Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Dalitha Sangharsha ... vs State Of Karnataka on 30 June, 2025
Author: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
WA No. 200053 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024
WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH R
TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF JUNE, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.200053 OF 2024
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO.200162 OF 2024
C/W
WRIT APPEAL CROB NO.200001/2024
IN W.A. NO.200053 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE
M.S. BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR
Digitally BENGALURU - 560 001.
signed by
VIDYA G R
Location: 2. THE COMMISSIONER
HIGH DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE
COURT OF 5TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING
KARNATAKA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND
DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER
BIDAR DISTRICT, D.C. OFFICE
BIDAR - 585 401.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BIDAR, D.C. OFFICE
BIDAR - 585 401.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
WA No. 200053 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024
WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024
HC-KAR
5. THE TAHSILDAR
BIDAR, TAHSIL OFFICE
BIDAR - 585 401.
6. THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER
NAUBAD
BIDAR - 585 402.
7. THE TALUK SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER
AURAD-B TALUK
DISTRICT: BIDAR - 585 401.
8. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE
NO.1, 1ST FLOOR D.T.E. BUILDING,
PALACE ROAD, NEAR MAHARANI COLLEGE,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI C. JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI RAVINDRA SWAMY
S/O KALLAYYA SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
R/O H.NO.8-11-254
RAGHAVENDRA COLONY
BIDAR - 585 401.
2. THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF
ELECTORAL OFFICER FOR KARNATAKA
NIRVACHANA NILAYA
SESHADRI ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
WA No. 200053 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024
WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. THE RETURNING OFFICER
ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY NO.52,
AURAD - B
DISTRICT: BIDAR - 585 401.
4. KARNATAKA STATE DALITHA
SANGHARSHA SAMITHI (REGD.)
BIDAR
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE ORGANIZATION CONVENOR
MARUTHI BOUDHI
S/O BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/O AMBEDKAR COLONY
BVB COLLEGE ROAD
BIDAR - 585 401.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI RAVI B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI D.P. AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI BOPANNA BELLIAPPA, AGA FOR R3;
SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI S. WILSON, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
11.10.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. NO.201181/2023 (GM CC) AND
DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION NO.201181/2023 (GM CC) FILED
BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND ETC.
IN W. A. NO.200162/2024
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA STATE DALITHA
SANGHARSHA SAMITHI (REGD.) BIDAR
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE ORGANIZATION CONVENOR
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
WA No. 200053 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024
WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024
HC-KAR
MARUTHIBOUDHE
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/O AMBEDKAR COLONY
BVB COLLEGE ROAD
BIDAR - 585 401.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI S. WILSON, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE
M.S. BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE
5TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND
DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER
BIDAR DISTRICT, D.C. OFFICE
BIDAR - 585 401.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BIDAR, D.C. OFFICE
BIDAR - 585 401.
5. THE TAHSILDAR
BIDAR, TAHSIL OFFICE
BIDAR - 585 401.
6. THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER
NAUBAD,
BIDAR - 585 402.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
WA No. 200053 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024
WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024
HC-KAR
7. THE TALUK SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER
AURAD-B TALUK
DISTRICT: BIDAR - 585 402.
8. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE
NO.1, 1ST FLOOR
D.T.E. BUILDING, PALACE ROAD
NEAR MAHARANI COLLEGE,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
9. THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
OFFICE OF THE
CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER FOR KARNATAKA,
NIRVACHAN NILAYA
SHESHADRI ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
10. SRI RAVINDRASWAMY
S/O KALLAYYASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/O H.NO.-8-11-254
RAGHAVENDRA COLONY
BIDAR - 585 401.
11. THE RETURNING OFFICER
ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY NO.52
AURAD-B
DISTRICT: BIDAR - 585 401.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C. JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R8;
SRI D.P. AMBEKAR, ADVCOATE FOR R9;
SRI P.S. RAJGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI RAVI B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R10;
SRI BOPANNA BELLIAPPA, AGA FOR R11)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE FINAL
ORDER DATED 11.10.2023 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN W.P. NO.201181/2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
WA No. 200053 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024
WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024
HC-KAR
DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION NO.201181/2023 FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.10 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
IN W.A. CROB NO.200001/2024
BETWEEN:
SRI RAVINDRA SWAMY
S/O KALLAYYA SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/O H.NO.8-11-254
RAGHAVENDRA COLONY
BIDAR - 585 401.
... CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI RAVI B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE
M.S. BUILDING,
2ND FLOOR
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE
5TH FLOOR,
M.S. BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND
DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER
BIDAR DISTRICT,
D.C. OFFICE
BIDAR - 585 401.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
WA No. 200053 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024
WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024
HC-KAR
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BIDAR,
D.C. OFFICE,
BIDAR - 585 401.
5. THE TAHSILDAR
BIDAR, TAHSIL OFFICE
BIDAR - 585 401.
6. THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER
NAUBAD.
BIDAR - 585 402.
7. THE TALUK SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER
AURAD-B TALUK
DISTRICT: BIDAR - 585 401.
8. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
CIVIL RIGHT ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE
NO.1, 1ST FLOOR,
D.T.E. BUILDING,
PALACE ROAD
NEAR MAHARANI COLLEGE,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
9. THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
OFFICE OF THE
CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER FOR KARNATAKA,
NIRVACHAN NILAYA
SHESHADRI ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
10. THE RETURNING OFFICER
ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY NO.52
AURAD-B,
DISTRICT: BIDAR - 585 401.
11. KARNATAKA STATE DALITHA
SANGHARSHA SAMITHI (REGD.),
BIDAR
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
WA No. 200053 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024
WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024
HC-KAR
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE ORGANIZATION CONVENOR,
MARUTHIBOUDHE
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/O AMBEDKAR COLONY
BVB COLLEGE ROAD
BIDAR - 585 401
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C. JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R8;
SRI D.P. AMBEKAR, ADVCOATE FOR R9;
SRI BOPANNA BELLIAPPA, AGA FOR R10;
SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI S. WILSON, ADVOCATE FOR R11)
THIS WRIT APPEAL CROSS-OBJECTION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 41 RULE 22 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER IMPUGNED DATED 11.10.2023 PASSED IN WRIT
PETITION NO.201181/2023 INSOFAR AS RELATES TO
REMITTING THE MATTER BACK TO THE DISTRICT CASTE
VERIFICATION COMMITTEE, BIDAR, FOR FRESH ENQUIRY AND
CONSEQUENTIALLY TO ALLOW THE CROSS OBJECTION BY
ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION NO.201181/2023 IN ENTIRETY
BY CONFIRMING THE CASTE CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN FAVOUR
OF THE PETITIONER RD NO.0038137154334 DATED
27.08.2019, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THESE WRIT APPEALS AND WRIT APPEAL CROSS-
OBJECTION PERTAINING TO KALABURAGI BENCH HAVING
BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 14.03.2025
AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT AT
PRINCIPAL BENCH, BENGALURU THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
WA No. 200053 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024
WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV) This Judgment has been divided into the following Sections to facilitate analysis:
I PRAYER SOUGHT II BRIEF FACTS III ANALYSIS
Applicability of Karnataka SC/ST and Other BC (Reservation of appointments, Etc.) Act, 1990 and The Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes And Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Rules, 1992 Rules.
Whether a Jangama belonging to Veerashaiva Lingayat could claim benefits of Beda Jangama?
III ORDER I. PRAYER SOUGHT:
1. Writ Appeal No.200053/2024 filed by the State of Karnataka represented by its Secretary, Commissioner, Department of Social Welfare, Deputy Commissioner and District Election Officer, Assistant Commissioner, Bidar, Tahsildar, Bidar, District Social Welfare Officer, Bidar,
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR Taluk Social Welfare Officer, Bidar and the Additional Director General of Police, Civil Rights Enforcement Directorate, seeking to set aside the Order dated 11.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.201181/2023 and to dismiss Writ Petition No.201181/2023 as not maintainable.
2. Writ Appeal No.200162/2024 is filed by the Karnataka State Dalitha Sangharsha Samithi, Bidar, (hereinafter referred to as 'KSDSS'), seeking to set aside the order dated 11.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.201181/2023.
3. Writ Appeal Cross-Objection No.200001/2024 is filed by Sri Ravindra Swamy seeking to set aside the order passed in Writ Petition No.201181/2023 only insofar as it relates to remitting of the matter to the District Caste Verification Committee for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
WA No. 200053 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024
WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024
HC-KAR
II. BRIEF FACTS:-
4. In all these matters, the order passed in W.P. No.201181/2023 has been assailed on various grounds in multiple proceedings and accordingly, are taken up together for consideration.
5. By virtue of the order passed in W.P. No.201181/2023, the order dated 03.04.2023 of the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-'Z13'1 was set aside.
6. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition vide CR 23/2019-20 dated 03.04.2023 had set aside the order of Tahsildar dated 23.08.2019 declaring Sri Ravindra Swamy to be eligible for issuance of Caste Certificate as belonging to Scheduled Caste category
- 'Beda Jangama' while also setting aside the Caste Certificate dated 27.08.2019. The Tahsildar, vide order passed in CR 26/2018-19 dated 23.08.2019, had recorded a finding on the basis of the report of the Revenue 1 In W.A.No.20053/2024
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR Inspector that Sri Ravindra Swamy belonged to 'Beda Jangama' Caste, which proceedings was impugned before the Deputy Commissioner.
7. By virtue of the order of learned Single Judge in W.P.No.201181/2023, the order of the Tahsildar dated 23.08.2019 came to be upheld, thus, affirming the grant of Caste Certificate of 'Beda Jangama' (Scheduled Caste) to Sri Ravindra Swamy.
8. While the State entities, including the complainant 'KSDSS' had called in question the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.201181/2023 being aggrieved by setting aside of the order of Revision passed by the Deputy Commissioner whereby, order of granting Caste Certificate was set aside, on the other hand, Cross- Objection was filed by Sri Ravindra Swamy assailing the order of learned Single Judge in W.P.No.201181/2023 only insofar as there was a direction to the Caste Verification Committee constituted under Section 4-C of the Karnataka
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Act, 1990 (for short, 'the Act') to look into the matters and pass appropriate orders.
9. It is to be noticed that by virtue of the interim order passed in W.A.No.200053/2024 dated 08.07.2024, the order of the learned Single Judge was stayed and it was further directed that the Caste Certificate dated 27.08.2019 issued was not to be relied upon.
10. At the time of passing such interim order, the following substantial questions for consideration were deemed to have arisen:
"i) What are the powers of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 4-F of the Karnataka SC/ST and Other BC (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 to reverse a Caste Certificate granted by the Tahasildar under Section 4-A of the Act of 1990?
ii) Whether the Deputy Commissioner has the power to reverse a Caste Certificate issued
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR and declare that the person does not belong to Schedule Caste or is it incumbent upon him to direct the Tahsildar to conduct further enquiry based on the criteria fixed by him?
iii) Whether the Deputy Commissioner is obliged to obtain report of the District Caste Verification Committee before considering a revision petition filed under Section 4-F of Act of 1990 or whether enquiry conducted by him itself would be sufficient?"
III. ANALYSIS:-
11. Heard Sri C. Jagadeesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri P.S.Rajagopal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Sri Ravi B. Patil for respondent No.1, Sri D.P.Ambekar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, Sri Bopanna Belliappa, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.3 and Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Sri S. Wilson for respondent No.4.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR
12. In the present factual matrix, arguments advanced and interim orders passed by the Court2, the following points are taken up for consideration:-
A. What are the powers of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 4-F of the Karnataka SC/ST and Other BC (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 to reverse a Caste Certificate granted by the Tahasildar under Section 4-A of the Act of 1990?
B. Whether the Deputy Commissioner has the power to reverse a Caste Certificate issued and declare that the person does not belong to Schedule Caste or is it incumbent upon him to direct the Tahsildar to conduct further enquiry based on the criteria fixed by him?
C. Whether the Deputy Commissioner is obliged to obtain report of the District Caste Verification Committee before considering a revision petition filed under Section 4-F of Act of 1990 or whether enquiry conducted by him itself would be sufficient?2
Point Nos. A to C are those by an interlocutory order dated 27.08.2019.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR D. Applicability of Karnataka SC/ST and Other BC (Reservation of appointments, Etc.) Act, 1990 and The Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes And Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Rules, 1992 Rules in the Present Factual Context.
E. Whether a Jangama belonging to Veerashaiva Lingayat could claim benefits of Beda Jangama?
13. Before addressing the points raised for consideration, it would be appropriate to examine the factual context of the proceedings.
14. The details of earlier round of litigation/ proceedings initiated at the instance of petitioner - Ravindra Swamy are as follows:-
SL. CASES FILED/ DETAILS
NO. PROCEEDINGS INITIATED
1. Application for Caste Ravindra Swamy made out an application
Certificate dated seeking for issuance of Caste Certificate as
26.04.2016 belonging to Beda Jangama
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
WA No. 200053 of 2024
C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024
WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024
HC-KAR
2. Proceedings of Tahsildar Tahsildar, Bidar, rejected the application dated 20.05.2016 seeking for issuance of caste certificate vide an endorsement dated 20.05.2016.
3. Proceedings before Appeal was filed by Ravindra Swamy Assistant Commissioner against the endorsement dated dated 08.05.2017 20.05.2016.
The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal upholding the endorsement.
4. Proceedings before Ravindra Swamy filed revision petition Deputy Commissioner under section 4-F of the Act against the dated 23.03.2018 in order of the Assistant Commissioner dated No.REV/Appeal/R(Misc)- 08.05.2017. 04/2017-18 The revision petition came to be dismissed upholding the order of the Assistant Commissioner, affirming the endorsement of Tahsildar.
5. Application for Caste Ravindra Swamy filed another application Certificate dated seeking for issuance of Caste Certificate as 05.04.2018 Beda Jangama for purpose of contesting election.
6. Proceedings of Tahsildar Tahsildar, Bidar, Rejected the application dated 13.04.2018 seeking for issuance of caste certificate.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR
7. W.P.No.201304/2018- Writ Petition was filed by Ravindra Swamy assailing the Orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner in Appeal No.REV/Appeal/R(Misc)-04/2017-18 dated 23.03.2018 wherein, the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the revision petition filed by Ravindra Swamy and upholding the order of the Assistant Commissioner affirming the endorsement dated 20.05.2016 of Tahsildar rejecting issuance of Caste Certificate.
However, W.P.No.201304/2018 was dismissed on 21.01.2019 as withdrawn with liberty to challenge the order dated 23.03.2018 in separate proceedings W.P.No.201303/2018 Filed by Ravindra Swamy challenging the order of Tahsildar dated 13.04.2018 whereby, the Tahsildar rejected the application filed by Ravindra Swamy seeking issuance of Caste Certificate. The learned Single Judge vide its order dated 21.01.2019 set aside the order of Tahsildar dated 13.04.2018 and remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar for reconsideration.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR
8. Proceedings before After remand, the Tahsildar took up the Tahsildar dated proceedings in No.ELE/CR/26/2018-19 and 01.04.2019 by order dated 01.04.2019 the application of the petitioner seeking for issuance of Caste Certificate as 'Beda Jangama' has been rejected after recording a finding that the petitioner's father Kallayya Swamy belonged to the 'Veerashaiva Lingayat' Caste and did not belong to the Caste of 'Beda Jangama' (Scheduled Caste).
9. W.P.No.202022/2019 Filed by Ravindra Swamy challenging the order dated 01.04.2019 passed by the Tahsildar.
The writ petition was disposed off as per the order passed on 17.06.2019, setting aside the order passed by the Tahsildar on 01.04.2019 and once again remitting the matter for fresh consideration.
10. Proceedings before Upon remand, once again the Tahsildar, Tahsildar dated after a detailed consideration, by order 23.08.2019 No.CR-26/2018-19 dated 23.08.2019 ordered for grant of Caste Certificate on the basis of the reports of the Revenue Inspector dated 10.04.2018 and 22.03.2019. Caste Certificate came to be issued on 27.08.2019.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR
11. W.P.No.200829/2019 Filed by Ravindra Swamy assailing the order of Deputy Commissioner in Appeal No.REV/Appeal/R(Misc)-04/2017-18 dated 23.03.2018 whereby the order of Assistant Commissioner and endorsement of Tahsildar dated 20.05.2016 were affirmed.
The learned Single judge by order dated 29.08.2019 set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner vide its order dated 29.08.2019.
12. Complaint dated KSDSS lodged a Complaint before the 23.10.2019 Assistant Commissioner, Bidar, stating that Ravindra Swamy belongs to 'Lingayat Community' and suppressing this he had obtained Beda Jangama (Scheduled Caste) certificate dated 27.08.2019.
13. 30.11.2019 The Assistant Commissioner forwarded the said complaint to the Deputy Commissioner.
14. Proceedings of Deputy The Deputy Commissioner, Bidar issued Commissioner dated show cause notice under section 4-F of the 18.12.2019. Act dated 18.12.2019 to Ravindra Swamy.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR
15. W.P.No.200002/2020 Filed by Ravindra Swamy challenging the Notice dated 18.12.2019 under section 4-F of the Act to Ravindra Swamy issued by the Deputy Commissioner calling in question the order of the Tahsildar dated 23.08.2019 and the Caste Certificate dated 27.08.2019.
The Single Judge quashed the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner (notice dated 18.12.2019) as non est vide its order dated 25.02.2022
16. W.A.No.200065/2022 As against such order of the Single Judge in W.P.No.200002/2020, the State preferred an appeal in W.A.No.200065/2022.
The Division Bench vide its order dated 13.01.2023 upheld the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under section 4-F of the Act and set aside the order of learned Single Judge dated 25.02.2022.
17. S.L.P.(C). Filled by Ravindra Swamy assailing the No.4672/2023 order passed in W.A.No.200065/2022 and the same was disposed off as withdrawn with a liberty to contest impugned notice.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR
18. R.P.No.200036/2023 Review petition was filed by Ravindra Swamy seeking to review the order passed in W.A.No.200065/2022.
Review Petition was rejected on the
ground that the Apex Court in
S.L.P.(c).No.4672/2023 had directed
petitioner to appear before the Deputy Commissioner to contest the impugned notice on merits, while, the review petitioner had overreached the order of the Apex Court by filing the Review Petition and costs of Rs.25,000/-. was imposed.
19. Proceedings before the The Deputy Commissioner set aside the Deputy Commissioner in order of the Tahsildar dated 23.08.2019 No.CasteVerification23/ and cancelled the Caste Certificate dated 2019-20 dated 27.08.2019 issued to Ravindra Swamy. 03.04.2023
20. W.P.No.201181/2023 Filed by Ravindra Swamy challenging the order dated 03.04.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner whereby the order of Tahsildar dated 23.08.2019 and Caste Certificate dated 27.08.2019 were annulled.
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR
15. It must be noticed that the petitioner Ravindra Swamy had sought for issuance of Caste Certificate that he belongs to 'Beda Jangama' at the first instance of 26.04.2016. As regards such application, on 20.05.2016 endorsement was issued by the Tahsildar rejecting the application as against which appeal filed before the Assistant Commissioner also came to be rejected on 08.05.2017 and revision preferred before the Deputy Commissioner under section 4-F of the Act was also rejected by order dated 23.03.2018. It is necessary to notice that immediately on 05.04.2018 fresh application was made by petitioner seeking for issuance of Caste Certificate once again.
16. W.P.No.201304/2018 came to be filed challenging the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in Revision Appeal No.REV/Appeal/R(Misc)-04/2017-18 dated 23.03.2018, which however came to be withdrawn reserving liberty to challenge the same separately.
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR
17. In the interregnum, the proceedings relating to the application dated 05.04.2018 was proceeded with. The said application came to be rejected by the Tahsildar on 13.04.2018 and pursuant to order in W.P.No.201303/2018 the claim was directed to be reconsidered by the Tahsildar. Once again claim having been rejected by order dated 01.04.2019, same was challenged in W.P.No.202022/2019 wherein, there was a direction for reconsideration. Eventually, on 23.08.2019 Tahsildar had passed an order to issue Caste Certificate that the petitioner belongs to 'Beda Jangama' and subsequently, Caste Certificate was issued dated 27.08.2019.
18. It is necessary to notice that the Revision Petition bearing No. REV/Appeal/R(MISC)-04/2017-18 was filed by Ravindra Swamy before the Deputy Commissioner wherein, the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 23.03.2018 dismissed the revision petition upholding the order of the Assistant Commissioner affirming the endorsement dated 20.05.2016 of the Tahsildar rejecting
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR issuance of Caste Certificate. The order in the Revision Petition dated 23.03.2018 was in subsistence and was set aside only by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.08.2019 in W.P. No. 200829/2019. If that were to be so, there could not have been a second set of proceedings without the earlier set of proceedings being set aside, whereby, the Deputy Commissioner in revision proceedings had rejected the case of the petitioner Ravindra Swamy. Even as per the order in W.P.No.200829/2019, the proceedings in Revision Petition viz., REV/Appeal/R(MISC)- 04/2017-18 dated 23.03.2018 was set aside with a direction to Tahsildar to reconsider the claim of the petitioner.
19. It must be noticed that as on such date, the order of Deputy Commissioner in Revision Appeal dated 23.03.2018 had attained finality was undisturbed and accordingly, no Caste Certificate could have been issued on 23.08.2019 as the rejection of application dated 26.04.2016 was a subsisting order. In fact, though W.P.
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR No. 200829/2019 was filed challenging the order dated 23.08.2018, the same was set aside only by order dated 29.08.2019 while the Caste Certificate on the second application was directed to be issued on 23.08.2019 which was impermissible as on such date.
20. The order in W.P. No. 200829/2019 had remitted the matter to the Tahsildar but proceedings of the Tahsildar which led to rejection of the application was never re-visited in the context of the proceedings by the revenue officials. Instead, the second application by Ravindra Swamy dated 05.04.2018 has had its own trajectory of litigation culminating in order passed in W.P. No. 201181/2023.
21. Such reconsideration ought to have been in the context of the petitioner's initial application for Caste Certificate dated 26.04.2016 and the proceedings of the local enquiry as regards such application. The attempt of the petitioner to make multiple applications for issuance of
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR Caste Certificate and initiate proceedings for fresh enquiry and exploit difference in local inspection reports so as to find an opportunity to obtain a direction for issuance of Caste Certificate, smacks of abuse of process.
22. The proceedings of the Tahsildar pursuant to the order passed in W.P. No.202022/2019, could not have proceeded only in the context of the fresh application of the petitioner, issuance of Caste Certificate on 05.04.2018 and the enquiry proceedings relating to such application while ignoring the enquiry proceedings relating to his earlier application dated 26.04.2016. It necessary to note Tahsildar's order CR-26/2018-19 does not refer to the earlier enquiry proceedings relating to the earlier application made in the year 2016. In fact, in the earlier proceedings of the Tahsildar and Panchanama dated 07.05.2016 and 05.08.2016 contains adverse findings against the petitioner including that he belonged to Hindu Lingayat Caste. Accordingly, the order of the Tahsildar dated 23.08.2019 ignoring the earlier enquiry proceedings
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR is even otherwise legally defective as being passed without taking note of relevant documents.
23. On 23.10.2019, the KSDSS addressed a representation to the Assistant Commissioner requesting for taking of appropriate action as regards the issuance of Caste Certificate dated 27.08.2019 to the petitioner under the category of 'Beda Jangama'.
24. The Assistant Commissioner having taken note of the complaint had resorted to a summary enquiry and concluded that it could not go into the complaint in detail at this stage, while however being of the opinion that prima facie the Caste Certificate had been issued without following the due procedure. The report in that regard was then made to the Deputy Commissioner on 30.11.2019.
25. Accordingly, it could be stated, that the Assistant Commissioner had merely prepared a report on the basis of the complaint and had forwarded it to the Deputy Commissioner for necessary action. The Deputy
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR Commissioner taking note of the said report had then resorted to a proceeding in Caste Scrutiny/CR-23/2019-
20.
26. Clearly, the order of the Deputy Commissioner itself made it clear that the proceedings were sought to be initiated under Section 4-F of the Act. Hence, it could be observed that the Deputy Commissioner had taken note of the report of the Assistant Commissioner and while registering a case in the form of revision proceedings had exercised suo motu power to examine records relating to order passed by the Tahsildar in issuing a Caste Certificate of 'Beda Jangama' Caste.
27. The Deputy Commissioner has initiated proceedings by issuance of notice on 18.12.2019 vide case No.CasteScrutiny/23/2019-20. The notice issued to the Ravindra Swamy and others clearly had specified that proceedings were initiated under Section 4-F of the Act. The said proceedings eventually culminated in order being
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR passed by the Deputy Commissioner in No.Caste Scrutiny/23/2019-20, whereby, the order of Tahsildar dated 23.08.2019 had been set aside and the Certificate issued on 27.08.2019 was set aside vide order dated 03.04.2023.
28. It is necessary to notice that, once the Deputy Commissioner issued notice on the basis of the complaint of the KSDSS, the petitioner-Ravindra Swamy had sought to assail the validity of the proceedings initially by filing W.P.No.200002/2020. The petition was filed challenging the notice dated 18.12.2019 issued by the Deputy Commissioner on the basis of the complaint made. The entirety of the proceedings were quashed as non est on the basis of various grounds vide order dated 25.02.2022. As against such order, W.A.No.200065/2022 came to be filed, which was disposed off as per the order dated 13.01.2023.
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR
29. The Division Bench in W.A.No.200065/2022 has upheld the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner exercised under Section 4-F of the Act, while specifically recording that there was no positive direction by orders in W.P. Nos.201303-201304/2018 and W.P. Nos. 202022/2019, to issue Caste Certificate (see para 21 and
24). Eventually, the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
30. It is relevant to notice that in W.A. No. 200065/2022 the disposal of W.P. No. 200829/2019 was never revealed leading to a finding in para-15 that the order of Deputy Commissioner in revision petition dated 23.03.2018 had attained finality.
31. It can be stated that by virtue of the order passed in W.A. No. 200065/2022, all jurisdictional issues stood concluded and this order of the Division Bench was eventually taken up before the Apex Court in Special Leave Appeal (Civil) No. 4672/2023 which came to be
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR dismissed as withdrawn leaving all contentions open with an observation that the concerned Authority would consider the show cause notice on its merits and in accordance with law. Subsequently, the Review Petition on W.A. No.200065/2022 was also rejected recording a finding that the proceedings were mala fide and further costs of Rs.25,000/- came to be imposed.
32. Multiple rounds of litigation at various stages has created a muddle of proceedings and petitioner appears making attempts to take advantage of such multiple proceedings by relying on stray observations made.
33. The Deputy Commissioner as per the order dated 03.04.2023 while setting aside the order of the Tahsildar dated 23.08.2019 as well as the Caste Certificate dated 27.08.2019, has passed a detailed order and findings of the said order are as follows:-
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR a. The report of the Revenue Inspector and Village Accountant in the form of a Panchanama is not prepared in an independent and dispassionate manner.
b. In the records of Senior Primary School of the petitioner (Ravindra Swamy) for the year 1981-1982, it is found that the Caste of the petitioner is declared as 'Lingayat'.
c. The joint Panchanama dated 05.08.2016 conducted by the Revenue Inspector and Deputy Director, Social Welfare Department observes that the petitioner belongs to the category of "Veerashaiva Lingayat". The Tahsildar, District Backward Classes Welfare Officer jointly have submitted a report in which it is pointed out that the petitioner belongs to Veerashaiva Lingayat Caste.
d. Petitioner has not sought for issuance of Caste Certificate as 'Beda Jangama' till the age of 37 years and if 'Caste is by birth', such belated application gives rise to doubts.
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR e. In the election to the Town Municipal Council in the year 2006, he has declared in the nomination form as 'Hindu Lingayat'.
f. The Deputy Commissioner concludes that the Tahsildar had wrongly interpreted the court orders and proceeded to grant the Certificate as 'Beda Jangama'.
34. It is necessary to note that the Deputy Commissioner has recorded findings on the following questions as well:
a. Whether the Panchanama by the Village Accountant and Revenue Inspector are legal?
It was opined that none of the Panchas to the Panchanama of 10.04.2018 belong to the Beda Jangama. The Panchanamas prepared are not prepared dispassionately and independently and the same is defective and not prepared as per the Rules nor are they prepared scientifically.
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR b. Whether the complainant has locus to file complaint as regards Caste Certificate issued to Ravindra Swamy?
It is observed that in terms of Section 4-F of the Act, an application can be made against the Caste Certificate issued by the Tahsildar or against the order of the Assistant Commissioner.
c. Whether the Deputy Commissioner has the power to entertain a revision petition under Section 4-F of the Act?
In terms of the observation in W.A.No. 200065/2022 at paras-28, 29 and 30 it is held that the Deputy Commissioner has power to entertain the Revision Petition.
d. Whether the Deputy Commissioner has the power to revise the order of the Tahsildar?
It is opined that in terms of Section 4-F of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner has power to examine the records relating to any decision taken or order passed by the Tahsildar under Section 4-A of the Act.
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR e. Can the power conferred on the Deputy Commissioner under Section 4-F of the Act be delegated to District Caste Verification Committee?
It is opined that the power of the District Caste Verification Committee is traceable to Section 4-C of the Act, while the power to revise an order is traceable to Section 4 of the Act and accordingly, power conferred on the Deputy Commissioner cannot be entrusted to the District Caste Verification Committee.
f. Whether the report of the Civil Rights Enforcement Directorate can be accepted?
It is observed that the report dated 06.08.2022 of the Superintendent of Police, Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement prepared by the Additional General of Police is an internal communication of the office.
35. Against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner 03.04.2023, W.P. No. 201181/2023 has been filed by Sri. Ravindra Swamy which has been
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR disposed off by order dated 11.10.2023. The essential findings on the basis of which the order of the Deputy Commissioner came to be set aside are as follows:-
a. The Deputy Commissioner ought not to have gone beyond the material on record and has not considered the material placed by the petitioner;
b. In exercise of the revision powers there could be no re-adjudication;
c. If the KSDSS was aggrieved by the grant of Caste Certificate, the remedy was to have filed an appeal under Section 4-B of the Act.
d. If the Deputy Commissioner was not in agreement with the order of the Tahsildar, matter ought to have been relegated to the Caste Verification Committee under Section 4- C(1) of the Act.
e. The observations made in W.P. No. 202022/2019 have not been taken note of.
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR f. Reliance by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent State on the order passed in E.P.03/1991 would not be of any assistance, as order passed in Election Petition is one in personam.
36. In light of the above, it is necessary to consider the questions raised by this Court in its interim order dated 08.07.2024 before adverting to the other points that call for adjudication which is extracted supra at para-10.
37. The questions that were raised are considered as follows:-
[A] What are the powers of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 4-F of the Karnataka SC/ST and other BC (Reservation of Appointments, ect.) Act, 1990 to reverse a Caste Certificate granted by the Tahsildar under Section 4-A of the Act of 1990?
38. The relevant provision of Section 4-F of the Act reads as follows:
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR "4F. Revision by Deputy Commissioner.-
(1)The Deputy Commissioner may at any time either suo motu 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.
(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."
39. Clearly, the Deputy Commissioner has power either suo motu or on an application made to examine the
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR records relating to decisions or order passed by the Tahsildar.
40. It is to be seen that the Deputy Commissioner has taken note of the report of the Assistant Commissioner dated 30.11.2019 while initiating the revision proceedings.
41. The complaint was given to the Assistant Commissioner by the KSDSS which has been gone into by the Assistant Commissioner who has forwarded a report to the Deputy Commissioner. The said report no doubt is detailed, but the Assistant Commissioner was of the view that he could not interfere with the order passed to issue Caste Certificate, though has opined that there has been procedural violation as regards obtaining of reports by Officials of the Social Welfare Department and reports of the local inspection and enquiry.
42. It is clear that the Assistant Commissioner has not embarked on the complaint of the KSDSS as an appeal but forwarded a report to the Deputy Commissioner.
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR
43. Such report is based on the stand of the Authorities such as Village Accountant, Revenue Inspector and Tahsildar. It could be stated that such report is an internal exercise relating to the procedure followed by the authorities referred to above. The Deputy Commissioner has taken note of it and initiated the revision proceedings which could fall into the category 'suo motu' exercise of power.
44. The contention that the petitioner Ravindra Swamy ought to have been heard when such report was prepared by the Assistant Commissioner is to be rejected. The report based on the procedure followed in issuing the Caste Certificate by the Tahsildar is in the nature of an internal communication to the Deputy Commissioner by the Assistant Commissioner, such exercise cannot be transformed into a quasi judicial exercise and at best is an administrative report. It was always within the discretion of the Deputy Commissioner to proceeded further or to
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR drop such proceedings. When the report given is open for the Deputy Commissioner to take recourse to any of the two courses of action referred above and when action is taken to proceed on the report, it would fall within the category of suo motu action by the Deputy Commissioner. It cannot be stated that petitioner is required to be heard even when such communication/report was given to the Deputy Commissioner.
45. Needless to state that the petitioner Ravindra Swamy has been given an opportunity once revision proceedings have been formally registered. Accordingly, contention of violation of principles of natural justice which is sought to be pressed as regards the report prepared by the Assistant Commissioner which is in the nature of a report on the administrative side to the Deputy Commissioner, requires to be rejected. It is also to be noticed that the statutory scheme does not mandate an opportunity of hearing while initiating suo motu action. Once suo motu action is initiated and Revision Petition is
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR registered, the statute mandates an opportunity of being heard as regards which stage there is no grievance of the petitioner.
46. The powers of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 4-F of the Act would extend to modifying, annulling, revising or remitting for reconsideration, while examining the records relating to an order passed by the Tahsildar. Though the description of power conferred upon the Deputy Commissioner is referred to as power of revision, description of power conferred under the heading of the provision does not by itself circumscribe the substantive power conferred under the body of the Section. The power conferred under Section 4-F of the Act is wide and can be invoked to modify, annul, revise or remit for reconsideration.
47. It is also necessary at this juncture to deal with the finding of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.201181/2023 who has opined that once the Deputy
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR Commissioner finds that the Certificate granted under Section 4-A of the Act suffers from an infirmity, then it would be the duty of the Deputy Commissioner to remand the matter back to the Tahsildar to conduct an enquiry afresh after providing opportunity to the parties. The powers of revision are wide enough and confer discretion as regards to its exercise as pointed out above and need not necessarily be exercised by remitting the matter for fresh consideration which is only one of the avenues available for exercise of revisional power by the Deputy Commissioner.
48. It is the further finding by the learned Single Judge that the Revisional Authority ought not to have itself adjudicated regarding the correctness of the Caste Certificate and ought to have relegated the parties to the Caste Verification Committee in terms of Section 4-C(1) of the Act.
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR Such finding recorded by the learned Single Judge culminating in the direction that the Caste Verification Committee, Bidar, is required to take final decision is also erroneous, as it does not fit within the scheme of the statutory provisions.
49. In the present case, the application produced at Annexure-'J' is an application for issuance of Caste Certificate for election purpose. Section 4-C (2) of the Act contemplates issuance of Validity Certificate by the Verification Committee in the context of obtaining a Certificate relating to admission to a course of study or in the case of appointment. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes And Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Rules, 1992 (for short 'the Rules') provides for issuance of validity certificate where appointment is concerned.
50. In the present case, the petitioner Ravindra Swamy had submitted 'Application for Caste Certificate for
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR Election Purpose' as per Annexure-'J'. The Certificate sought to be obtained relates to other than for education or employment and accordingly, there could not have been any direction to the Deputy Commissioner to relegate the parties to Verification Committee under Section 4-C of the Act.
51. It is to be noticed that the procedure prescribed under Section 4-F of the Act as regards revision proceedings are independent of procedure prescribed under Section 4-C of the Act for obtaining of Validity Certificate.
52. Section 4-C of the Act provides for obtaining of Validity Certificate or verification of Caste Certificate or income and Caste Certificate under section 4-C (2) of the Act by: (i) any person who has obtained a Caste Certificate; (ii) appointing authority; (iii) any authority making admission to a course of study in the university or any Educational Institution.
- 47 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR
53. The right to obtain a Validity Certificate is at the instance of persons; a person who has obtained a Certificate; the Appointing Authority or an Authority making an admission to a course of study in the University or an Educational Institution. Section 4-C of the Act providing for such right cannot curtail the power of revision by an Authority under Section 4-F of the Act. Accordingly, the procedure under Section 4-C of the Act could not act as a restriction of power conferred on the Deputy Commissioner to revise order of the Tahsildar.
54. Thus, it was erroneous to direct the Revisional Authority to have relegated the parties to obtain the Validity Certificate under Section 4-C of the Act.
[B] Whether the Deputy Commissioner has the power to reverse a Caste Certificate issued and declare that the person does not belong to Schedule Caste or is it incumbent upon him to direct the thasildar to conduct
- 48 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR further enquiry based on the criteria fixed by him? (to check)
55. It is the express power conferred under Section 4-F of the Act on the Deputy Commissioner who is vested with the power to modify, annul, revise or remit for reconsideration of an order passed by the Tahsildar under section 4-A of the Act. Section 4-A provides for issuance of Caste and Income and Caste Certificate while, Section 4-F of the Act confers power to annul a Caste Certificate as also revise or modify an order passed by the Tahsildar. As already discussed supra, powers available under section 4- F provides for various courses of action and there is no mandate that matter was required to be relegated for further enquiry to the Tahsildar.
[C] Whether the Deputy Commissioner is obliged to obtain report of the District Caste Verification Committee before considering a revision petition under section 4-F of the
- 49 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR Act of 1990 or whether enquiry conducted by him itself would be sufficient?
56. As discussed supra at para -52, the scope of Section 4-C of the Act relating to Verification Committee specifically provides under Section 4-C(2) of the Act as to who can obtain the validity certificate. It is only a person who has obtained a Caste Certificate or their appointing authority or authority making admission to a course of study in the University or Educational Institutions, who can make an application for issuance of validity certificate.
57. The power of revision under Section 4-F of the Act operates in a different sphere and cannot be curtailed by right to obtain a Validity Certificate under Section 4-C of the Act which operates in a different context (see discussion supra at para 53).
58. The other points that call for adjudication are as follows:
- 50 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR [D] Applicability of Karnataka SC/ST and Other BC (Reservation of appointments, Etc.) Act, 1990 and The Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes And Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Rules, 1992 Rules in the Present Factual Context.
59. The applicability of the Rules to the Caste Certificate obtained by the petitioner Ravindra Swamy had been raised in an intermediary round of litigation in W.A. No. 200065/2022, the contention regarding inapplicability has been rejected. At the time of oral arguments as well the question of applicability of the Act and Rule is no more pressed as an issue for adjudication.
[E] Whether a Jangama belonging to Veerashaiva Lingayat could claim benefits of Beda Jangama ?
60. Learned counsel Sir. C. Jagadish appearing for State would contend that the Court apart from examining the validity of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, may
- 51 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR also address the question as to whether a Jangam belonging to Veerashaiva Lingayat could claim to be a Beda Jangama in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Prabhudev Mallikarjunaiah v. Ramachandra Veerappa3. It is submitted that an answer to such a question would put the entire controversy at rest.
61. Accordingly, the broader question that requires consideration is as to whether a person belonging to the 'Jangama' subsect of Veerashaiva Lingayat could claim to be a 'Beda Jangama'.
62. The repeated attempts of the petitioner Ravindra Swamy resulting in multiple litigations, requires to be put a quietus to, especially in light of the order passed by the Apex Court in Prabhudev Mallikarjunaiah v. Ramachandra Veerappa4.
63. The 'Beda Jangama' is notified to be in terms of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders 3 (1996) 4 SCC 431 4 (1996) 4 SCC 431
- 52 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR (Amendment) Act, 1976, under Item 19 in relation to the State of Karnataka, Beda Jangama or Budaga Jangama are declared as Scheduled Castes. There are Jangamas in Lingayats and it is a frequent allegation that Jangamas who are a part of the Lingayat Sect claim certificates of Beda Jangama who are Scheduled Castes. It is in such context that the KSDSS has made complaint asserting that present factual matrix presents a typical case of a Jangama who is a part of Veerashaiva Lingayat claiming to be a Beda Jangama.
64. The allegation of abuse and misuse by the Veerashaiva Lingayats who are upper caste Hindus, of the benefits of reservation made available to Beda Jangamas who are considered to be of lowly caste is encapsulated in the complaint by KSDSS dated 23.10.2019 as follows:
"ಈ ೕಲ ಂಡ ಷಯ ೆ ಸಂಬಂ ದಂ ೆ, ಾಗ ೕಕರಣದ ರು ಾ ೆ ನಲು!ದ ತಳ$ಮಟ'ದ ಸಮು(ಾಯಗಳ )ೕಸ*ಾ ಯು ನ+ ,ೋಗು .ದು/, ೕರ0ೈವ-3ಂ ಾಯತ 'ಸಮು(ಾಯಗ ೆ 3ಂಗ4ೕ5ೆ 6ೕಡುವರು. ಗು7 ಗುಂ8ಾರುಗಳ39 ಪ; ೆ ಪ<ನ=ಾ ರ >ಾಡುವ<ದು, ಲಗ? ,ಾಗೂ ಶುಭ
- 53 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR ಾಯBಗಳನು? CೇರವDಸುವರು, PÉîªÀÅ (sic) ಜನರು ಪ; ಾDಗFಾ!ದು/, ಮಠದ39 (ಾ=ೋಹ ನ8ೆಸುವರು, ಸದDಯವD ೆ ದIಣವನು? (sic) 6ೕ7 ಸದD ಅವರ Kಾದಗ ೆ ನಮ=ಾ Dಸು ಾ.Lೆ. 3ಂ ಾಯತ =ಾ>ಾಜದ (sic) ಧಮB ಗುರುಗFಾ!ರು ಾ.Lೆ, ಪಂNಾಗ (sic) Cೋಡುವರು. Oಾವ<(ೇ ಶುಭ ಾಯBದ 4Cಾಂಕ PೇಳಪQ'ಯನು? ೆ ೆದು ,ೇಳR ಾ.Lೆ. ಸದD ಜCಾಂಗದವರು ಸಸS,ಾDOಾ!ದು/, ಇವರು >ಾಂಸ,ಾDOಾ!ರುವ<4ಲ9.
ಇವD ೆ ಗುರು, ಜಂಗಮ, =ಾU)ಗFೆಂದು ಕLೆಯು ಾ.Lೆ. ಇವರು ಮೂಲ ಪD+ಷ'ಗಳ (ಅಸVಶBರ) (sic) ಹಕು Wತು. ೊಳ$ಲು ವSವ Xತ ಷಡSಂತರ ನ8ೆಸು .ದು/, ಪD+ಷ' ಾ ಪQ'ಯ39 ಬರುವ 101 ಾ ಗಳ39 Yೇಡ ಜಂಗಮ/ ಬುಡಗ ಜಂಗಮರ ಪದವನು? ದೂರುಪZೕಗ ದೂ (sic) ಪ7 ೊಂಡು ಅಹBರಲ9ದ (ಸVಶB) ಜCಾಂಗದವLಾದ ಗುರು, =ಾU), ಜಂಗಮರು ಪD+ಷ' ಾ ಜCಾಂಗದ )ೕಸ*ಾ ಯನು? ಕಬ ಸಲು ಪ[ಯ ?ಸು .ರುವ<ದನು?
ೕದರ ದ3ತ ಸಂಘಟCೆಗಳR Lೊಧ (sic) ವSಕ.ಪ7ಸುತ.Pೆ."
Admittedly, the petitioner Ravindra Swamy is a Veerashaiva Lingayat as is evidenced from the following:-
a) The education records pertaining to Shri Swamy Kallayya who is the father of petitioner -
Ravindra Swamy states as follows:
- 54 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR
i) In the Transfer Certificate of B.Sc.
dated 18.02.1974, at point no.12 "Whether he belongs to Scheduled/ Backward/ Scheduled Tribes", is scored out. [Annexure A11 of W.A.No.200053/2024 in Compilation of Documents];
ii) In the Transfer Certificate of P.U.C. Science dated 17.06.1970, at point no.12 "Whether he belongs to Scheduled/ Backward/ Scheduled Tribes", is scored out. [Annexure A18 of W.A.No.200053/2024 in Compilation of Documents]
b) The education records pertaining to Swamy Shivanand and Brahmananda who are the brothers of petitioner - Ravindra Swamy states as follows:
i) The Registration Cum Admission Form and Register of Admission, marks the Caste as 'Lingayats' Swamy (Beda Jangam) [Annexure A21 & A22
- 55 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR of W.A.No.200053/2024 in Compilation of Documents]
ii) Admission Abstract at column No.9, religion and caste is shown as 'Lingayat' [Annexure A27 of W.A.No.200053/2024 in Compilation of Documents]
c) The education records pertaining to Ms.Umamaheshwari, who is the sister of petitioner - Ravindra Swamy states as follows:-
(i) The Admission Extract shows that the name in Column No.3 is Umamaheshwari and father's name is shown as Kallayya Swami and at Column No.6 of the Religion and Caste is shown as 'Lingayat' [Annexure-'A42' of W.A.No.200053/2024 in Compilation of Documents].
- 56 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR
(ii) In the Register of Admission, it is shown as 'Lingayat' [Annexure-'A43' of W.A.No.200053/2024 in Compilation of Documents].
d) The education records of petitioner - Ravindra Swamy states as follows:
i) Admission abstract at column No.9, religion and caste is shown as 'Lingayat' [Annexure 'A41' of W.A.No.200053/2024 in Compilation of Documents].
ii) In the application for admission to dated 09.06.1989, at point no.12 "Scheduled/ Tribes?" is scored out (--).
[Annexure A36 of W.A.No.200053/2024 in Compilation of Documents]
iii) Registration cum Admission Form at point 7 is entered as 'Lingayat' [Annexure A37 of W.A.No.200053/2024 in Compilation of Documents]
- 57 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR
iv) In the Transfer Certificate of Karnataka High School, Bidar, at point no.9 "Whether he belongs to Scheduled/ Backward/ Scheduled Tribes", is scored out (--). [Annexure A39 of W.A.No.200053/2024 in Compilation of Documents]
v) In the Register of Admission, the name of the petitioner Ravindra Swamy is at Admission No.245 and the in the religion column it is entered as Lingayat. [Annexure A40 of W.A.No.200053/2024 in Compilation of Documents]
65. The documents which do find entry of caste as Beda Jangama exclusively as regards the petitioner Ravindra Swamy are subsequent in point of time as compared to the documents referred to above.
66. The question would then arise whether the petitioner Ravindra Swamy who belongs to Lingayat could seek benefit of reservation by obtaining certificate of Beda
- 58 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR Jangama caste. In E.P. No. 03/1991 disposed off on 27.10.1994 between Prabhudev Malikarjunaiah and Ramachandra Veerappa and Another, the rejection of nomination form on the ground that the candidate belongs to Jangama caste of Veerashaiva Community and accordingly, his reliance on a Caste Certificate indicating him to be a Beda Jangama was called in question.
67. Upon pleadings having been filed in the context of the contentions raised in the Caste Certificate 'Issue No.5' came to be framed which reads as follows:
"5. Whether the Certificate as to the caste of the petitioner as belonging to Scheduled Caste produced before the Election Officer could have been acted upon as valid?"
68. While considering issue No.4 and 5, the Court has encapsulated the controversy as follows:-
"The main controversy is with regard to the question as to whether petitioner belongs to beda jangama caste or he is a Lingayat Jangama".
- 59 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR During the course of the trial, in order to throw light on the controversy, Sri. K. S. Singh the then consultant to Government of India, Department of Culture and Anthropology was examined as R.W.4, he has commented on extract of a report Ex.R-21(b) which reads as follows:
"There are nomadic Budaga or Beda Jangamas in Karnataka, especially in Bidar, Gulbarga, Raichur and Bellary Districts, which border Andhra Pradesh on the Northern side. They are entirely different from the Jangama Sub-group of the Lingayats, numerically dominant community in Karnataka. They are notified as Beda Jangam and Budga Jangam in Karnataka. According to the 1981 census, their population is 3035. Although Telugu is their mother tongue, they are also well versed in Kannada. Traditionally, they officiate as priests for some of the Holeya and Madiga communities. In addition, they are religious medicants and soothsayers and some of them are engaged as wage labourers. According to the 1981 census, 31.16 per cent of them are returned as workers (48.10 per cent males and 21.59 per cent females). Out of them, 32.52 per cent are returned as cultivators, 30.27 per cent as agricultural labourers and 5.81 per cent as engaged in live stock, forestry, etc; 5.15 per cent of the workers are engaged in
- 60 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR mining and quarrying and the remaining 26.25 per cent are engaged in various other services. Their literacy rate is 27.61 per cent. The male and female literacy rates are 37.27 per cent and 17.54 per cent, respectively (1981 census).
..... R.W.4 has published 50 books and 300 papers on many subjects including anthropology and has given international awards for his work. R.W.4 has stated that he entirely stands by what is stated in Ex.R-21
(b). In his cross-examination, he has stated that because Government of India notification mentions Beda Jangam and Gudga Jangam as Scheduled Caste and also because his Scholars have reported that Lingayat Jangamas are different, he says that he agrees with Para 5 of Ex.R2, the Government Circular to the effect that Jangam which is a sub-caste of Lingayat Community is not a caste declared as Scheduled Caste."
69. Further, the Court has made the following observations which are of relevance are as follows:
".... The evidence of R.Ws.4 and 5 coupled with Ex.R-21(d) would indicate that Jangama sub-group of Lingayat community which is a dominant community in this State is quite different from Beda and Budga Jangam which is declared as Scheduled Caste. It would appear that there has
- 61 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR been an attempt by people belonging to Jangam sub-group of Lingayath to claim themselves as Beda Jangam and to seek the benefit reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. It is for that reason, the government has issued a Circular cautioning the prescribed officers which issuing Caste Certificates. At any rate, petitioner in this case has not adduced any evidence to show that the traditions and customs followed by his family are the same as those of Beda Jangamas except stating that P.W.2 does religious begging, that too on some special occasion, no other evidence regarding the traditions and customs which are followed by them is placed on record.
The caste which is notified to be a scheduled caste is Beda Jangam/ Budaga Jangam. In order to establish that he belongs to scheduled caste, the petitioner has to positively establish that he belongs to Beda jangam caste as claimed by him. In Bhaiya Lal -vs- Harikishan Singh and Ors. (AIR 1965 SC 1557) it has been held that, in order to determine whether particular caste is a scheduled caste, one has to look at the published notification issued by President in that behalf, that a plea that though the appellant is not a Chamar as such, he can claim the same status by reason of the fact that he belongs to Dohar caste which is a sub-sect
- 62 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR of the Chamar caste, cannot be accepted and that an enquiry of that kind would not be permissible.
... In the present case the material not only shows that the petitioner and his relatives described themselves as Lingayaths but they also have described their sub-sects as Jangams. Jangam is a sub-sect of Lingayath. If the petitioner has established that he actually belong to Beda Jangam caste and has only adopted Veerashaiva faith then the above decision might have been of help to him."
The above observations would indicate that scheduled castes and scheduled tribes are not themselves any castes and that various castes and groups come in that category. But the castes which come within the group of scheduled caste are those which are found to be the lowliest and which are notified by the President. As already pointed out Jangam caste to which petitioner appears to belong cannot be considered to be the lowliest and the 'Beda Jangam' included in the list of scheduled castes cannot refer to them. At any rate for the purpose of this petition it is not sufficient for the petitioner to establish that he belongs to Jangam caste and that Jangamas and Beda Jangamas are same. This Court cannot try to find out whether Jangam caste is equivalent to Beda Jangam caste
- 63 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR and on that ground hold that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste. On the material on record it cannot be said that the petitioner has established positively that he belongs to Beda Jangam Caste...
70. In the "Mysore A Gazetteer Complied For Government by B. Lewis Rice Vol I, Mysore in General", which materials were filed in Court by the counsel, the Lingayita is defined as follows:-
"Lingayita.- The priestly orders among these are the A'radhya (11,618), Gurusthala (12,129), Jangam (38,215) and Vir S'aiva (956). The A'radhya are a sect of Lingayit Brahmanas. They assume the janivara or sacred thread, but call it s'ivadara. The Gurusthala are a class of Jangama who take the place of gurus in performing certain domestic ceremonies for which the gurus do not attend. The Jangama are priests chiefly of the Panchama Banajiga and Devanga. They are divided into Charanti and Virakta, the former being under a vow of celibacy. The Jangama derive their name especially from the portable or jangama linga worn on the person (which indeed is characteristic of all Lingayits) as distinguished from the sthavira or fixed linga of the temples, and also perhaps from
- 64 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR their being itinerant. In addition to the linga they wear a necklace of beads called rudraksha, and smear their whole bodies with the ashes of cow- dung. A jangam will not permit himself to be touched by any person who does not wear the linga. They wander about and subsist on charity, and their children generally adopt the same profession."
(emphasis supplied)
71. In 'People of India National Series Volume II - the Scheduled Castes' by K.S.Singh5, appendix I provides for "A restudy of the Beda Jangam", which material was filed in Court by the counsel, the portion of extractions which are of relevance are as follows:
"Following a complaint that the Jangama, the uppercrust of the Lingayat, had passed themselves off as Beda Jangam in order to corner the benefits of the scheduled castes, a fresh study was conducted of the Beda Jangam.5
Anthropological Survey of India - Oxford University Press
- 65 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR In karnataka the nomadic Budaga or Beda Jagam are presently living in the districts of Bidar, Gulbarga, Raichur and Bellary, and their population, according to the 1981 census, is 3035. Traditionally officiating priests for some of the Holeya and Madiga communities, they are religious mendicants, soothsayers, and wage labourers as well. Their literacy rate is 27.61 per cent (1981 census). The Beda Jangam are entirely different from the Jangam group of Lingayat, a numerically dominant community in Karnataka.
The population of the Beda/ Budaga Jangam which was 16 during the 1961 census, sharply increased to 455 by 1971 and to 27,994 in 1981. These sudden increases between 1971 and 1981 are not consistent with the natural population growth pattern in those districts. Also, between 1971 and 1981, area restrictions were removed as far as this community was concerned.
The Beda Jangam as well as the Mala Jangam categories have been heavily infiltrated by the Jangam of the Veerashaiva/ Lingayat group. The stigma of untouchability does not attach to these Jangam as it does to the Beda Jangam/ Mala Jangam. The Jangam are also vegetarian. They
- 66 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR treat some communities as untouchables, thus perpetuating caste divisions. Yet the irony is that some of them pass themselves off as Beda Jangam in order to avail the benefits of protective discrimination given to the scheduled castes. These Jangam even claim that the Kannada word Beda affixed to their community name Jangam, means to beg, and that seeking alms is their age- old practice. This goes against the traditional meaning in the Kannada language of the root word beda which means hunter, and which also means not needed."
(emphasis supplied)
72. It is necessary to note that K.S.Singh whose publication is referred to above was examined in E.P.No.3/1991 (supra).
73. From the above, it is clear that the Jangamas of the 'Veerasahiva Lingayat' belong to the priestly class and are essentially vegetarian in diet whereas the 'Beda Jangama' are lower in the hierarchy of Castes and are treated as untouchables.
- 67 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR
74. It is in such context that the claims of Jangamas who belong to the Lingayat caste to be Beda Jangamas who belong to Scheduled Caste requires close scrutiny.
75. A 'Jangama Lingayat' cannot be construed to be a 'Beda Jangama'. This also flows from the dictum of the Apex Court that Courts cannot give any declaration that the status of Scheduled Castes could be extended to synonymous names of castes found in the precedential notifications issued under Article 341 of the Constitution of India. The observation of the Apex Court while affirming the order passed in E.P. No. 03/1991 (supra) in Para 3 and 4 in the case of Prabhudev Mallikarjunaiah v. Ramachandra Veerappa6, is of relevance and is extracted below:
3. It is seen that under Article 341(1) of the Constitution, the Presidential Notification is conclusive subject to the amendment under 6 (1996) 4 SCC 431
- 68 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR clause (2) of Article 341. In 1976, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) Act had been made. Admittedly, under Item 19, in relation to the State of Karnataka, Beda Jangamma or Budaga Jangamma are declared as Scheduled Castes. As a fact, the finding recorded by the High Court is that the appellant belongs to Veerashiva Lingayath community and he is a Jangamma. The question, therefore, is: whether Veerashiva Lingayath would be considered to be a Scheduled Caste (Beda Jangamma) within the notification issued by the President? It is settled law that the courts cannot give any declaration that the status with synonymous names of castes claimed by the party is conformable to the names specified in the Presidential Notification issued under Article 341 of the Constitution.
4. The finding recorded by the High Court after exhaustive consideration of evidence including the judgment of the civil court on which strong reliance was placed, is that the appellant is a Veerashiva Lingayath Jangamma and that, therefore, he cannot be considered to be a Beda Jangamma or Budaga Jangamma. It is true that the appellant has placed reliance on the Census Report prepared by the Census Department of the
- 69 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR State of Karnataka and also the notification issued by the Legislative Department. That evidence also was considered and for valid and diverse reasons, with which we agree, the same was rightly rejected."
76. Accordingly, it is clear that even taking note of the position of law that the Court cannot widen the interpretation of the notification of castes detailed as scheduled castes, there could be no stretching of the caste 'Beda Jangama' or 'Budaga Jangama' to include the Jangama belonging to veerashaiva lingayat community.
77. Thus, once material on record would indicate that the petitioner Ravindra Swamy to be a 'Lingayat', the question of him claiming the benefit of 'Beda Jangama' does not arise. Mere grant of 'Beda Jangama' Certificate to a member of the family would not permit issuance of certificate to other claimant if they are not entitled as they belong to 'Veerashaiva Lingayat' Community.
- 70 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB WA No. 200053 of 2024 C/W WA No. 200162 of 2024 WA.CROB No. 200001 of 2024 HC-KAR
78. Accordingly, the following ORDER:
i) W.A.No.200053/2024 is allowed and consequently, the order dated 11.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.201181/2023 is set aside;
ii) W.A.No.200162/2024 is allowed ;
iii) W.A.CROB No.200001/2024 is dismissed in light of setting aside of the order of learned Single Judge in W.P.No.201181/2023.
Sd/-
(S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE VGR/VP