Karnataka High Court
Smt G O Rekha vs Canara Bank on 7 January, 2025
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:414
WP No. 2234 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 2234 OF 2013 (S-DIS)
BETWEEN:
SMT. G O REKHA
W/O SRI. TEJASVI,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
W/AS PROBATIONARY OFFICER IN
JUNIOR MANAGEMENT
GRADE SCALE-1, SYNDICATE BANK
STJ CAMPUS, CHIKMANGALUR TOWN,
CHIKMANGALORE.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P N NANJA REDDY, ADV.)
AND:
CANARA BANK
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
Digitally signed REGIONAL OFFICE,
by SYNDICATE BANK BUILDING,
MARIGANGAIAH LIGHT HOUSE, HILL ROAD,
PREMAKUMARI
MANGALORE-575001.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. T.P. MUTHANNA, ADV.)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 05.01.2013 (ANNEXURE-T) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT AS
THE SAME ARE ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY & IN VIOLATION OF THE
PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE & WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF
LAW AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONTINUE THE SERVICES
OF THE PETITIONER AS AN OFFICER IN THE RESPONDENT BANK
CONSEQUENT UPON THE QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 05.01.2013
AT ANNEXURE-T.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:414
WP No. 2234 of 2013
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning Annexure-T dated 05.01.2013 by which, petitioner is terminated from the post of Probationary Officer, Junior Management Grade Scale-1 from the respondent-Bank and the petitioner has also sought for a direction to the respondent to continue her services as an Officer in the respondent-Bank.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, petitioner who belongs to Veerashaiva Lingayath community by submitting certificate as at Annexure-D dated 17.02.2009 as Other Backward Classes, obtained employment in the respondent-Bank as Probationary Officer in Junior Management Grade Scale-1. The respondent forwarded the caste certificate submitted by the petitioner for verification to the concerned Tahsildar. The Tahsildar submitted his report on 21.10.2011 cancelling the certificate issued to the -3- NC: 2025:KHC:414 WP No. 2234 of 2013 petitioner as at Annexure-D dated 17.02.2009. Based on the said order of the Tahsildar petitioner was before this Court challenging the said report of the Tahsildar dated 21.10.2011 in W.P.No.43188/2011. This Court by order dated 20.01.2012, remanded the matter to the Tahsildar to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter, after hearing the petitioner, Tahsildar submitted fresh report dated 25.07.2012, again cancelling the caste certificate dated 17.02.2009 (Annexure-D).
3. Based on the said report dated 25.07.2012, the petitioner was issued with show cause notice dated 30.04.2012 (Annexure-Q) calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why appointment of the petitioner should not be cancelled. The petitioner is said to have submitted reply on 12.05.2012 (Annexure-R). Thereafter, impugned order at Annexure-T dated 05.01.2013 is passed terminating the service of the petitioner from the respondent-Bank. Questioning the same, petitioner is before this Court.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:414 WP No. 2234 of 2013
4. Heard the learned counsel Sri.P.N.Nanja Reddy for petitioner, learned counsel Sri.T.P.Muthanna for respondent-Bank. Perused the writ petition papers.
5. Learned counsel Sri.P.N.Nanja Reddy would submit that the petitioner has not suppressed any fact or the caste while obtaining backward classes certificate as at (Annexure-D) dated 17.02.2009. He submits that she obtained certificate as at Annexure-D by disclosing her caste and the Tahsildar on enquiry issued Other Backward Classes Certificate as at (Annexure-D) dated 17.02.2009. When there is no mistake or suppression of fact on the part of the petitioner, he submits that the petitioner cannot be punished. He places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SHALINI VS. NEW ENGLISH HIGH SCHOOL ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS1 and also decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SMT.HEMAVATHY VS. THE DIRECTOR AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, SCHEDULED 1 (2013) 16 SCC 526 -5- NC: 2025:KHC:414 WP No. 2234 of 2013 TRIBES WELFARE AND OTHERS2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that once the Tahsildar issued the caste certificate, the Tahsildar would not have power to cancel the caste certificate issued. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition and to reinstate the petitioner into service.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel Sri.T.P.Muthanna appearing for respondent-Bank would submit that the petitioner was aware of the fact that the community to which she belonged was not to be considered as other backward classes for the purpose of employment in the Central Government as well as in the Central Government undertakings. Having knowledge of the said fact, she had applied for obtaining Backward Classes Certificate in terms of (Annexure-D) dated 17.02.2009 by mentioning her caste as Veerashaiva Lingayath, which is clear from the report of the Tahsildar dated 25.07.2012 (Annexure-N). Since the petitioner 2 ILR 2016 KAR 3880 -6- NC: 2025:KHC:414 WP No. 2234 of 2013 having aware of the fact that the community to which she belonged was not to be considered as Backward Class for the purpose of employment in the Central Government, had obtained employment by submitting the OBC Certificate obtained from the Tahsildar. Therefore, in terms of the conditions of the letter of appointment dated 07.01.2010, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and thereafter order of termination is passed which is in accordance with law. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that the petitioner would not be entitled for any relief as prayed in the writ petition.
8. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed in terms of letter of appointment dated 07.01.2010 (Annexure-A) as Probationary Officer in Junior Management Grade Scale-1 in the respondent-Bank against the vacancy reserved for Other Backward Classes. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC:414 WP No. 2234 of 2013 The order of appointment makes it clear that the appointment is provisional and is subject to the community certificate being verified through proper channel. It also reveals that if the verification reveals that claim of the candidate belonging to Other Backward Classes or the non-creamy layer under the said classification is false, services would be terminated forthwith without assigning any further reasons and without prejudice to such further action as may be taken under the provisions of Indian Penal code for production of false certificate.
9. The Backward Classes Certificate produced by the petitioner was forwarded to the concerned Tahsildar for verification. At the first instance, the Tahsildar after enquiry submitted report on 21.10.2011 cancelling the Backward Classes Certificate dated 17.02.2009 as Veerashaiva Lingayath community would not fall under OBC category for the purpose of employment in the Central Government. The said report was the subject -8- NC: 2025:KHC:414 WP No. 2234 of 2013 matter of W.P.No.43188/2011 and this Court by order dated 20.01.2012 remitted the matter for fresh consideration to the Tahsildar, to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. After affording an opportunity to the petitioner, the Tahsildar submitted fresh report on 25.07.2012 (Annexure-M) cancelling the caste certificate dated 17.02.2009 issued to the petitioner.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no suppression of the petitioner's caste and the petitioner disclosing her caste as Veerashaiva Lingayath had obtained OBC certificate from the Tahsildar. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that, when the petitioner has not suppressed her caste, she cannot be punished for the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar. A perusal of the report of the Tahsildar, it makes clear that OBC certificate is issued on the application submitted by the petitioner for issuance of 'OBC Certificate' disclosing her caste as Veerashaiva Lingayath for the purpose of employment in the Central -9- NC: 2025:KHC:414 WP No. 2234 of 2013 Government. The petitioner is a Post Graduate in M.Sc. (Agriculture) and she was already working in State Bank of India as Officer (Marketing and Recovery). When the petitioner is a post graduate and was working as Officer in SBI, she was aware of the fact that the Veerashaiva Lingayath community would not fall under Other Backward Classes for the purpose of employment in Central Government. When she was aware of the fact that the Veerashaiva Lingayath community would not fall under OBC for the purpose of employment in Central Government, she could not have applied for issuance of OBC certificate by mentioning Veerashaiva Lingayath for employment in the Central Government. Therefore, no fault could be found with the report of the Tahsildar as well as consequent termination, after affording an opportunity by issuing show cause notice dated 30.04.2012 (Annexure-Q).
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:414 WP No. 2234 of 2013 SHALINI (supra). In the said decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court was considering a caste certificate issued under the Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Defendant-notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Badkward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000. In the above stated case, the candidate had claimed that she belonged to caste of 'Halba-Koshti, but she did not belong to Halba Schedule Tribe. The caste claimed by the candidate therein was Other Backward Classes and taking note of the fact that the caste claimed by the candidate therein was lateron found not belonged to an envisaged Schedule Tribe, but the Special Backward Classes, the Hon'ble Apex Court directed to reinstate the candidate with a condition that she cannot claim further advantage that would enure to persons belonging to the Halba Tribe. In the instant case, the petitioner being a Post Graduate was aware of the fact that Veerashaiva Lingayath community would not fall under the backward classes for the purpose of
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:414 WP No. 2234 of 2013 employment in the Central Government, hence in the fact situation the decision would not assist the case of the petitioner.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in SMT.HEMAVATHY (supra). The Co-ordinate Bench proceeded on the basis that the Tahsildar who is an Officer under the State Government had issued a certificate and there was no suppression of fact by the candidate to obtain the caste certificate. But, in the above case at whose instance the certificate was issued was not under consideration. In the instant case, report of the Tahsildar makes it clear that at the instance of the petitioner who mentioned 'Veerashaiva Lingayath' as her community, obtained Backward Classes Caste Certificate (Annexure-D) for the purpose of employment in the Central Government. Therefore, the said decision would also not assist the petitioner.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:414 WP No. 2234 of 2013
13. Nextly, learned counsel Sri.P.N.Nanja Reddy contended that the Tahsildar who has issued caste certificate has no jurisdiction to cancel the caste certificate. The caste certificate is not issued under the Karnataka SC/ST and Other BC (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.,) Act, 1990. But, the caste certificate is issued for the purpose of employment in the Central Government, on the request of the candidate on her application.
14. When the Bank forwarded the certificate for verification, after enquiry, the Tahsildar has cancelled the certificate. Thus, I do not find any merit in any of the contentions of the petitioner. Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36