Karnataka High Court
Shravana Kumar D Nayak vs The Director And Appellate Authority ... on 28 February, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 R
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 200867 OF 2024 (GM-CC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SHRAVANA KUMAR D. NAYAK,
S/O. DEVENDRAPPA,
AGE: 30 YEARS, R/O. STATE SC/ST PREVENTION OF
BOGUS CASTE CERTIFICATE COMMITTEE (REGD.)
JAI SANTHOSHIMA COMPLEX ROAD,
NEW JEWARGI ROAD, KALABURAGI-585102.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH GINNI &
SRI. ASHOKKUMAR L.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DIRECTOR AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
SCHEDULED TRIBE WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
NO.34, 1ST FLOOR, LOTUS TOWER,
RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
2. SMT. MEENAKSHI W/O. LAKSHMAN,
AGE: 30 YEARS,
R/O. DHANAGARA GALLI, TALUK: CHINCHOLI,
DIST: KALABURAGI.
3. THE CHAIRMAN,
DISTRICT LEVEL CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE,
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KALABURAGI,
DIST: KALABURGI.
4. MEMBER SECRETARY,
DISTRICT CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE,
KALABURAGI, KALABURGI DISTRICT
AND JOINT DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER,
KALABURGI, DISTRICT: KALABURGI.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
5. THE MEMBER SECRETARY,
DISTRICT CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE,
KALABURGI DISTRICT, KALABURAGI AND
THE DEPUTY SECRETARY (ADM.),
ZILLA PANCHAYAT, KALABURAGI DISTRICT,
KALABURGI.
6. THE MEMBER,
DISTRICT CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE,
KALABURGI DISTRICT, KALABURGI AND TAHSILDAR,
CHINCHOLI TALUKA,
KALABURGI DISTRICT-585307.
7. LAXMI D/O. LAXMANA,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. NEAR SHARAN NAGAR, RAMA MOHALLA,
SHAHABAD, DISTRICT KALABURAGI-585228.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C. JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3 & R4-R6;
SRI. ARUNKUMAR AMAR GUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2;
SRI. MAHESH PATIL &
SRI. TULASIRAM K. JOGI, ADVOCATE FOR R7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING
THE ORDER DATED 27.2.2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1
IN NO. Pa Va Ka E/AppealCR-01/2022-23 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE
M, AND DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND
ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING
BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 21.11.2024, THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
Table of Contents
A. Background ............................................................5
B. Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner ......................7
C. Submissions on Behalf of Respondent No. 2 .............. 16
D. Submissions on Behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 3-6. 40
E. Submissions on Behalf of Respondent No. 7 .............. 45
F. Points for Consideration.......................................... 47
G. Answer to Point No. 1: Whether the Petitioner herein is an
aggrieved party and has the locus standi to maintain the
instant petition? .......................................................... 48
H. Answer to Point No. 2: When Schedule Tribe certificates
are issued to the parents of Respondent No. 2, her certificate
as that belonging to the Schedule Tribe category cannot be
questioned? ................................................................ 63
I. Answer to Point No. 3: Is a Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe
certificate conclusive and presumed to be valid?.............. 73
J. Answer to Point No. 4: On whom does the burden of proof
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
lie, is it on the person asserting that he/she belongs to the
Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe category to prove that he/she
belongs to that category or does it lie on the person alleging
that he/she does not belong to that category to prove that
fact? 79
K. Answer to Point No. 5: Whether this Court can adjudicate
on matters relating to the validity of caste as a fact-finding
forum vis-à-vis the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of
Appointment Etc.) Act, 1990? ..................................... 101
L. Answer to Point No. 6: Whether the Impugned Order dated
27.02.2024 suffers from any legal infirmity requiring
interference at the hands of this Court?........................ 110
M. Answer to Point No. 7: What Order? ........................ 117
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
ORDER
A. Background
1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 27.02.2024 passed by the Respondent No.1 in No. Pa Va Ka E/Appeal/CR-01/2022-23 produced at Annexure: M and dismiss the appeal filed by the Respondent No.2;
ii) Grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, including an order as to costs, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The Petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Tribe community - 'Bedar' which is classified as a Scheduled Tribe under Article 342 of the Constitution of India in the State of Karnataka.
3. Upon submitting an application, Respondent No. 2 was selected and appointed to the post of 'Assistant Accounts Officer' at the 'Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company Ltd.' (in short: 'GESCOM') under the Schedule Tribe category.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024
4. In pursuance of relevant provisions and rules under the 'Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1990'), Respondent No. 2 had to produce a caste certificate and upon furnishing the same, the appointing authority referred this to Respondent No. 3 - District Caste Verification Committee (in short: 'DCVC') to verify the caste certificate of Respondent No. 2 and to issue a validity certificate to that effect.
5. Thereafter, upon enquiry, Respondent Nos. 3-6 rejected the caste certificate of Respondent No.2 vide order dated 27.09.2021 holding that Respondent No.2 actually belongs to the 'Kuruba' community which is classified as a Backward Category under II-A reservation and not the 'Gond'/Gonda community as claimed by Respondent No.2, against which Respondent No.2 preferred an appeal before the -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 Respondent No.1-appellate authority and the same came to be numbered as Appeal No. CR 1/2002-23. Notices having been issued, the Petitioner herein filed an impleading application in the said appeal contending that the father and paternal uncle of Respondent No. 2 belong to the Kuruba community amongst other contentions, Respondent No.1 authority allowed the impleading application.
6. On hearing all concerned parties to the appeal, Respondent No.1 authority passed an order dated 27.02.2024 holding that Respondent No. 2 belonged to the 'Gond' community, hence, the caste certificate issued was valid and consequently allowed the appeal.
7. It is impugning this order of Respondent No.1 dated 27.02.2024, in PaVaKaE/Appeal/CR-01 2022-23, that the Petitioner is before this court. B. Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024
8. Smt. Hema Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, would submit that; 8.1. Not only is the impugned order not a speaking one but no finding has been adjudged as regards the documents submitted by the Petitioner marked as annexures - D, E and F in the writ petition wherein her contention is that the caste certificate of the paternal uncle of Respondent No.2, one Shri. Shyam Rao s/o Manikappa, his wife Smt. Nagamma and his daughter Kum. Bhuvaneshwari state that they belong to the 'Kuruba' community which is classified under II-A category issued by the Tahsildhar, Chincholi Taluk vide certificate dated 03.08.2017 as per the order of the state government issued under Articles 15(4) & 16(4) of the Indian Constitution, when such is the case, the father, brother and sister of Respondent No.2 as also Respondent No.2 -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 cannot claim to belong to the 'Gond' community.
8.2. Respondent No.2 in collusion with revenue officials based on entries in school records has managed to obtain a false caste certificate fraudulently as against the procedure contemplated under rule 3A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Rules, 1992 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "Rules of 1992") and by this very act has committed a grave fraud on the Indian Constitution and the society as a whole.
8.3. Respondent No. 1 authority without appreciating the material on record has passed an unreasoned, arbitrary and capricious order that wholly violates the rights guaranteed under article 14 and 342 of the Constitution.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 8.4. Sub-section (5) to Section 4-A of the Act of 1990 vests the burden of proof on Respondent No.2 to establish that both her grand-father and father belong to the Gond community as caste transfers from the father and to this effect, Respondent No. 2 has not placed any supporting documents before the DCVC or the Respondent No.1 authority.
8.5. She further contends that merely enjoying the benefits guaranteed under reservation would not amount to conclusive proof of caste/social status and in this regard she places reliance on a judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Director of Tribal Welfare, Govt. of A.P. vs Laveti Giri & Anr.1, more particularly para no. 4 thereof, which has been reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"4. It is contended by Shri Prabhakar, learned counsel 1 (1995) 4 SCC 32
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 for the appellants that the High Court was not right in relying on the documents produced by the respondent without any proof. The father did not appear to explain the circumstances under which he had the status of Scheduled Tribe. The certificate from Tehsildar of the nativity criteria is discernible from the brochure of the University. University is required to call upon the candidate to produce the required social status certificate, when a candidate's claim is founded upon such a social status. Relevant rules or orders issued by the Government in Social Welfare Department prescribed the procedure in that behalf. The High Court wrongly caused the burden of proof on the Department when it squarely rested upon the candidate to prove his caste/tribe according to the procedure prescribed under the rules. It is the duty of the certificate-issuing authority to satisfy himself after due verification whether the candidate belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, satisfies the criteria prescribed by the Government. Though the father managed to gain social status as Tribe falsely and wrongfully, and unconstitutionally is in enjoyment of the benefit of employment as a tribe, it is not conclusive. It is not uncommon to corner such benefits because of connivance of officers and it is a known fact that the tribe of such officers has grown over years because the social crimes committed by them is either ignored by the superiors of their class or because they have a protective umbrella from their higher-ups. The learned Single Judge has rightly taken the relevant factors into consideration to dismiss the writ petition. Shri Y. Prabhakar Rao, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that the view of the Division Bench of the High Court is quite legal and justifiable on the facts. The candidate does not know from which officer he has to obtain the social status certificate. The brochure indicates that the certificate from a Tehsildar is sufficient. It does not show that the Tehsildar of the nativity was required to issue the certificate. The father of the respondent being already in enjoyment of the status as Kondakapu in government service, it is an important conclusive material to decide the issue. The Director, therefore, was not correct in rejecting the social status. The Single Judge had committed an error in relying upon the report of the Director. Having given our anxious consideration, we are of the view that the Division Bench has succumbed to the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 fraud played by the respondent and his father to secure false social status as Kondakapu while they are Kapus by caste, a forward caste in Andhra Pradesh." 8.6. By relying on Laveti Giri's case, her submission is that the burden of proof squarely rests upon Respondent No.2 to prove her caste/tribe according to the procedure prescribed under the rules. It is the duty of the certificate-issuing authority to satisfy himself after due verification whether the candidate belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, in accordance with the criteria prescribed by the Government. Even if the father of Respondent No.2 managed to gain social status as Tribe falsely and wrongfully, and unconstitutionally is in enjoyment of the benefit of employment as a tribe, it is not conclusive. Thus, Respondent no.2 cannot take shelter under the same in a case of a challenge to the validity of her caste certificate.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 8.7. She relies on the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patila and Ors. Vs Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Ors.2, more particularly para no. 5 thereof, which has been reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"5. The Committee as well as the Additional Commissioner relied upon a report of expert committee which had gone into the sociology, anthropology and ethnology of the Scheduled Tribes including 'Mahadeo Koli' which formed the basis for the pro forma questionnaire prepared by the Government and as given to and answered by the father of the appellants. On the basis of the information furnished by the father of the appellants and the anthropological and ethnological findings in that behalf, the Additional Commissioner, in our view rightly, held that an argument of social mobility and modernisation often alluringly put forth to obviate the need to pass the affinity test is only a convenient plea to get over the crux of the question. Despite the cultural advancement, the genetic traits pass on from generation to generation and no one could escape or forget or get them over. The tribal customs are peculiar to each tribe or tribal communities and are still being maintained and preserved. Their cultural advancement to some extent may have modernised and progressed but they would not be oblivious to or ignorant of their customary and cultural past to establish their affinity to the membership of a particular tribe. The Mahadeo Koli, a Scheduled Tribe declared in the Presidential Notification, 1950, itself is a tribe and is not a sub-caste. It is a hill tribe, may be like 'Koya' in Andhra Pradesh. Kolis, a backward class, are fishermen by caste and profession and reside mostly in Maharashtra coastal 2 C.A. 5854/1994 | 1994 INSC 348
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 area. Kolis have different sub-castes. Mahadeo Kolis reside in hill regions, agriculture, agricultural labour and gathering of minor forest produce and sale thereof is their avocation. Therefore, the cancellation of the social certificate issued by the Executive Magistrates concerned by the Scrutiny Committee was legal."
8.8. By relying on Madhuri Patila's case she submits that the customary practices and beliefs of the members of the Scheduled Tribe pass on from one generation to the other so strongly that it may almost be regarded as a genetic pass on. Respondent No.2 is required to sociologically, anthropologically and ethnologically establish that she belongs to the Gond Community. Respondent No.2 not having shown or established primary practices of the Gond community, does not satisfy the test of affinity.
8.9. She places reliance on the judgement of this Court in Vageesh B.M. vs Deputy
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 Commissioner3, more particularly para no. 11 thereof, which has been reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"11. Insofar as the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of R.S. MAHADEV (supra) is concerned, the said judgment would also be inapplicable to the facts of the case, as the Division Bench was considering a case where the complainant was a busybody and not a person aggrieved. The facts therein were that the person who had secured caste certificate did not belong to Scheduled Caste by birth, but by marriage to a Scheduled Caste she was given the caste certificate. The question was a person belonging to other community could be given a caste certificate on marriage. That was challenged by the complainant four years after the retirement of the beneficiary. The Division Bench clearly holds that the complaint therein had no locus to challenge the caste certificate issued to the beneficiary therein. Therefore, both the judgments relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner - one in the case of MS. M.N. KALAVATHI and the other in the case of AYAAUBKHAN NOORKHAN PATHAN, would become inapplicable to the facts of the case, qua the solitary submission i.e., the locus of the complainant."
8.10. By relying on Vageesh's case, she submits that the locus of the petitioner stands strengthened, as being a member of the scheduled tribe community himself, he cannot be said to hold no locus to question the validity of a caste certificate issued to another alleged scheduled 3 WP No. 8087/2023 | 2023:KHC:16255
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 tribe member which is obtained by fraud jeopardizing the rights and interests of other genuine scheduled tribe members. 8.11. Thus, the Petitioner prays for this Petition to be allowed.
C. Submissions on Behalf of Respondent No. 2
9. Shri. Arunkumar Amargundappa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2 would submit that;
9.1. The Petitioner herein being a third-party and not an aggrieved person, holds no locus to challenge the caste certificate of Respondent No. 2, and merely being a member of the Scheduled Tribe community would not ipso- facto vest with him a right to challenge a caste certificate issued to others. The Petitioner neither being the employer nor a person interested in the post granted to Respondent
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 No. 2 or a complainant before the caste verification committee is therefore not a necessary or aggrieved party to this matter and in this regard he relies upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ayaaubkhan Pathan vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors.4, more particularly para no.45 thereof, which has been reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"45. The Scrutiny Committee in ordinary circumstances examined the matter and after investigation through its Vigilance Cell and considering all the documentary evidence on record and after being satisfied, granted the caste verification certificate in 2000. Section 114 Illustration (e) of the Evidence Act provided for the court to pronounce that the decision taken by the Scrutiny Committee has been done in regular course and the caste certificate has been issued after due verification. Very strong material/evidence is required to rebut the presumption. In fact, Respondent 5 has no legal peg for a justifiable claim to hang upon. Once Respondent 5, for the reasons best known to him, had challenged caste certificate under the garb of acting as a public-spirited person espousing the cause of legitimate persons who had been deprived of their right of being considered for appointment, Respondent 5 must have acted seriously and brought the material before the Scrutiny Committee to show that the earlier decision was improbable or factually incorrect. Such a view stands fortified by a catena of decisions rendered by this Court where it has been held that presumption is based on legal maxim omnia rite esse 4 (2013) 4 SCC 465
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 acta praesumuntur i.e. all acts are presumed to have rightly and regularly been done. Such a presumption can be rebutted by adducing appropriate evidence. Mere statement made in the written statement/petition is not enough to rebut the presumption. The onus of rebuttal lies upon the person who alleges that the act had not been regularly performed or the procedure required under the law had not been followed. [Vide Gopal Narain v. State of U.P. [AIR 1964 SC 370] , Narayan Govind Gavate v. State of Maharashtra [(1977) 1 SCC 133 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 49 :
AIR 1977 SC 183] , Karewwa v. Hussensab Khansaheb Wajantri [(2002) 10 SCC 315 : AIR 2002 SC 504] , Engg. Kamgar Union v. Electro Steels Castings Ltd. [(2004) 6 SCC 36 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 782] , Mohd. Shahabuddin v. State of Bihar [(2010) 4 SCC 653 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 904] , Punjab SEB v. Ashwani Kumar [(2010) 7 SCC 569 :
(2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 147] , M. Chandra v. M. Thangamuthu [(2010) 9 SCC 712 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 907 : AIR 2011 SC 146] and R. Ramachandran Nair v. State of Kerala (Vigilance Deptt.) [(2011) 4 SCC 395 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 251 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 691] ."
9.2. By relying on Ayaaubkhan's case, he submits that in cases of a caste certificate having been issued, all acts are presumed to be rightly and regularly done, with the allegation against its validity being made by the Petitioner, it is upon him to adduce strong material evidence to rebut such a presumption by law, nothing of the kind having been done, the claim of the petitioner not being established, the burden
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 cannot be imposed on Respondent No.2 after a caste certificate has been issued to Respondent No.2.
9.3. He relies on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in R.S. Mahadev vs B.R. Gopamma5, more particularly para no. 27 thereof, which has been reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
The appellant herein has not made out a case as to how he was aggrieved by issuance of a caste certificate in favor of respondent No.1. He was not a person who had applied to the post off Kannada teacher in the aided institution, to which Respondent No.1 was appointed he has not been denied any benefit on account of issuance of the caste certificate in favor of Respondent No.1, which he had claimed. Therefore, the appellant had no right to file a complaint against respondent No.1 herein and he had no locus standi to do so.
9.4. He relies on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in R.S. Mahadev vs B.R. Gopamma6, more particularly para no. 27 thereof, which has been reproduced hereunder 5 WA No. 1242/2019 6 WA No. 1242/2019
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 for easy reference:
The appellant herein has not made out a case as to how he was aggrieved by issuance of a caste certificate in favor of respondent No.1. He was not a person who had applied to the post off Kannada teacher in the aided institution, to which Respondent No.1 was appointed he has not been denied any benefit on account of issuance of the caste certificate in favor of Respondent No.1, which he had claimed. Therefore, the apellant had no right to file a complaint against respondent No.1 herein and he had no locus standi to do so.
9.5. By relying on R.S. Mahadev's case, he submits that a person not being an aspirant to the same post in an institution, would then be without locus. The petitioner not being in competition as an aspirant to the post assigned to Respondent No. 2 would not have any locus.
9.6. He relies on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Dr. M. David vs Department of Higher Education, Govt. of Karnataka7, more particularly para no. 23 thereof, which has been reproduced hereunder for easy reference:7 WA No. 100234/2021
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 "23. For the purpose of being aggrieved, the petitioner is required to demonstrate that in the event he had succeeded, he would be entitled to be appointed."
9.7. By relying on Dr. M. David's case, he submits that in the scenario the Petitioner succeeds in the instant petition, he would still not be entitled to the post held by the petitioner, since he has not applied for it, therefore, Petitioner does not have any locus.
9.8. He then submits, that although this instant petition seeks to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution, it is settled law that a High Court cannot act as an appellate body to re-appreciate evidence under its supervisory jurisdiction and may only interfere with the decisions of a fact-finding authority when its findings have been found to be perverse and contrary to law.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 9.9. It is submitted that the line of descendants of Respondent No.2 can be traced back to one late Shri. Bhimmanna @ Bhimsha r/o Niranawadi, Humnabad Tq., Bidar Dist., Karnataka and was recognized to be a member of the 'Gond' community and inculcated similar traditions through his lifetime. The late Shri. Bhimanna had two sons namely Shri. Manikappa and Shri. Adeppa, Mr. Manikappa for reasons of livelihood moved to Chincholi Tq. of Kalaburagi Dist. and had 3 children (1 daughter and 2 sons) namely, Eramma(paternal aunt of Respondent No. 2), Laxman (father of Respondent No. 2) and Shamrao (paternal uncle of Respondent No. 2). Ms. Eramma is a holder of a valid caste certificate stating her to be of Gond caste and enjoying the benefits thereof. Mr. Laxman and his wife Kamalabai, parents of Respondent No. 2 are also holders of a valid caste certificate stating them to be of the Gond caste with the
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 same reflecting in the school records of Respondent No. 2. The mother of Respondent No. 2 was also elected as a member of a ST reserved ward of the Chincholli Town Panchayat on the strength of her caste certificate, thus all of the above clearly shows that all the immediate family members of Respondent No. 2 belong to the Gond community.
9.10. Respondent No. 2 has been availing benefits under the ST reservation for the past 35 years while there exist no complaints or disputes whatsoever as regards the caste certificates issued to Respondent No. 2's father, mother, brother, sister, and paternal aunt and hence Respondent No. 1 authority upheld the validity of Respondent No. 2's caste certificate. 9.11. The burden of proof upon Respondent No. 2 to prove her caste stands discharged on issuance of such certificate, the onus of proof lies upon a
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 person that alleges that an act was not performed dutifully as per the procedure prescribed, more so when the caste of a child is inherited from the father, any of claims of rights to dispute one's caste based on the caste of the paternal uncle shall ipso-facto stand disentitled. For all of time, the society at large having treated both Respondent No. 2 and her family as members of the Gond tribe, the burden of proof heavily lies upon the person disputing their social category status, in this case the Petitioner.
9.12. He thereafter contends that the Respondent DCVC without giving a fair opportunity of fully hearing out Respondent No. 2 has held against her plainly based on a report submitted by the ADGP of the CRE Cell without considering her school records, traditions, rituals and customs followed and hence the Respondent No.1-
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 appellate authority has rightfully set-aside the order of the DCVC dated 27.09.2021, thus not requiring any interference at the hands of this Hon'ble Court.
9.13. It has been common practice in the district of Kalaburagi and other parts of the state where both the 'Kuruba' and 'Gond' castes have been regarded synonymously with each other and the same can be construed from a letter written by the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Karnataka to the Secretary of the Social Welfare Department to the Govt. of India wherein it is requested for the 'Kuruba' community to be included in the Scheduled Tribe list as it is synonymous with the Gond community. It can also be fairly assumed that due to the humiliation and atrocities concerned with ST persons, the paternal uncle may have opted to be under the Kuruba caste and not the
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 ST Gond caste while also the fact remains that there exists no statement or explanation as to why Mr. Shamrao did not obtain a ST caste certificate.
9.14. Insofar as the non-entry of the caste category of Respondent No.2 in her school records, it is upon the school authorities to record the right category based on the declaration of caste made by the parents, especially in light of the rustic and illiterate nature of the parents of Respondent No. 2. As long as the caste has been mentioned, non-mentioning of the category under which that caste falls is not a material defect that goes to the root of this matter and cannot be held to be conclusive proof to decide upon the caste status of a person.
9.15. He relies upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Bihar & Ors. Vs Sumit
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 Anand8, more particularly para nos.3, 4 and 6 thereof, which has been reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"3. Having completed his education, Sumit Anand again applied for the certificate in question, which was denied by the District Magistrate as he was of the opinion that the respondent did not belong to ST. The respondent thereafter filed another writ petition being CWJC No. 439 of 2001, which was accepted by the Single Judge holding that the respondent was entitled to grant of certificate in view of the fact that his father, grandfather, mother and maternal uncle all belonged to the "Gond" community and had been issued certificates to that effect.
4. Aggrieved against the order of the Single Judge, the State of Bihar filed the letters patent appeal being LPA No. 695 of 2002, which came up for hearing before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench, after taking into account the earlier certificates granted in favour of the respondent's father, grandfather, mother as well as the maternal uncle upheld the order of the Single Judge and observed that the respondent was entitled to the grant of the caste certificate and dismissed the appeal by the impugned order.
6. We have perused the findings recorded by the Division Bench as well as the Single Judge of the High Court. In view of the fact that the respondent's father, grandfather, mother and maternal uncle had all been granted the certificate certifying that they belong to the "Gond" community, we see no reason to come to a conclusion other than the one arrived at by the High Court to the effect that the respondent was entitled to issuance of the caste certificate."
9.16. By relying on Sumit Anand's case, his submission is that any cloud on the caste of a 8 (2005) 12 SCC 248
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 person can be cleared by looking in to the immediate family members of that person and in this case the father, mother, paternal aunt and siblings all being bearers of a valid caste certificate certifying them to be members of the Gond tribe, one can clearly deduce from the same the valid claims of Respondent No. 2 as regards her caste status.
9.17. He places reliance on the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in K.P. Manu vs
Chairman, Scrutiny Committee for
Verification of Community Certificate9,
more particularly para no. 39 thereof, which has been reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"39. At this juncture, certain findings recorded by the Scrutiny Committee require to be reproduced:
"The Committee examined the aspect whether the aforementioned decisions can have any application to the claimant's conversion to Hinduism in 1984. The Committee noted that neither the claimant nor his 9 C.A. No. 7065/2008
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 parents was born as Hindu and later converted to Christianity from Hinduism. In fact they are born as Christians. Hence there is no element of re-conversion in the claimant's case. Hence the question of reviving caste status as Pulayan (SC) on the ground that some of his ancestors were having Pulayan (SC) status does not arise. The claimant traces SC (Pulayan) status from generations back despite the fact that his ancestors in the descending generation, consistently opted to renounce Pulayan caste status and Hindu religious status by converting to Christianity. Ordinarily one gets his/her caste on the basis of his/her parents. In other words, one shall be, on birth deemed to be belonging to the caste of his/her parents. In the facts and circumstances of the claimant's case, the claimant and his parents were devoid of any caste identity right from their birth. It is significant to note that ten years after his conversion to Hinduism, the claimant has contracted marriage with a Christian lady, as per Special Marriage Act. Hence, the Committee found that the claimant's case does not come under the ambit of aforementioned verdicts." The said report has been given the stamp of approval by the High Court. In the impugned order, the Division Bench, after referring to the report, has held thus: "The paternal as well as maternal grand- father of the appellant belonged to Christian community and professed Christian faith. Patents of the appellant were born as Christians and they continued to profess Christianity. The appellant also was born as a Christian. Annexure-I Certificate shows that in the SSLC book he is shown as a person belonging to Christian religion. As rightly found by the respondent there is no caste by name 'Pulaya convert'. Neither the state government nor the revenue officials have the power to effect any alteration in the caste name contrary to the Presidential Order issued under the authority of the Constitution of India. Appellant cannot claim the caste status of Pulayan merely on the ground that he embraced Hinduism at the age of 24. His claim that he should be treated as one belonging to scheduled caste community has been rightly rejected by the respondent after considering all relevant facts and the law on the subject. Neither the appellant nor his parents had enjoyed the caste status of Pulayan. Hence by embracing Hinduism at the age of 24, the appellant who was born to Christian parents and professed Christian faith is not entitled to claim that he is Hindu-Pulaya."
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 9.18. By relying on K.P. Manu's case, he submits that a person is deemed to belong to a particular caste by his/her birth itself, Respondent No. 2 having been born into the Gond community and all her blood relatives holding valid certificates of the same are bona- fide members of the Gond Tribal community. 9.19. He relies on a decision of this Court in Ananya R. Shetty vs The Dean, NIT Suratkal10, more particularly para no. 7 thereof, which has been reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"7. What is evident from the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is that there is no doubt that the petitioner's father is recorded to be from Nadava community, in his school records. It is evident that the petitioner's father's sisters (both elder and younger), their children have claimed their caste as Nadava. The only aberration is that the petitioner's father's brother claimed that he belonged to Bunt community. Moreover, the neighbours of the ancestral home of the petitioner have clearly stated that the petitioner's family is recognized by both names viz., Bunts and Nadava. What is more important is that when the Deputy Commissioner found from the report submitted by the Tahsildar that the caste status of the petitioner's father, his siblings (except his brother) and their children was recorded as 'Nadava', there is no palpable reason furnished by the Deputy 10 WP No. 14514/2021
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 Commissioner, not to accept the claim of the petitioner. As mentioned earlier, except the petitioner's father's brother who had claimed the caste status of 'Bunt', all other relatives of the petitioner have claimed the status of 'Nadava'. No information is forthcoming as to whether such claim by the other relatives, including that of the petitioner's father was at any point of time withdrawn or cancelled.
9.20. By relying on Ananya Shetty's case, he submits that, while all the immediate family members of Respondent No. 2 are holders of a Gond caste certificate, the fact that it never stood withdrawn or cancelled at any point in time, that alone should act as conclusive proof of Respondent No. 2's caste status, merely because there is an aberration in some of the other family members claiming to be other than the schedule tribe would not make the Respondent No.2 not belong to Schedule Tribe.
9.21. He further relies on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arvind Kumar Jaiswal (D) Thr.
LR. vs Devendra Prasad Jaiswal Varun11, more particularly para no. 2 thereof, which has 11
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 been reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"2. An order of remand prolongs and delays the litigation and hence, should not be passed unless the appellate court finds that a re-trial is required, or the evidence on record is not sufficient to dispose of the matter for reasons like lack of adequate opportunity of leading evidence to a party, where there had been no real trial of the dispute or there is no complete or effectual adjudication of the proceedings, and the party complaining has suffered material prejudice on that account. Where evidence has already been adduced and a decision can be rendered on appreciation of such evidence, an order of remand should not be passed remitting the matter to the lower court, even if the lower court has omitted to frame issue(s) and/or has failed to determine any question of fact, which, in the opinion of the appellate court, is essential. The first appellate court, if required, can also direct the trial court to record evidence and finding on a particular aspect/issue in terms of Rule 25 to Order XLI, which then can be taken on record for deciding the case by the appellate court."
9.22. By relying on Arvind Kumar Jaiswal's case, he submits that there being sufficient material to show that Respondent No. 2 is of the Gond community by birth, any case of remand to reappreciate evidence would only lead to an unnecessary delay in arriving at justice. If at all there is a need for a fresh issue to be adjudicated upon, evidence in that regard may be recorded by the Trial Court in terms of Order
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 XLI Rule 25 of the CPC and submitted to the appellate court for rendering its decision. 9.23. He places reliance on a decision of the full bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Punith Rai vs Dinesh Chaudhary12, more particularly para nos. 30 and 31 thereof, which have been reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"30. In Caste and the Law in India by Justice S.B. Wad at p.30 under the heading "Sociological Implications", it is stated:
"Traditionally, a person belongs to a caste in which he is born. The caste of the parents determines his caste but in case of reconversion a person has the liberty to renounce his casteless status and voluntarily accept his original caste. His caste status at birth is not immutable. Change of religion does not necessarily mean loss of caste. If the original caste does not positively disapprove, the acceptance of the caste can be presumed. Such acceptance can also be presumed if he is elected by a majority to a reserved seat. Although it appears that some dent is made in the classical concept of caste, it may be noticed that the principle that caste is created by birth is not dethroned. There is also a judicial recognition of caste autonomy including the right to outcaste a person."
31. If he is considered to be a member of the Scheduled Caste, he has to be accepted by the community."
9.24. By relying on Punith Rai's case, his submission is that the caste of a person is determined at 12 2003 INSC 400
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 birth and despite not having any evidence to that effect, a mere acceptance by the members of the caste is enough to arrive at a strong presumption. Respondent No. 2's mother having been elected as a member of the Chincholi Town Panchayat under the ST reservation category is convincing and substantial enough proof of the acceptance of the caste of Respondent No. 2 by the society at large.
9.25. He then places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors.13, more particularly para no. 27 thereof, which has been reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"27. Before we go into the decisions in the cases of Vijakumar and Anand, we need to deal with an argument made by one of the interveners that the Scrutiny Committee is not a quasi-judicial authority.13 CA No. 2772/2022
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 The said submission is based on a decision of coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Dayaram. In paragraph 35, the decision in the case of Dayaram holds thus:
"35. The Scrutiny Committee is not an adjudicating authority like a court or tribunal, but an administrative body which verifies the facts, investigates into a specific claim (of caste status) and ascertains whether the caste/tribal status claimed is correct or not. Like any other decisions of administrative authorities, the orders of the Scrutiny Committee are also open to challenge in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Permitting civil suits with provisions for appeals and further appeals would defeat the very scheme and will encourage the very evils which this Court wanted to eradicate. As this Court found that a large number of seats or posts reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were being taken away by bogus candidates claiming to belong to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, this Court directed the constitution of such Scrutiny Committees, to provide an expeditious, effective and efficacious remedy, in the absence of any statute or a legal framework for proper verification of false claims regarding SCs/STs status. This entire scheme in Madhuri Patil [(1994) 6 SCC 241 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1349 : (1994) 28 ATC 259] will only continue till the legislature concerned makes an appropriate legislation in regard to verification of claims for caste status as SC/ST and issue of caste certificates, or in regard to verification of caste certificates already obtained by candidates who seek the benefit of reservation, relying upon such caste certificates."
(emphasis added) 9.26. By relying on the Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat's case, his submission is that the caste verification authority was specially constituted to effectively and expeditiously remedy false
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 claims of caste status in the absence of a statutory body, upon the enactment of a special legislation for the issuance and verification of caste certificates and the procedure prescribed, such decisions are summary in nature, and leaves very little room for interference at the hands of writ courts.
9.27. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Court in State of Andhra Pradesh vs T. Varahalu14, more particularly para no. 29 thereof, which has been reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"29. Lastly, this Court notices that the claim of the 1st respondent was brushed aside on the ground that he has not filed any valid documentary proof like the Birth and Death Register. It is a fact that the burden of proof is on the 1st respondent but the ground reality cannot be lost sight of. The illiteracy and poverty in rural India cannot be totally lost sight of. Access to Government offices and furnishing of correct information is not possible even today. It is for this reason only that the Rules provide that the Birth Registration Certificate "if any" furnished by the person should be considered. The rules clearly stipulated that the Committee should examine the anthropological, ethnological traits, rituals, customs 14 WA No. 760/2021
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 etc., to determine the claim of scheduled tribes. Any person who has knowledge of the community can also be examined. The expert's opinion can also be obtained as per Rule 7 from members of the Scrutiny Committee belonging to the Social Welfare and Tribal Welfare Department. Persons, who have knowledge of the social status of the applicant also may be examined."
9.28. By relying on T. Varahalu's case, he submits that the illiteracy and poverty of the depressed classes ought to be taken account of and the state or any authority cannot set-aside the caste status of a person on the absence of relevant documents such as the birth certificate, etc. It is pertinent to examine the sociological aspect of rituals, customs and traits to determine the claims of scheduled tribe persons, Respondent No. 2 in this case cannot be burdened to prove her caste status by way of merely holding necessary documents to that effect.
9.29. He further relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Monali Suresh Deore
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors.15, more particularly para no. 10 thereof, which has been reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"10. These observations of the Scrutiny Committee have not been considered for their correctness or otherwise while passing this order as it is not necessary in view of the fact that there is already in existence a conclusive evidence of validity certificates issued to blood relatives of the petitioner from her paternal side, which have not been issued as a result of some fraud or suppression of facts or misrepresentation of material facts on the part of those certificate holders. In the result, we are inclined to allow the petition and it is allowed accordingly." 9.30. By relying on Monali Suresh Deore's case, he submits that issuance of caste validity certificates to blood relatives of a person amounts to conclusive proof of caste and does not require any further scrutiny, this being the case the fact that the blood relatives of Respondent No. 2 are all holders of valid and unchallenged caste certificates stating them to be of the Gond tribe is alone enough to dismiss this instant petition.
15 WP No. 1125/2007
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 9.31. He lastly relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in J. Chitra vs District Collector & Chairman State Level Vigilance Committee, T.N & Ors.16, more particularly para no. 8 thereof, which has been reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"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."
9.32. By placing reliance on J. Chitra's case, his submission is that notice to appear for investigation also applies to the parents of the candidate and in this case the same not being done is a violation of the rules of notice. 9.33. The learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that with abundant material on record supporting the case of Respondent No. 2 that she is a member of the Gond community and is rightfully entitled to benefits under the ST 16 CA No. 5160/2010
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 category, there being no illegality or legal infirmity in the order of the Respondent No.1- apellate authority which also happens to be the last fact-finding authority in matters of caste verification, this petition is liable to be dismissed requiring no interference at the hands of this Hon'ble Court.
D. Submissions on Behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 3-6
10. Shri. C. Jagadish, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents 1 & 3-6, adopts the arguments advanced by the Petitioner and would further submit that;
10.1. The caste certificates of the relatives of the father relied upon by Respondent No. 2 to validate her caste before the appellate authority were not subject matter of verification before the DCVC and therefore cannot be held to be a valid caste certificate issued in their favour, and
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 hence does not amount to conclusive proof of the same.
10.2. He places reliance on the decision of the Division bench of this Hon'ble Court in Uttar Kannada Zilla Moger Sangha and Nar. Vs State of Karnataka and Ors.17, more particularly para no. 5 thereof, which has been reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"5. It is well settled law that a certificate of caste issued by the Competent Authority is always subject to scrutiny by the verification committee. Therefore we find nothing wrong about the second part of the circular dated 4th November 2019."
10.3. By relying on Uttar Kannada Zilla's case, his submission is that a caste certificate issued can always be a subject matter of scrutiny and verification, in the instant case no such verification having been made of the certificates of the blood relatives of Respondent No. 2 upon whose certificates she has relied upon before 17 WP Nos. 54716-54177/2018
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 the verification authority, those certificates issued without looking into the documents as regards the caste of the paternal uncle of Respondent No.2 i.e. Mr. Shamrao, is thus, not conclusive evidence of the caste of Respondent No.2.
10.4. As regards the locus of the Petitioner to maintain this instant petition, he submits that the fact that the Petitioner is a member of the Scheduled Tribe community notified under Article 342 of the Indian Constitution along with being the President of the 'Prevention of Bogus Caste Certificate Committee (R)' and in light of the law laid down in Vageesh B.M.'s case (supra), the petitioner has locus and the instant petition is maintainable before this Court. 10.5. He relies on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra and Ors. vs Ravi Prakash Babulalsingh Parmar and
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 Anr.18, more particularly para no. 23 thereof, which has been reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"23. The makers of the Constitution laid emphasis on equality amongst citizens. The Constitution of India provides for protective discrimination and reservation so as to enable the disadvantaged group to come on the same platform as that of the forward community. If and when a person takes an undue advantage of the said beneficent provision of the Constitution by obtaining the benefits of reservation and other benefits provided under the Presidential Order although he is not entitled thereto, he not only plays a fraud on the society but in effect and substance plays a fraud on the Constitution. When, therefore, a certificate is granted to a person who is not otherwise entitled thereto, it is entirely incorrect to contend that the State shall be helpless spectator in the matter."
10.6. By relying on Babulalsingh's case, he submits that the state cannot take the role of a helpless spectator when a person takes undue advantage of the benefits provided by the constitution to the oppressed classes/castes, more so when such an act amounts to a fraud played on the society and the Constitution itself. Respondent No.2 by obtaining a caste certificate fraudulently and being a beneficiary 18 (2007) 1 SCC 80
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 of its benefits thereof, has thus played fraud on the society and the Constitution as a whole. 10.7. In light of the arguments advanced, the precedents relied upon and in the interest of justice the learned counsel submits that this Court allow the instant petition. 10.8. He further requests to remand this matter to the DCVC along with a direction to refer it to the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement (DCRE) as per sub-rule (4) of Rule 7 of the Rules to the Act, specifically casting a responsibility upon the officials of the DCRE to personally verify and examine the facts as regards the caste of Respondent No. 2 , her parents and her relatives keeping before them all relevant documents such as school records, birth registration etc. A report to this effect be prepared and submitted to the DCVC, which would thereafter following due process and
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 affording opportunities to all parties pass appropriate orders within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the report from the DCRE.
E. Submissions on Behalf of Respondent No. 7
11. Shri. Mahesh Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf on Respondent No. 7, would submit that; 11.1. Upon the caste verification committee holding that Respondent No. 2 herein was not of the Gond caste, subsequently Respondent No. 7 who happened to be the next meritorious candidate in line for appointment, was selected by an order dated 17.10.2019.
11.2. Challenging the selection of Respondent No. 7, Respondent No.2 filed a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 205023/2019, which came to be disposed holding that nothing survives for consideration, however,
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 Respondent No. 2 would be entitled for appointment only upon the production of a valid caste certificate.
11.3. Respondent No. 7 being the next in line, her caste certificate underwent and withstood the test of validation, following which a validation certificate came to be issued in her favour. 11.4. Apart from the above stated facts, the learned counsels for Respondent No. 7 adopt and support the submissions and contentions of the Petitioner in the instant petition.
12. Heard Smt. Hema Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Shri. Arunkumar Amargundappa, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2, Shri. C. Jagadish, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 & 3-6, Shri. Mahesh Patil learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 7, perused papers.
- 47 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 F. Points for Consideration
13. Upon hearing all the concerned parties and perusing the relevant material on record, the points that would arise for the consideration of this Court are:
1. Whether the Petitioner herein is an aggrieved party and has the locus standi to maintain the instant petition?
2. When Schedule Tribe Certificates are issued to the parents of Respondent No.2, can her certificate as that belonging to the Schedule Tribe Category be questioned?
3. Is a Schedule Caste/tribe certificate conclusive and presumed to be valid?
4. On whom does the burden of proof lie, is it on the person asserting that he/she belongs to the Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe category to prove that he/she belongs to that category or does it lie on the person alleging that he/she does not
- 48 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 belong to that category to prove that fact?
5. Whether this Court can adjudicate on matters relating to the validity of caste as a fact-finding forum vis-à-vis the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment Etc.) Act, 1990?
6. Whether the impugned order dated 27.02.2024 suffers from any legal infirmity requiring interference at the hands of this Court?
7. What Order?
14. I answer the above points as under:
15. Answer to Point No. 1: Whether the Petitioner herein is an aggrieved party and has the locus standi to maintain the instant petition? 15.1. The Petitioner asserts his locus on the ground that he is a member of the 'Bedar' community, which is a Scheduled Tribe and hence, he is an
- 49 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 aggrieved party as a false caste certificate obtained fraudulently amounts to a fraud played on the ST community as a whole. Respondent No. 2 takes the stand that the Petitioner being a third-party and not an aggrieved person by Respondent No.2's appointment at GESCOM, (neither being the employer nor an interested party for the post of Assistant Accounts Officer) holds no locus to challenge the validity of the caste certificate issued to Respondent No.2.
15.2. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ayaaubkhan's case (supra) at para no. 9 and 10 has made the following observation, reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"9. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the authority/court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order, etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the
- 50 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can, of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. In fact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. [Vide State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta [1951 SCC 1024 : AIR 1952 SC 12] , Saghir Ahmad v. State of U.P. [AIR 1954 SC 728] , Calcutta Gas Co. (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of W.B. [AIR 1962 SC 1044] , Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P. [(1996) 5 SCC 460 : AIR 1996 SC 2736] and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Assn. (2) v. S.C. Sekar [(2009) 2 SCC 784] ]
10. A "legal right", means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, "person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must, therefore, necessarily be one whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised. (Vide Shanti Kumar R. Canji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York [(1974) 2 SCC 387 : AIR 1974 SC 1719] and State of Rajasthan v. Union of India [(1977) 3 SCC 592 : AIR 1977 SC 1361] .)"
15.3. The above extract elucidates that an 'aggrieved person' is one who suffers from a legal injury
- 51 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 and one who has a legal right of recourse against the same. It further affirms that the right to claim relief under writ jurisdiction is entertainable in cases of breach of statutory duties by authorities. Similarly, the Petitioner herein claiming to have suffered a legal injury by being a member of the ST community claims a right to question the validity of the caste certificate issued to Respondent No.2. Additionally, he impugns the order of Respondent No.1-Authority on the basis of it not having judiciously carried out its statutory duties. A cloud on the caste status of respondent No. 2 having been raised by the petitioner on grounds of having suffered a legal injury by virtue of being a member of the ST community vis-à-vis the caste certificate of her paternal uncle and the misfeasance on part of the Respondent No.1-authority would plainly attract the law laid down in the above-
- 52 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 mentioned case when a question of who is an aggrieved person is put forth.
15.4. On a careful consideration of the facts in the matter at hand, the ratio enunciated in Ayaaubkhan's case (supra) would enure to the benefit of the Petitioner herein. 15.5. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in A. Subhash Babu vs State of A.P.19 has dealt with the concept of an 'Aggrieved Party' more particularly at para no. 25 which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
25." ......The expression "aggrieved person" denotes an elastic and an elusive concept. It cannot be confined within the bounds of a rigid, exact and comprehensive definition. Its scope and meaning depends on diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which the contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of complainant's interest and the nature and the extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by the complainant......"19
(2011) 7 SCC 616
- 53 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 15.6. Subhash Babu's case, aids in the building of a comprehensive outlook towards the extent of the scope of determining an aggrieved person. It puts to perspective the elastic nature of a legal injury and in that regard the elastic nature of the bestowment of legal rights and the legislative intent in the governing statutes. The Act of 1990 being a beneficial legislation, to help uplift members of the SC/ST communities , any fraudulent methods of availing benefits therefrom by any unentitled persons ought to be open to scrutiny, at any-time by anyone from such SC/ST communities. This being the case, the Petitioner's cloud on locus stands further resolved, granting him a legal standing by way of being a member of the ST community to raise 'reasonable' claims of injury suffered.
15.7. Finally, the judgment of a co-ordinate bench of
- 54 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 this Court in Vageesh's case (supra) has laid to rest the issue of locus as regards a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe members' right to challenge the validity of a caste certificate issued to other alleged SC/ST persons. Having relied upon all leading judgements on the point of the locus of a third- party to a dispute and the elastic nature of a legal injury one may suffer, has opined that:
"...discrimination or larger public injustice may be alleged by a third-party, provided that, the writ petitioner demonstrates a certain appreciable disadvantage qua other similarly situated persons..."
15.8. This Court, when it comes to matters of grave societal importance may in essence not have to treat the matter simply as a litigation in public interest but as a public law litigation. This would thus enable a scrutiny upon whether a person is guilty of having committed a fraud on the Constitution and the society as a whole.
- 55 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 The Petitioner in the instant case having established all of the above qualities to hold locus as a third-party, the law laid down in Vaagesh's case would be attracted to the case at hand, as regards the locus of the Petitioner. 15.9. On a conjoint reading of the above-mentioned case laws it is clear that the scope of what constitutes an aggrieved party is an expandable one and any bona-fide member of the SC/ST community holds locus to challenge the validity of a caste certificate issued to any alleged member of the SC/ST community. This finds ground from the fact that a fraudulently obtained false caste certificate would directly infringe upon the rights and interests of other genuine SC/ST members, conferred by way of reservation and other benefits to socially uplift the oppressed classes, such an act would plainly put fraudulent members at an undue
- 56 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 advantage which he/she is otherwise disentitled to.
15.10. Respondent No. 2 by relying on the cases of R.S. Mahadev & M. David (Supra) took the stand that the petitioner not being an aspirant to the post applied for by Respondent No. 2 is without locus to maintain the instant petition. R.S. Mahadev's case being one related to a cloud on entitlement of caste-based benefits upon marriage and not one relating to the inheritance of caste by birth would not be applicable to the present facts of this case and hence would not enure to the benefit of Respondent No.2.
15.11. Dr. M. David's case dealt with the contentions of irregularities in the selection process, requisite compliance by the applicants, and the caste status of a person born in a different state, and therefore does not in any manner
- 57 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 apply to the factual matrix of the dispute at hand and hence would also not enure to the benefit of Respondent No.2.
15.12. As afore indicated Section 4A of the Act of 1990 deals with the issuance of caste certificate and income and caste certificate by the Tahasildar and the procedure to be followed by the Tahasildar. In terms of sub-section 5 of Section 4-A of the Act, of 1990, the burden of proving that the candidate or his parents or guardian belong to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes shall be on the applicant.
15.13. In the present case, such a caste certificate has been issued indicating that respondent No.2 belongs to the Scheduled Castes 'Gonda community' having issued a caste certificate and thereafter having applied to the GESCOM to be appointed as an Assistant Accounts Officer.
- 58 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 15.14. In terms of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1992, the same was referred to the DCVC for issuance of a validity certificate. Rule 9 of Rules, 1992 is reproduced hereunder now for easy reference:
"9. Recruitments :- No person who claims the benefit of reservation shall be appointed to a service or a post under Government or to an establishment in public sector without production of the validity certificate.
Provided that the cases pending before the Scrutinising Community constituted under Rule 9A on the date of commencement of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment etc.)(Amendment) Rules, 2000 shall stand transferred to the concerned Caste Verification Committee and they shall dispose of such cases as if such cases were filed before them.
15.15. The requirement for referring the caste certificate issued under Section 4-A of the Act of 1990 for a validity certificate was on account of the specific embargo under Rule 9 of Rules, 1992 that no person who claims benefit of reservation shall be appointed to a service or a post under the Government or to an establishment in Public Sector without the
- 59 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 production of a validity certificate. The DCVC rejected the caste certificate issued under Section 4-A of the Act of 1990 and it was challenging the same that the respondent No.1 had filed an appeal under Section 4-B of the Act, 1990.
15.16. It is in those proceedings that the petitioner had filed an impleading application, which came to be allowed. The appeal also had been allowed setting aside the order of the DCVC. It is in this background, it is contended that the petitioner does not have locus since he has not applied for the said post and as such, he cannot be said to be an aggrieved person.
15.17. Insofar as the present matter is concerned, the petitioner had been impleaded in the appeal under Section 4D of the Act of 1990. The petitioner had been heard by the DCVC, however the contentions were rejected and it is
- 60 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 in that background the petitioner is before this Court.
15.18. The aspect of a person being aggrieved under Section 4D of the Act, 1990 would have to be treated differently than that in a writ petition, the concept of locus in a writ petition being much wider to achieve the ends of justice.
Whereas, under Section 4D, it is a little constricted. The present writ petition is not a statutory appeal, but it is a writ petition filed seeking for exercise of supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
This Court would have wider power and amplitude in considering a writ petition and if this Court were to come to a conclusion that the order passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 4D is required to be set aside on the basis of any details, documents, facts or submission made by anyone, this court would
- 61 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 have to take cognizance and exercise supervisory power to render the order.
15.19. In that view of the matter, even though in an appeal under Section 4D, the concept of locus is a little restricted. However, as held in Vageesh's case (supra), if a fraud is sought to be perpetrated on the Constitution of India and a person ineligible to any benefits has sought to fraudulently avail the said benefits, the same would amount to to the entire Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes community, who would be affected by any such fraud played by a person falsely claiming to belong to the SC/ST community.
15.20. I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot at the initial stage itself be shut off from hearing without considering the submissions sought to be made. If a well-
meaning person belonging to the SC/ST
- 62 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 community, representing the interest of the SC/ST community were to come before this Court to contend that the interest of the community is suffering as a whole. This Court could always consider the same as public law litigation, irrespective of whether such a person was a party to such proceedings or not.
15.21. In the present case, as indicated supra, the petitioner had filed an impleading application in the appeal filed by respondent No.1 under Section 4A of the Act of 1990 and had represented the matter before the appellate authority. Then the petitioner has been a party before the appellate authority. I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot be deprived of challenging the order passed in which he is a party, as such, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has locus to file the present petition.
- 63 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 15.22. Hence, I answer point No.1 by holding that the petitioner can be considered to be an 'aggrieved party' both on account of the claim made by the petitioner that the benefits of reservation granted to the SC/ST community has been usurped by a person not so entitled as also on account of the petitioner being a party to the appeal filed under Section 4D of the Act of 1990.
16. Answer to Point No. 2: When Schedule Tribe certificates are issued to the parents of Respondent No. 2, her certificate as that belonging to the Schedule Tribe category cannot be questioned?
16.1. The argument placed on behalf of Respondent No.2 was that she has been availing benefits under the ST reservation for the past 35 years and that both her parents as well as her brother, sister and paternal aunt are holders of a valid Gond Scheduled Tribe certificate and
- 64 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
hence the caste certificate issued to
Respondent No. 2 is authentic and
unimpeachable. It was further argued that caste being hereditary in nature and her parents holding certificates to that effect alone is enough to not question the validity of Respondent No. 2's caste certificate. 16.2. Although caste is hereditary in nature and one can be associated to a particular caste only by being born into that caste-community, it is pertinent to note that the caste of the parents or ancestors merely creates an eligibility to apply and avail a caste status certificate and does not by itself conclude or determine with finality the caste of a person in the eyes of law. 16.3. It is in pursuance of the same, despite a person holding a caste certificate, the legislature in its wisdom through section 4-C of the Act of 1990 and rule 4 read with rule 9 of the Rules of 1992
- 65 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 envisioned the need for the verification of a caste certificate prior to a reservation-based appointment or an educational seat being granted to an applicant.
16.4. Rule 9 of the Rules of 1992 is reproduced here under for easy reference:
"9. Recruitments:- No person who claims the benefit of reservation shall be appointed to a service or a post under Government or to an establishment in public sector without production of the validity certificate.
Provided that the cases pending before the Scrutinising Committee constituted under rule 9A on the date of commencement of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment etc.) (Amendment) Rules, 2000 shall stand transferred to the concerned Caste Verification Committee and they shall dispose of such cases as if such cases were filed before them."
16.5. The aforesaid rule creates an embargo on any person who claims the benefit of reservation to be appointed to a service or a post under the Government or to an establishment in Public Sector without the production of the validity certificate.
- 66 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 16.6. Thus, even if a caste certificate is produced by a candidate, such candidate cannot be appointed without the verification of his/her caste certificate and a validity certificate issued by the DCVC. This being so, since the State is also vested with a duty to see to it that no person claims for and obtains benefit of reservation without being entitled to it. Rule 9 is in aid of providing reservation to eligible candidates and weeding out persons, who are not eligible and it is for that reason that Rule 7A of the Rules of 1992 also contemplates prosecution for obtaining a false caste certificate. The said Rule 7A is reproduced for easy reference hereunder :
"7A. Prosecution for obtaining false caste Certificate:- (1) The Caste Verification Committee or the caste and income verification Committee. As the case may be and the * Divisional Commissioner, shall send a copy of the order rejecting claim of the applicant for grant of validity certificate or, as the case may be, a copy of the order in appeal rejecting such claim to the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement.
(2) The Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement shall take steps to prosecute such claimant who has obtained a false caste certificate."
- 67 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 16.7. A perusal of Rule 7A, makes it clear the intention of the legislature in safeguarding the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes category from fraudulent persons, who seek to obtain such reservation without being eligible to do so, the same also indicates that the caste Certificate ipso facto is not valid, if a false certificate is obtained the same can be questioned and if the certificate is found to be false, the person obtaining such false certificate can be prosecuted. 16.8. These very provisions being brought to life clearly puts into perspective the intention of the legislature to put to test the validity of a caste claim and the authenticity of the caste certificate itself so as to prosecute fraudulent persons from availing caste-based reservation benefits.
- 68 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 16.9. It is therefore clear that any caste certificate issued by the concerned authority warrants the need to undergo a test of validity. 16.10. In this case, merely because the parents of Respondent No.2 are holders of a ST caste certificate would not clothe Respondent No.2's caste certificate with immunity from being questioned, this finds substantiation from the fact that the caste certificate of her parents as well is open to challenge and verification. When the caste certificate of the parents and relatives of Respondent No. 2 itself is open to be challenged, verified and put to test, then so would Respondent No.2-daughter's certificate be open to challenge and being put to test, until a finality is achieved as regards the said certificate.
16.11. The parents of respondent No.2 did not seek for reservation to be appointed to a service or a
- 69 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 post under the Government or to an establishment in Public Sector requiring the validation of their caste certificate in terms of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1992. Respondent No.2 having sought for such appointment, the rules mandate that the said certificate is validated. Thus, the caste certificates issued to the parents of respondent No.2, which have not undergone a process of validation would not clothe those certificates with immunity. 16.12. The 2nd respondent having sought for appointment to a service or a post under the Government, namely the Accounts Officer at GESCOM, her certificate, irrespective of the certificates issued in favour of her parents, would have to undergo validation in terms of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1992.
16.13. This being so, there is nothing that is placed on record to indicate that the caste certificates of
- 70 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 the parents and relatives of Respondent No. 2 have been validated and verified in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1990 and the Rules of 1992.
16.14. The Division Bench of this Court in Uttar Kannada Zilla's case (supra) has clearly held that a certificate of caste issued by a competent authority is always open to scrutiny by the verification committee and that the same is a settled law in this regard.
16.15. By relying on Sumit Anand's case (supra), it is argued that when both Respondent No.2 and the parents and relatives of Respondent No. 2 are holders of scheduled tribe caste certificates, the caste of Respondent No. 2 stands established and hence the same ought not to be questioned. However, Sumit Anand's case deals with the very issuance of a caste certificate itself and not one where an issued
- 71 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 caste certificate is being made a subject-matter of validity and verification proceedings. The instant case not being one in relation to the issuance of a caste certificate but with regard to the verification of a previously issued caste certificate, more particularly for the purpose of employment the said decision in Sumit Anand's case would not enure to the benefit of Respondent No. 2.
16.16. In K.P. Manu's case (supra) the point in question was as regards the validity of a caste claim upon re-conversion into the Hindu faith by a subsequent generation in the family and the same cannot be applied to the contrasting facts of the instant petition and therefore the same would not enure to the benefit of Respondent No.2.
16.17. In light of the above elucidation and the law laid down in Uttar Kannada Zilla's case, it is clear
- 72 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 that the validity of the Schedule Tribe caste certificate held by Respondent No. 2 can be questioned and is open to be put under a test of verification, notwithstanding the grant of a Schedule Tribe caste certificate in favour of the parents of Respondent No.2, more so when the certificates of her parents have not undergone a test of verification and validation. The caste certificate is required to be validated especially when Respondent No. 2 is an applicant for employment to a government post under the reserved category status.
16.18. Hence, I answer point No.2 by holding that even if Scheduled Tribe certificates are issued to the parents of a person, claiming the benefit of reservation for appointment to a service or a post under the Government or to an establishment in Public Sector would necessitate to get the caste certificate validated
- 73 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 in accordance with law so long as the caste certificates of the parents have not been validated.
16.19. Needless to say, if the caste certificates of the parents have been validated and verified, then there would be no need for the children to get the said certificates validated. But however, in view of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1992, the process of validation of the caste certificate would have to be undergone, when the earlier validity certificate issued in favour of the parents could be placed on record for consideration.
17. Answer to Point No. 3: Is a Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe certificate conclusive and presumed to be valid?
17.1. The answer to this question entails a two-fold discussion, first on the conclusiveness of a caste certificate and second, on the presumption of its validity.
- 74 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 17.2. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Laveti Giri's case (supra) and this Court in Uttar Kannada Zilla's case (supra) have categorically held that the mere issuance of a caste certificate or the enjoyment of benefits under the same is not conclusive proof of caste and can be a subject- matter of scrutiny. As stated earlier, relevant provisions of the Act of 1990 (more particularly section 4-C) and the rules made thereunder (more particularly rules 4, 6, 6A & 7) distinctly cast a duty upon statutory bodies to verify the validity of a caste certificate relied upon to claim reservation benefits, either for employment or for education.
17.3. A harmonious interpretation of the case laws and the statute, both mentioned hereinabove would plainly put to rest the cloud on conclusiveness of an issued caste certificate and hence mere issuance of a SC/ST caste
- 75 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 certificate is not conclusive proof of the same. 17.4. This Hon'ble Court in Ayaaubkhan's case (supra) has held that any caste certificate is 'regularly and ordinarily' issued only upon due verification as per the rules prescribed thereunder. Sub-clause 3 to rule 4-A of the Act of 1990 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"(3) The Tahasildar may, on receipt of an application under sub-section (1) or (2), and after holding such enquiry as he deems fit and satisfying himself regarding the genuineness of the claim made by applicant pass an order issuing a caste certificate or, as the case may be, an income and caste certificate in such form as may be prescribed, or rejecting the application."
17.5. A plain reading of the above extract would convey that the certificate-issuing authority ought to perform necessary enquiry as deemed fit, and satisfy itself as regards the genuineness of the claim before issuing the caste certificate and hence this exercise is a statutory duty performed 'regularly and ordinarily'.
- 76 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 17.6. The verification that the Tahashildar does while issuing a caste certificate under Section 4A of the Act of 1990 is different from the verification that is required to be done when a person claims to be appointed to a service or a post in the Government. Merely because a certificate has been issued under Section 4A of the Act 1990 would not make the said certificate valid for all purposes.
17.7. It is only when a person seeks for usage of the said caste certificate for claiming benefits of reservation either for appointment or education that there would be a requirement for the certificate to be validated by following the due procedure. The reasons for the same have been explained herein above.
17.8. It is for those reasons also that when a caste certificate is issued, any person aggrieved by the order of the Tahashildar could file an appeal
- 77 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 challenging the same and any person would include a person who could be affected by such order.
17.9. In pursuance of such challenge, the matter is referred to the Caste Verification Committee in terms of Section 4C and the Caste Verification Committee would have to hold an enquiry in terms of the applicable provisions and submit a report either accepting the validity of the certificate or rejecting the same. Challenge to the said order of the DCVC is also provided under Section 4D of the Act of 1990. The order passed under Section 4D is also revisable under Section 4F.
17.10. These are all checks and balances which have been incorporated in the legislation to maintain the sanctity of the reservation process to ensure that a person who is entitled to benefits of the reservation is granted such
- 78 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 entitlement and a person who is not entitled to such entitlement is denied such reservation as also prosecuted for furnishing of false particulars.
17.11. I Answer point No.3 by holding that the SC/ST caste certificate issued under Section 4A of the Act of 1990 is not conclusive and there is no presumption of validity attached thereto. The said certificate as indicated above is amenable for an appeal under Section 4B, verification by the DCVC under Section 4C, which verification can be challenged in appeal under Section 4D, and revisable under Section 4F.
17.12. It is only after standing the test of all the above, that a certificate can be said to be valid and acted upon conferring the benefits attached to such certificate by way of reservation either in education or in employment.
- 79 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024
18. Answer to Point No. 4: On whom does the burden of proof lie, is it on the person asserting that he/she belongs to the Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe category to prove that he/she belongs to that category or does it lie on the person alleging that he/she does not belong to that category to prove that fact? 18.1. Section 4 of the Act of 1990 refers to the reservation for appointment to a post. Section 4A deals with issuance of caste certificate and income and caste certificate in which an applicant, any candidate or his parent or guardian belonging to scheduled castes or scheduled tribes may in order to claim benefit of reservation under Section 4 either for appointment to any service or post, or for admission to a course of study in an University or any educational institution, may make an application to the Tahashildar in such form and such manner as may be prescribed. Section 4A of the Act, 1990 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"4A. Issue of caste certificate and income and caste certificate.- (1) Any candidate or his parent
- 80 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 or guardian belonging to the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes may, in order to claim benefit of reservation under section 4, either for appointment to any service or post or for admission to a course of study in a university or any educational institution, make an application to the Tahasildar in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed for issue of a caste certificate.
(2) Any candidate or his parent or guardian belonging to other Backward Classes may, in order to claim benefit of reservation under section 4 either for appointment to any service or post or for admission to a course of study in a university or any educational Institution, make an application to the Tahasildar in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed for issue of an income and caste certificate.
(3) The Tahasildar may, on receipt of an application under sub-section (1) or (2), and after holding such enquiry as he deems fit and satisfying himself regarding the genuineness of the claim made by applicant pass an order issuing a caste certificate or, as the case may be, an income and caste certificate in such form as may be prescribed, or rejecting the application.
(4) The Tahasildar shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed before passing the order under sub-
section (3).
(5) The burden of proving that the candidate or his parent or guardian belongs to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or other Backward Classes shall be on the applicant."
18.2. A perusal of the above would indicate that an application having been made, the Tahasildhar is required to hold an enquiry, satisfy himself regarding the genuineness of the claim made by the applicant and pass an order issuing a caste certificate or an income and caste
- 81 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 certificate as the case may be or reject the same.
18.3. In terms of Sub-section (5) of Section 4A, the burden of proving that the candidate or his parents, or guardian belongs to the Scheduled castes or Scheduled tribes or the other backward classes is on the applicant. That is to say, if the applicant is a candidate himself, then the burden is on the candidate/applicant. If the applicant is otherwise than the candidate, that is to say a parent or guardian, then the burden of proof would be on such parent or guardian to prove that the candidate belongs to Scheduled Castes, Schedule Tribes or Other Backward Classes.
18.4. The enquiry in respect of an application under Section 4A is to be conducted in terms of Rule 3A of the Rules of 1992. The said Rule 3A is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
- 82 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 "3A. Issue of Caste Certificate and Income and Caste Certificate:-
(1) Every application for Caste Certificate or Income and Caste Certificate under section 4A shall be in forms A,B or C as may be appropriate accompanied by such document and other materials in support of the claim.
(2) On receipt of the application, the Tahsildar shall verify the information, documents and such other materials furnished by the applicant and on such verification if he is satisfied with the correctness of the information, documents and evidence furnished by the applicant, he shall issue caste certificate or income and caste certificate in forms D E or F as may be appropriate within two months from the date of receipt of the application.
(3) Where the Tahsildar is not satisfied with the correctness of the information. Documents or other materials furnished by the applicant he shall then proceed to hold enquiry as follows:
(a) The Tahsildar shall fix the date of enquiry and issue notice to the applicant to appear on the date so fixed along with all documents and other materials, which he desires to produce.
(b) During the course of enquiry he shall examine the school records. Birth registration certificate, if any and such other relevant records. He shall examine the applicant if he is present and may also examine the parent / guardian of the applicant and any other person who has the knowledge of the social status of the applicant and parent / guardian.
Provided that in the case of an applicant who belongs to the Scheduled tribes, the Tahsildar shall also take into account the anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies and such other matters.
(c) The Tahsildar shall also cause to be issued a public notice by beat of drum or any other convenient mode in the village or locality to which the applicant and his parent/guardian belongs. If in response to such notice or otherwise any person or association opposes the claim of the applicant such person or association shall also be given an opportunity to produce evidence during the enquiry.
- 83 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024
(d) The Tahsildar may require the assistance of any officer for the purpose of satisfying himself regarding the genuineness of the claim made by the applicant.
(e) Where the applicants or parents/ guardians are inhabitants in an area which is not within the territorial jurisdiction of the Tahsildar, he may make a reference to the District Social Welfare Officer concerned in the case of persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes or to the District officer of Backward Classes, in the case of persons belonging to the Backward Classes to provide such professional assistance as available with them.
(f) The Tahsildar may also call for further information, document or material if he deems it necessary.
(g) The Tahsildar may after holding the enquiry in the manners specified above either issue caste certificate or income and caste certificate in Forms D,E or F as may appropriate or reject the claim within a period of two months, from the date receipt of the application."
18.5. A perusal of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3A would indicate that, on the application being received, the Tahashildar shall verify the information and documents and if he is so satisfied with the documents, a caste certificate in the necessary form would be issued within two months. 18.6. If the Tahashildar is not satisfied with the correctness of the information and documents, then he shall hold an enquiry in terms of Sub- rule (3) of Rule 3A as aforesaid i.e., this enquiry
- 84 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 contemplated under Sub-rule 3A of the Rules, 1992 and Sub-section (3) of Section 4A of the Act, 1990 is an exhaustive independent enquiry to be conducted by the Tahashildar. 18.7. Be that as it may, in terms of Sub-section (5) of Section 4A, the burden of proving as aforesaid is on the applicant, hence if questions are to be answered or clarification given, it is for the applicant to do so.
18.8. The next stage is that there could be a possibility of an appeal being filed as regards the order passed by the Tahashildar under Section 4A. Section 4B provides for any person aggrieved, to prefer an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner of the Revenue Sub-division. Section 4B is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"4B. Appeal against order under section 4A.- (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Tahasildar under section 4A may, within thirty days
- 85 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 from the date of receipt of the order prefer an appeal to Assistant Commissioner of the revenue sub-division.
(2) The Assistant Commissioner of the revenue sub-
division may after giving both parties an opportunity of being heard pass orders allowing or dismissing the appeal and in appropriate cases directing issue of a caste certificate or as the case may be, an income and caste certificate to the applicant." 18.9. Sub-section (1) of Section 4B relates to an appeal being filed by an aggrieved person. Sub- section (2) of Section 4B requires the Assistant Commissioner to give both parties an opportunity of being heard before passing the order. Rule 3B relates to an appeal under Section 4A, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"3B. Appeal against order under section 4A:- On receipt of an appeal under section 4B the Assistant Commissioner may obtain the records from the Tahsildar and after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties and making any local enquiry, if necessary, pass an order giving reasons thereof within a period of one month from the date of filing of appeal."
18.10. A reading of Section 4B and Rule 3A would indicate that any person aggrieved could also mean a person other than the applicant or candidate. Since in terms of Sub-section (2) of
- 86 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 Section 4B, the Assistant Commissioner is required to after giving both parties an opportunity of being heard and pass orders, thus the aggrieved party is not only the candidate/applicant, but a third party also. Since the only other person involved in Section 4A certification is the Tahashildar, who cannot be said to be aggrieved. Thus, if an appeal is filed under Section 4B, the burden of proof is on the person who has filed the appeal who would be a third party to prove otherwise. 18.11. If a candidate/applicant's application is rejected, then it is for the candidate/applicant to prove otherwise in order to overcome the order of the Tahashildar. If it is a third party, who is aggrieved by an order of the Tahasildhar, issuing a certificate, then it is for the third party to establish that such a certificate could not have been issued to the candidate/applicant.
- 87 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 18.12. There is one other methodology which has been introduced under Section 4C for verification of caste certificate and income and caste certificate. Section 4C is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"4C. Verification of Caste Certificate and Income and Caste Certificate.- (1) The State Government shall constitute one or more Verification Committees for each district consisting of such person or persons as may be prescribed for verification of caste certificate and income and caste certificate issued under section 4A or section 4B.
(2) Any person who has obtained a caste certificate or an income and caste certificate under section 4A or 4B or the appointing authority or any authority making admission to a course of study in the university or any educational institution may make an application to the Verification Committee in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed for issue of a validity certificate.
(3) The Verification Committee may after holding such enquiry as it deems fit within thirty days from the date of the application either grant a validity certificate in a prescribed form or reject the application."
18.13. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 4C, the State Government shall constitute one or more verification committees for each District for verification of the caste certificate issued. Sub- Section (2) of Section 4C requires that any person who has obtained a caste certificate, or
- 88 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 an income and caste certificate or the appointing authority or any authority making admission to a course of study in the University or any education institution, may make an application to the verification committee in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed for issuance of the validity certificate. 18.14. In terms of Sub-section (3) of section 4C, the verification committee, after holding such enquiry as it deems fit, within 30 days from the date of application either grants a valid certificate in the prescribed form or rejects the application. Thus, under Section 4C an independent caste verification committee has been established, any person who has been issued a certificate could apply to the said committee for issuance of a validity certificate, so also any employer or education institution before whom the benefit of reservation is
- 89 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 sought for can refer to the verification committee for issuance of a validity certificate. 18.15. It is the verification committee, who will have to conduct an independent enquiry and either issue or reject the application for validity certificate. Rule 4 of the Rules, 1992 speaks of Caste Verification Committee, the said rule is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"4. Caste Verification Committee:- (1) There shall be a committee called the Caste Verification Committee for each district to verify the caste certificate issued in respect of the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The committee shall consist of the following members namely:-
(1) The Deputy Commissioner of the District who shall be the Chairman;
(2) The Deputy Secretary (Administration) of the Zilla Panchayat;
(3) The Tahsildar of Taluk;
(4) The District Social welfare officer who shall be the Member Secretary.
IV* Amendment of Rule 4:- In rule 4 of the said Rules the following shall be inserted namely:- Provided that the State Government may constitute an additional Caste Verification Committee for any district to verify the caste certificate issued in respect of the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes which shall consist of the following members, namely.
(i) An officer not below the rank of Chairman
Special Deputy Commissioner
appointed by the State
Government
- 90 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
(ii) The Assistant Commissioner Member
of the Sub-Division
(iii) The Tahsildar of the Taluk Member
(iv) The District of Social Welfare Member"
Officer
18.16. It is in terms of Rule 4, that the committee is constituted and the persons and certain officers are designated to be members of the committee.
18.17. Rule 5 deals with certificates issued for Backward Classes and the persons who shall be members of such committee.
18.18. Rule 6 speaks of the application for verification.
Rule 6A speaks of the manner of verification of the caste and income certificate. Said Rule 6A is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"6A. Verification by the Caste and Income Verification-Committee:-
Caste "Verification Committee or as the case may be the Caste and Income Verification Committee shall refer the application for issue of validity certificate to the District Social Welfare Officer concerned of the Social Welfare Department in the case of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and to the District officer for Backward Classes concerned of the Backward Classes
- 91 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 Department in case of persons belonging to other Backward Classes for verification and report after holding local enquiries"."
18.19. After obtaining a report under Rule 6A, a validity certificate would be issued by the verification committee by following the procedure under Rule 7. Rule 7 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"7. Issue of Validity Certificate:- (1) After getting a report on a reference made under rule 6A the Caste Verification Committee and the Caste and Income Verification Committee shall hold and enquiry after giving opportunity to the parties concerned.
(2) The Committee may examine school records, birth registration certificate if any and such other relevant materials and may also examine any other person who has the knowledge of the community of the applicant.
Provided that in case of an applicant who belongs to the Scheduled Tribes, the Committee may also examine the anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies and such other matters.
(3) If on such enquiry the committee finds that the applicants claim is genuine it may issue the certificate sought for, in form I-A, but where the committee finds that the applicant obtained the caste certificate or income and caste certificate by making a false representation, it shall pass an order rejecting the application indicating the reasons there of for such refusal. An order under this sub-rule shall be passed within one month from the date of receipt of the application.
(4) Where the Committee even after the enquiry referred to in sub-rules (2) and (3) finds that the claim is doubtful and is not opposition to come to a
- 92 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 conclusion it shall refer the matter to the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement for detailed investigation and report. On receipt of the report from the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement, the Committee shall dispose off the case on merit, after holding such enquiry as it deems fit and after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard. An order under this sub-rule shall be made within one month from date of receipt of the application.
(5) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Caste Verification Committee or caste and income Verification committee may appeal to the Divisional Commissioner. The [~Divisional Commissioner] shall after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties pass such order as he deems fit within forty five days from the date of filing of such appeal.
[~Amendment to the Act, vide notification dated:23-2-2004 Appellate Authorities changed from DVC to concerned HOD's]"
18.20. An examination of Rule 7 would indicate that the committee would have to examine all the school records, Birth Registration Certificate, relevant material, examine any other person, who has knowledge of the community of the applicant. In the event of the person belonging to the scheduled tribe he should also examine the anthropological ðnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies and such other matters and it is after such
- 93 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 enquiry, if the committee were to so find the claim of the applicant to be doubtful, the committee can refer the matter to the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement for detailed investigation and report in terms of Sub-rule (4) of rule 7 and after getting a report, if it deems fit give the applicant an opportunity of being heard and pass orders.
18.21. Thus, in terms of Section 4C and Rules 4 to 7 of the Rules of 1992, an independent enquiry would have to be made by the Caste Verification Committee. If the Verification Committee is not satisfied, the matter could be referred to the Director of Civil Rights Enforcement. If an order is to be passed against the applicant, a hearing would have to be provided to the applicant. Thus, the applicant would once again have a chance to establish the right of the applicant for such a
- 94 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 validity certificate before the verification committee.
18.22. Section 4D provides for an appeal by any person aggrieved by an order passed by the verification committee. Section 4D reads as under:
"4D. Appeal.- (1) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Verification Committee under section 4C may, within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order appeal,-
(i) to the Commissioner / Director, Social Welfare in case the verification certificate relates to a person belonging to the Scheduled Castes;
(ii) to the Director, Tribal Welfare in case the verification certificate relates to a person belonging to the Scheduled Tribes;
(iii) to the Director, Backward classes Department, in case the verification certificate relates to a person belonging to other Backward Classes; in such form and in such manner and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed.
(2) The Appellate Authority shall after giving to both the parties an opportunity of being heard pass such order in appeal as it deems fit.
(3) XXX"
18.23. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 7 also deals with such an appeal, which has been reproduced hereinabove. The person aggrieved by an order passed by the verification committee would
- 95 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 necessarily be the applicant, if the application of the applicant is rejected.
18.24. A perusal of Sub-section (2) of Section 4D would indicate that the appellate authority shall after giving to both the parties an opportunity of being heard, pass such order in appeal as it deems fit, which would also imply that a person other than the applicant could also be aggrieved and that person would have to be heard.
18.25. If the validity of the caste certificate is refused by the verification committee and an appeal is filed by the applicant/candidate, the burden of proof would lie with the appellant/candidate/applicant to establish the caste of the applicant and negate the finding of the verification committee. If an appeal is filed by a third-party on account of grant of a validity certificate, it would be for such third-
- 96 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 party to establish as to why the certificate ought not to have been granted and how the issuance of certificate is bad in law as also why the applicant or candidate is not entitled for the validity certificate in respect of the caste certificate.
18.26. Thus, the burden of proof will be on the person, who files an appeal to establish the grounds raised in the appeal.
18.27. Section 4F provides for revision by the Deputy Commissioner in terms of Section 4F is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"4F. Revision by Deputy Commissioner.- (1) The Deputy Commissioner may at any time either suomoto or on an application made to him with in the prescribed period, call for and examine the records relating to any decision made or order passed by the Tahasildar under section 4A or the Assistant Commissioner under section 4B, for the purposes of satisfying himself as to the legality, propriety of such decision or order and if, in any case, it appears to the Deputy Commissioner that any such decision or order shall be modified, annulled, revised or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders within thirty days accordingly; provided that the Deputy Commissioner shall not pass any order prejudicial to any person unless such person is given an opportunity of being heard.
- 97 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 (2) The Deputy Commissioner may, stay the execution of any such decision or order pending the exercise of his powers under sub-section (1) in respect thereof."
18.28. A perusal of Section 4F would indicate that the Deputy Commissioner may at any time either suo-moto or on an application made to him within the prescribed period, call for and examine records relating to any decision made or order passed by the Tahashildar under Section 4A or the Assistant Commissioner under section 4B for the purposes of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such decision or order.
18.29. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4F indicates that the order of the Deputy Commissioner cannot be passed by the Deputy Commissioner prejudicially to any person unless such person is given an opportunity of being heard. Thus, even if the Deputy Commissioner were to exercise suo-moto revisional power, the
- 98 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 Deputy Commissioner would have to provide an opportunity to the person to whom the prejudice may be caused by such an order. 18.30. If a third-party were to file an application for revision, then obviously the burden of proof would be on such third-party to establish as to why the order passed by the Tahashildar under Section 4A or the Assistant Commissioner under Section 4B is bad in law.
18.31. After all the above, a person would always have a right to approach the High Court invoking the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
18.32. In terms of the supervisory powers of the quasi-judicial authorities like the Tahashildar, Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, again depending on who were to approach the High Court, the burden of proof
- 99 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 would vest with such person to prove the allegation made.
18.33. Thus, I answer point No.4 by holding that initially the burden of proof is on the candidate to establish that he/she belongs to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes category. The said burden of proof will continue to vest with the said candidates/ applicant if the application was rejected by the Tahashildar and proceedings were moved before the Assistant Commissioner, the burden will continue. If a validity certificate is sought for as regards the caste certificate, in the event of the Caste Verification Committee rejecting the application for validity certificate, the burden will again continue with the applicant/candidate in an appeal under Section 4D. If the appeal filed by the candidate/applicant under Section 4D is also dismissed, then the burden will continue with
- 100 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 the candidate/applicant on a revision being filed, if a revision were also to be dismissed and a writ petition were filed, the burden will still vest with the applicant/candidate. 18.34. In the event of a certificate having been issued and a third-party filing an appeal under Section 4D, the burden would be on the third-party to establish the invalidity of the caste certificate. 18.35. When a caste validity certificate is issued by the DCVC and a challenge is made by a third-party under Section 4D, the burden will be on such third-party who challenges the validity certificate. If a revision petition is filed by a third-party seeking for revision of the orders of the Tahashildar under Section 4A and order of the Assistant Commissioner under Section 4B, and order of verification committee under Section 4D, the burden will be on such third- party.
- 101 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024
19. Answer to Point No. 5: Whether this Court can adjudicate on matters relating to the validity of caste as a fact-finding forum vis-à-vis the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment Etc.) Act, 1990?
19.1. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.20 deals with the affirmation of the statutory fact-finding authority, reaffirming the caste claims of a person and the same being impugned before writ courts. The Hon'ble Apex Court has exhaustively dealt with the issue of writ courts interfering into matters of disputed questions of fact under the Article 226 jurisdiction via the writ of certiorari when unwarranted, more particularly para nos. 15, 17 & 19 thereof, which have been reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
20
2024 INSC 266
- 102 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 "15. Now, when the Scrutiny Committee which is principally tasked with the fact-finding exercise for validation of caste claim, had applied its mind and reached a conclusion, then in such a situation, whether a roving enquiry by High Court was required? It is well settled that High Courts as well as Supreme Court should refrain themselves from deeper probe into factual issues like an appellate body unless the inferences made by the concerned authority suffers from perversity on the face of it or are impermissible in the eyes of law. In the instant case, the order passed by Scrutiny Committee reflects due appreciation of evidence and application of mind and in absence of any allegation of bias/malice or lack of jurisdiction, disturbing the findings of Scrutiny Committee cannot be sustained.
17. Having perused the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee and findings recorded by it to reach its subjective satisfaction with respect to claim of Appellant, at this juncture, if we look at the whole exercise carried out by High Court from the perspective of settled principles of law for invocation of jurisdiction Under Article 226 of Constitution of India, particularly in relation of writ of certiorari, it leaves us with no scope of doubt that the High Court has clearly overstepped by re-appreciating the evidence in absence of any allegation of mala-fide or perversity. As fairly settled by this Court in catena of judgments, the writ of certiorari being a writ of high prerogative, should not be invoked on mere asking.
The purpose of a writ of certiorari for a superior Court is not to review or reweigh the evidence to adjudicate unless warranted. The jurisdiction is supervisory and the Court exercising it, ought to refrain to act as an appellate court unless the facts so warrant. It also ought not re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own conclusion interfering with a finding unless perverse. The High Court in a writ for certiorari should not interfere when such challenge is on the ground of insufficiency or adequacy of material to sustain the impugned finding. Assessment of adequacy or sufficiency of evidence in the case at hand, fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Scrutiny Committee and re-agitation of challenge on
- 103 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 such grounds ought not have been entertained by High Court in a routine manner.
19. In sum and substance, the writ of certiorari is expended as a remedy and is intended to cure jurisdictional error, if any, committed by the Courts/forums below. It should not be used by superior Court to substitute its own views by getting into fact-finding exercise unless warranted. [See Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and Anr. v. Bikartan Das and Ors.
MANU/SC/0888/2023 : 2023:INSC:733 - Para 51 and 52; Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan MANU/SC/0184/1963 : 1963:INSC:205 : AIR 1964 SC 477 - Para 7]. At this juncture, it would also be profitable to refer relevant extract from judgment delivered by this Court in 'Indian Overseas Bank' (supra), wherein para 17, it was observed as thus -
17. ........The findings of fact recorded by a fact-finding authority duly constituted for the purpose and which ordinarily should be considered to have become final, cannot be disturbed for the mere reason of having been based on materials or evidence not sufficient or credible in the opinion of the writ Court to warrant those findings at any rate, as long as they are based upon such materials which are relevant for the purpose or even on the ground that there is yet another view which can be reasonably and possibly undertaken...... Such being the situation, in the instant case, the High Court went into a probe regarding credibility of the opinion of the Scrutiny Committee because the writ Court felt the need to substitute it's own views. In case if the findings of the Scrutiny Committee are based on the materials specified Under Rule 16 followed by its subjective satisfaction, then exercise of jurisdiction under writ of certiorari to quash the order of validation of caste claim by Scrutiny Committee is unwarranted and uncalled for."
- 104 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 19.2. Navneet Kaur's case deals with the writ jurisdiction, by holding that the writ of certiorari ought to be cautiously made use of and any venturing into a fact-finding exercise such as review or reappreciation of evidence would have to be refrained from unless it is so warranted by the discovery of mala-fides or perverse adjudication. So long as the finding of the verification committee is based on the materials and procedure specified in the Rules of 1992, the employment of the writ jurisdiction under certiorari quashing any validation of caste is unwarranted and bad in law. 19.3. A strict rule is to be applied; constitutional courts especially in matters relating to the adjudication of caste claims ought to refrain themselves from interfering into factual matters unless the observations of the concerned fact-
- 105 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 finding authority suffers from a severe legal perversity, lack of jurisdiction or the non- application of mind, proving to be impermissible in the eyes of the law.
19.4. Though the Act of 1990 came into in the year 1990, Sections 4A to 4F were introduced by an amendment inserted by Act of 27 of 1997 with effect from 08.02.2000. This amendment also was necessitated on account of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Madhuri Patila's case, wherein at para 15 certain directions were issued. The said para 15 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"15. The question then is whether the approach adopted by the High Court in not elaborately considering the case is vitiated by an error of law. High Court is not a court of appeal to appreciate the evidence. The Committee which is empowered to evaluate the evidence placed before it when records a finding of fact, it ought to prevail unless found vitiated by judicial review of any High Court subject to limitations of interference with findings of fact. The Committee when considers all the material facts and records a finding, though another view, as a court of appeal may be possible, it is not a ground to reverse the findings. The court has to see whether the Committee considered all the relevant material placed before it or has not applied its mind to
- 106 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 relevant facts which have led the Committee ultimately record the finding. Each case must be considered in the backdrop of its own facts."
19.5. The directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in exercise of the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India was to fill the lacunae in respect of the verification of a caste certificate or in respect of the issuance of a caste certificate and its verification thereof. Due to which, there were several litigations which were coming up before the Courts. 19.6. In part compliance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Madhuri Patila's case, an amendment was brought about to the Act of 1990 and Sections 4A to 4F and certain other provisions were inserted in the Act of 1990 so also amendment made to the Rules of 1992 vide various Government notifications to bring it in line with the requirements of direction issued in Madhuri Patila's case.
- 107 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 19.7. The Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with Madhuri Patila's case especially in relation to scheduled tribes was of the opinion that enquiries which are required to be carried out as regards the anthropological, ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies and such other matters such requirement being necessitated on account of different customs and traditions being followed. The Hon'ble Apex Court clearly and categorically came to a conclusion that there is an in-depth enquiry which is required to be conducted and for that reason specialized agencies would have to be created and the methodology of issuance of caste certificate and verification thereof is to be scientifically done. 19.8. It is in that background that in the State of Karnataka, the method of enquiry to be
- 108 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 conducted by the Tahashildar while issuing the caste certificate has been detailed under Rule 3A of the Rules of 1992, which has been reproduced hereinabove. The manner in which the verification committee is to issue a validity certificate has also been detailed out in Rule 7 of the Rules of 1992. A perusal of these rules would indicate the details which are required to be examined and enquired into and the nuances that are to be looked into by the Tahashildar and or the verification committee. These details cannot be looked into by a Court like this Court and such a detailed enquiry in terms of Rule 3A and or Rule 7 cannot be made by this Court.
19.9. In terms of Rules 4 and 5, composition of the committee has been prescribed. Rule 7 also provides for the committee if in doubt to refer the matter to the Directorate of Civil Rights
- 109 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 Enforcement. The composition of the committee and the composition of the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement would indicate that the specialized knowledge of the persons involved therein, who could examine the matters in the right perspective and appreciate each and every fact to arrive at a just conclusion. 19.10. Thus, the fact finding being required to be done initially by the Tahashildar and subsequently by the Verification Committee, if and so the need arises, I am of the considered opinion that this Court would not have the authority to ex-facie adjudicate on the validity or otherwise of the caste certificate and come to a conclusion as to what the caste of the person is.
19.11. Be that as it may, if there is any lacuna in the enquiry of the Tahashildar or by the verification committee, this Court could always set-aside the certificate issued by the Tahashildar or the
- 110 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 validity certificate issued by the verification committee and remit the matter for fresh consideration and enquiry to such authorities. 19.12. In view of my above observations, I answer point no. 5 by holding that this Court cannot adjudicate on matters relating to the validity of caste as a fact-finding authority vis-à-vis the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment Etc.) Act, 1990.
20. Answer to Point No. 6: Whether the Impugned Order dated 27.02.2024 suffers from any legal infirmity requiring interference at the hands of this Court?
20.1. The contention of respondent No.2 is that her father and mother belong to the scheduled tribe category. They have been issued caste certificates accordingly. She has also obtained a caste certificate in the scheduled tribe category and submitted the same while seeking for
- 111 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 employment as an Accounts Officer with the GESCOM. As such, the certificate issued in her favour and that in favour of her parents, having continued for a long period of time. The same are not open to challenge.
20.2. It is in pursuance of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1992, which rule has been extracted hereinabove that the caste certificate of respondent No.2 was sent to the verification committee. The verification committee rejected the caste certificate, which order came to be appealed before the appellate authority under Section 4B, the appellate authority having allowed the said appeal. The petitioner who also belongs to the scheduled tribe community is before this Court contending that an ineligible person has been permitted to avail reservation by the appellate authority, even though the verification committee had rejected the claim.
- 112 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 20.3. The other aspect as regards locus and otherwise have been dealt with in my answers to the above earlier questions, what we are concerned now is as regards the merits of the matter.
20.4. The contention of the petitioner is that the paternal uncle of respondent No.2 namely Sri Shyam Rao S/o. Manikappa, his wife Smt. Nagamma and his daughter Kumari Bhuvaneshwari have obtained caste certificates stating to belong to 'Kuruba community', which comes under Category IIA and they have not obtained any caste certificate as belonging to scheduled tribe.
20.5. As such, respondent No.2 and her parents cannot have any other caste than that of the paternal uncle of respondent No.2. Inasmuch as the paternal uncle of respondent No.2, who is none other than the brother of the father of
- 113 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 respondent No.2, the two brothers cannot have two different castes. One of them is having a caste certificate of 'Kuruba community' not having claimed the benefit of reservation for the scheduled tribe category would indicate that reasonable doubt has been cast as regards the scheduled tribe category caste certificate of the parents as also that of respondent No.2. 20.6. The petitioner had also placed on record the certificates of the above persons for the reference of the appellate authority. The appellate authority, however, in the impugned order has not considered these documents. The appellate authority merely on the ground that the parents of respondent No.2 have been holding a scheduled tribe certificate as thought it fit not to accept the allegations made by the petitioner and confirmed the certificate of respondent No.2.
- 114 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 20.7. The aspect of the validity and presumption as regards the caste certificate which has not undergone the process of validation under Section 4C has been dealt with hereinabove. 20.8. I have categorically come to a conclusion that, even if a certificate is issued to a person stating that the person belongs to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community, when a benefit of reservation in education or employment is sought for, validity certificate in respect thereto has to be obtained in order to claim such reservation and the validity certificate cannot be issued merely on the ground that there is a caste certificate issued to the parents of the applicant.
20.9. The said certificate issued in favour of the parents not having undergone validation under Section 4C, the certificate of the applicant/
- 115 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 candidate would have to undergo the said process.
20.10. This aspect has been completely missed by the appellate authority and the appellate authority has given a complete go-by to the report of the DCVC, which report has been furnished after detailed enquiry in relation thereto. 20.11. There are no reasons which have been provided by the appellate authority to disbelieve or set aside the enquiry of the DCVC. Except as aforesaid, on the ground that a caste certificate had been issued to the parents of respondent No.2 and the parents have availed of benefits as that belonging to scheduled tribe category. It is pertinent to note that an unreasoned and unsubstantiated order is a recipe for disaster bound to reveal itself.
- 116 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 20.12. Clause 2 to Rule 7 of the Act of 1992 clearly casts a duty upon the fact-finding authority to examine the claimant on the basis 'anthropological, sociological and ethnological traits, rituals, customs and deities' of a person claiming to belong specifically to the scheduled tribe community and a reference of the decision of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in T. Varahalu's case (supra), may also be drawn. This statutory requirement too has not been considered while passing of the impugned order.
20.13. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the appellate authority has not considered the matter in the right perspective and the impugned order passed suffers from the infirmities in respect of my finding as regards the various points raised hereinabove.
- 117 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 20.14. In that background, I answer point No.6 by holding that the impugned order dated 27.02.2024 suffers from legal infirmities requiring interference of the hands of this Court.
21. Answer to Point No. 7: What Order?
21.1. In view of my answers to point nos.1 to 6 hereinabove, I pass the following;
ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed.
ii. A Writ of certiorari is issued, the order dated 27.02.2024 passed by the 1st respondent vide Annexure-M is hereby set aside. iii. The matter is remitted to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration taking into account the observations made hereinabove, the appeal to be disposed of within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
- 118 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381 WP No. 200867 of 2024 iv. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to Respondent No.2 by email.
v. Learned AGA is directed to ensure that a
copy of this order is forwarded to
Respondent No.2 through Court Case
Monitoring System (CCMS).
SD/-
(SURAJ GOVINDRAJ)
JUDGE
BSM/CKK