she filed her nomination where she declared that she belonged to Buddhist Category-A and obtained a verification certificate from respondent No.3. Again in the year 2020, she obtained a fresh caste certificate from the respondent No.3 as belonging to Category IIIA. The respondent No.2 directed the respondent No.3 to conduct an enquiry regarding the complaint lodged by the respondent No.4. The respondent No.3 conducted an enquiry and submitted a report before the respondent No.2.
4. Based on the report of the respondent No.3, the respondent No.2 directed the respondent No.3 to take action in accordance with the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment) etc. Act, 1990 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act, 1990'). Based on the said directions, the respondent No.3 initiated proceedings by issuing a notice dated 20.12.2021 to the petitioner. The respondent No.2 by his communication dated 13.10.2021, cancelled the caste certificate granted to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the said communication before this Court in W.P. No.202937/2022. This Court in terms of the order dated 17.11.2022, allowed the petition and set -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:253 WP No. 203018 of 2024 aside the communication dated 13.10.2021 issued by the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.3 and while quashing all further proceedings pending before the Tahasildar, Humnabad, in No./Sankirna/CR-175/2021-22 dated 20.12.2021, directed him to consider the complaint lodged by the respondent No.4 in terms of Section 4B of the Act, 1990 and the Rules thereunder and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 considered the issue and passed the impugned order dated 28.06.2024 setting aside the caste certificate issued by the respondent No.3. The petitioner thereafter challenged it before the respondent No.1 who also dismissed the review application in terms of the order dated 19.09.2024 impugned in this writ petition.
5. The petitioner is, therefore, before this Court challenging the said orders.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that under the Act, 1990, if a caste certificate is issued by the competent authority and if any person is aggrieved by the issuance of such caste certificate, he/she is bound to challenge it in the manner provided under Section 4B of the Act, 1990 -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:253 WP No. 203018 of 2024 within 30 days. He contends that since the order of the respondent No.3 issuing caste certificate to the petitioner is not challenged, the respondent No.2 could not have entertained the complaint of respondent No.4. Besides this, he contends that the petitioner on marriage, acquired the caste of her husband and therefore, was entitled to claim as belonging to Buddhist A caste. He, therefore, contends that the respondent No.3 after verifying the facts had issued the caste certificate which was improperly cancelled by the respondent No.2.
7. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that the petitioner who belonged to Category IIIA cannot claim the caste of her husband. He contends that this question is no longer res integra in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in: Mrs.Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University and Others [AIR 1996 SC 1011]; Punit Rai v. Dinesh Chaudhary [(2003) 8 SCC 204] and Anjan Kumar v. Union of India and Others [(2006) 3 SCC 257], where it was held that the wife continues with the Caste in which she was born. He referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika v. State of Gujarat and Others [2012 (2) AIR KAR R 147] and contended that in -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:253 WP No. 203018 of 2024 case if the child is born to parents belonging to forward Caste and reserved category parent, then the child should prove that he or she did not have any advantage of being an offspring of a parent belonging to a forward caste or that he/she was raised by the parent belonging to a reserved category in the same circumstances. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to claim that she acquired the caste of her husband and hence, there is no error in the impugned orders.
8. The learned counsel for respondent No.4 also supported the contention of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3
9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
10. The petitioner has not disputed the fact that she belonged to Category IIIA. The petitioner cannot contend that on her marriage with the person belonging to Buddhism, she acquired the caste of her husband. As often stated, the caste is acquired by a person by birth and there cannot be any vertical -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:253 WP No. 203018 of 2024 movement in matters of caste particularly when it relates to reservation. A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Archana M.G. v. Smt.Abhilasha and others [W.P. No.3399/2022 decided on 15.03.2022] has considered the very same question and has held that children born out of another caste marriage would acquire the caste of their father, but the wife cannot change her caste and continues to hold on to the caste in which she was born, during her lifetime. Therefore, in view of the admitted fact that the petitioner earlier belonged to Category IIIA and that the caste certificate in question was issued, on the marriage of the petitioner with a person belonging to Buddhism, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of being considered as belonging to Buddhist A Caste. Therefore, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 rightly held that the petitioner is not entitled for the caste certificate declaring that she belongs to Buddhist A caste and were right in cancelling the caste certificate already issued to the petitioner by the respondent No.3.
11. Hence, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:253 WP No. 203018 of 2024
12. In view of disposal of this petition, I.A. No.1/2024 does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed off.
Sd/-
(R.NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20