Karnataka High Court
Smt S K Poornima vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 January, 2016
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
WRIT PETITION No.842/2016 (GM-CC)
BETWEEN:
Smt. S.K.Poornima,
W/o N.R. Thipperudramurthy,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at Nibagur Village,
Post: Bidarakere,
Jagalur Taluk,
Davanagere District,
Davanagere - 577 521. ...Petitioner
(By Sri Javavittal Rao Kolar, Senior Counsel for
Sri Shridhar Narayan Hegde, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Dept. of Social Welfare,
Vidhana Soudha,
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Tahasildar,
Jagalur Taluk, Jagalur,
Davanagere District - 577 521. ... Respondents
(By Smt. Shwetha Krishnappa, HCGP)
2
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order passed
by the R-2 dated 2.1.2016 vide Annexure-M and etc.
This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B'
group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner has called into question the second respondent Tahsildar's order, dated 2.1.2016 (Annexure-M) turning down the petitioner's request for the issuance of the Ganiga BCM-A caste certificate.
2. Sri Jayavittal Rao Kolar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Shridhar Narayan Hegde for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is without the authority of law and without jurisdiction. He submits that the Caste Classification List (Annexure-F) at entry No.78 [Category - II(A)] mentions Ganiga and the equivalence of the same - Teli, Gandla and Vaniyan. It does not make the distinction between Lingayat Ganiga and non- Lingayat Ganiga. He also brings to my notice the Central Government's notification, dated 15.5.1995 (Annexure-G) 3 containing the Central List of Backward Classes. Entry No.52 in the said List is as follows: Ganiga, Lingayat Ganiga/ Ganigar, Lingayat Sajjan/Sajjanaganigar, Teli, Gandla. Even going by the entry No.52 of the said central list, there is no difference between the Ganiga without prefix and Ganiga with the prefix 'Lingayat.'
3. He submits that the impugned order is passed on the suggestion or recommendations of the former Chairman of the Backward Classes Commission, which are not at all of any binding nature. He submits that the Assistant Commissioner of Harapanahalli Sub-Division of which Jagalur Thaluk forms part, vide his letter, dated 22.1.2016, has already issued the directions for the issuance of the necessary caste certificate. He submits that the petitioner would be content if this petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent Tahsildar to follow the said order of the Assistant Commissioner. He prays for the remand of the matter to the Tahsildar. He submits that the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court notwithstanding the appeal remedy, as the petitioner proposes to take part in the ensuing 4 elections to the local bodies based on her earlier caste certificate, which shows that she belongs to Ganiga caste.
4. Smt. Shwetha Krishnappa, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has raised the threshold bar to the maintainability of this petition. She submits that the order passed by the Tahsildar is appealable under Section 4-B of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Act, 1990 ('the said Act' for short). She submits that this Court, by its order, dated 24.7.2014 passed in W.P.No.16219/2014 has already rejected similar petitions.
5. She takes serious exception to the conduct of the petitioner, who has subjected herself to the jurisdiction of the Tahsildar by making the application for the issuance of the caste certificate. She submits that the petitioner has filed the application on 15.12.2015 and that the impugned order is passed on 2.1.2016 and that the petitioner filed this petition on 6.1.2016. In the fitness 5 of the things, she ought to have resorted to the filing of the appeal and ought not to have rushed to this Court.
6. She complains of reverse engineering, as the petitioner has not produced the certificates in respect of her husband and parents. On the other hand, she is content producing the certificate in respect of her son. She submits that the petitioner has not shown any bonafides. She has not produced any documentary evidence in respect of her belonging to Ganiga caste. She submits that as per Caste Classification List (Annexure-F), there is difference between Ganiga and Lingayat Ganiga. She submits that irrespective of the sub-caste to which a person may belong, he would be in Category II-A, if he belongs to any sub-caste of Lingayat Caste. She submits that the Tahsildar has held the spot-inspection, drawn the mahazar and conducted the enquiry.
7. The submissions of the learned counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. Whether the Ganiga and Lingayat Ganiga are one and the same requires factual determination. For resolving 6 the said controversy, a fact-finding exercise has to be undertaken. Just because the Central Government has not made any distinction between the Ganiga and Lingayat Ganiga, I am afraid the State Government cannot be compelled to do the same. Whether the Lingayat Ganiga can be considered as Ganiga and be entitled to claim the reservation meant for Ganigas has to be decided by the concerned authorities.
18. This Court has rejected W.P.No.16219/2014 wherein also the controversy revolved round the 'Ganigas'. The order of the Co-ordinate Bench has to be followed and not deviated from.
19. In the result, I dismiss this petition but by reserving the liberty to the petitioner to avail of the remedy of filing the appeal invoking Section 4-B of the said Act. The Assistant Commissioner shall consider the anticipated appeal and dispose it of as expeditiously as possible. He shall do everything possible to dispose of the anticipated appeal within one week from the date of its filing. Any reasons given or the observations made herein are only for the 7 purpose of disposing of this petition. The Assistant Commissioner shall dispose of the anticipated appeal independently of and uninfluenced by the same.
20. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE MD