Sri Arjun S Rekya vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 December, 2015

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Arjun S Rekya vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 December, 2015

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

                                 1




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
                     BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015

                            BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

       WRIT PETITION No. 35986 OF 2015 (GM-CC)

BETWEEN:

Sri. Arjun.S. Rekya
S/o Sheenappa Gowda
Aged about 26 years,
Residing at No. 1-95,
Sri. Krishna Kuteer,
Near SBI, Bajal,
Mangalore-575 007.                           ...PETITIONER

(By Shri.. Harikrishna.S. Holla, Advocate)

AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
   Department of Revenue
   Vidhana Soudha,
   Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
   Bangalore-560 001,
   Rep. by its principal Secretary.

2. The Tahsildar
   Mangalore Disrtict,
   Mangalore-575 001,
   Dakshina Kannada.                    ...RESPONDENTS
                                  2




(By Shri.T.L. Kiran Kumar, Additional Government Advocate)

                              *****

      This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash endorsement dated:
4.7.2015 issued by the Respondent No.2 (Annexure-E) and
direct the respondents to consider the application dated:
3.7.2015 filed by the petitioner and issue certificate as per the
O.M. dated; 8.9.1993 (Annexure-C)

      This Writ Petition coming on for orders, this day, the
court made the following:

                           ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court on rejection of his application seeking a Caste Certificate as belonging to 'Other Backward Classes' and also as regards his income being at a particular level. The Tahsildar who is the competent authority to issue such certificate having rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner belongs to creamy layer and therefore, was not entitled to such certification, the petitioner is before this Court.

2. The learned Government Pleader who is directed to take notice would submit that the Tahsildar having rejected the application seeking a Caste Certificate, the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the District Caste Verification Committee, which would consider his claim notwithstanding the finding of the Tahsildar and since there are disputed questions of fact, it would be competent for the petitioner to approach the said authority.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner however would submit that if in the event that he should approach the Caste Verification Committee, there would be delay in consideration of his appeal and in the meanwhile, since he has already applied for a job on the basis of the claim that he belongs to other backward classe, he is aggrieved by the prospect of not being able to compete for the post and therefore he seeks urgent relief from the court.

4. Notwithstanding any such prospect of the petitioner seeking such employment, the fact remains that the petitioner 4 would have to establish that he does not belong to the creamy layer and he is entitled to such a certificate, for which he would necessarily have to approach the Caste Verification Committee which is a fact finding body and would address the issue.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of without prejudice to the case of the petitioner.

Sd/-

JUDGE KS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court