Karnataka High Court
The Chief Secretary vs Sri C T Puttaraju on 24 February, 2022
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
R.S.A.No.1475/2016(DEC)
BETWEEN:
1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE.
2. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER,
SOMWARPET TALUK,
SOMWARPET,
KODAGU DISTRICT.
3. THE HEAD MASTER,
GOVERNMENT MODEL
PRIMARY SCHOOL,
CHIKKATHUR VILLAGE,
KUSHALNAGAR, SOMWARPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT.
4. THE HEAD MASTER,
GOVERNMENT MODEL,
PRIMARY SCHOOL,
KUDUMAGALOR, SOMWARPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT.
APPELLANTS 1 TO 4 REPRESENTED BY
STATE THROUGH GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. B.G.NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA.)
2
AND:
1. SRI. C.T.PUTTARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
S/O THIMMAIAH,
KUSHALNAGAR HOBLI,
SOMWARPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT.
2. THE VICE PRINCIPAL,
BSS GOVERNMENT PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE,
SECONDARY SECTION,
KONANOOR ARAKALGUD TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANURADHA.S.K., ADV., FOR R-1;
NOTICE TO R-2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER
DATED:05.01.2022)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.09.2015 PASSED IN
R.A.No.44/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AT MADIKERI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.02.2014 PASSED IN
OS No.67/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC., AT SOMWARPET.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 22.02.2022, COMING ON FOR
PROUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. The State and its sub-ordinates i.e., defendants 1 to 4 are in second appeal.
3
2. The plaintiff, who is respondent No.1 in this second appeal, filed a suit for declaration to declare that he belonged to the caste of "Nayaka" and for a direction to defendants 4 to 6, who were the Head Masters of the Schools in which he had studied, to rectify his caste in the school records to indicate that he belonged to the caste of "Nayaka".
3. It was his case that he was admitted to the schools i.e., third to fifth defendants up to SSLC and while admitting him, his grandfather, who was an agriculturist and uneducated, had given all the particulars required for his admission, but his caste was wrongly entered as a "Hindu Parivara Nayaka (Bestaru)", instead of Nayaka and that mistake had continued in the school records.
4. He stated that the Tahsidlar, Mudigere had issued a caste certificate on 23.12.2009 whereby he had certified that he belonged to the caste of "Nayaka". He stated that he was born and brought up in the culture and customs of Nayaka community and was following their religious principles. He stated that his father, grandmother and grandfather, all belonged to "Nayaka" caste. He stated that when he 4 approached defendants 3 to 5 with a request to rectify the error regarding his caste in the school records, he was informed that they could not do so without a decree of the Civil Court. He, therefore, stated that after issuance of statutory notice, he had preferred the suit.
5. Defendants 1 to 4 entered appearance through the Government Pleader. The 5th defendant had remained absent and was placed ex parte.
6. The 2nd defendant filed a written statement which was adopted by defendants 1, 3 and 4. In the said written statement, it was contended that having regard to the nature of the relief sought for by the plaintiff, the Civil Court could not grant the relief and the suit was liable to be dismissed. It was stated that the parents of the plaintiff themselves had informed the authorities that they belonged to "Hindu Parivara Nayaka (Bestaru)" and accordingly, an entry was made in the school records and in this view of the matter, no grievance could be raised by the plaintiff.
7. The Trial Court considered the evidence adduced by the plaintiff and took note of Ex.P4, which was a caste certificate 5 issued to the plaintiff's father by the Tahsildar, in which, it was stated that the plaintiff's father belonged to "Nayaka" caste, which came within the category of scheduled caste. The Trial Court also took note of Ex.P12, which was a caste certificate issued to the plaintiff by the Tahsildar, in which it was stated that he belonged to the caste of "Nayaka".
8. The Trial Court, on consideration of these two caste certificates came to the conclusion that the plaintiff did belong to "Nayaka" caste as it was certified by the competent authority namely the Tahsildar, who had issued the certificates. The Trial Court, therefore, concluded that the plaintiff's case had been wrongly entered in the school records as "Hindu Parivara Nayaka (Bestaru)". The Trial Court accordingly decreed the suit and held that in pursuance of the caste certificates issued by the Tahsildar, the plaintiff was declared to be belonging to "Nayaka" caste. A direction was also issued to the school authorities to rectify the caste of the plaintiff in the school records by making necessary corrections and indicating that he belonged to "Nayaka" caste, instead of "Hindu Parivara Nayaka (Bestaru)". 6
9. Being aggrieved, defendants 1 to 4 preferred a regular appeal.
10. The Appellate Court, on re-assessing the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the Trial Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff belonged to "Nayaka" caste, since the competent authority i.e., the Tahsildar had himself issued a caste certificate to the plaintiff and his father, both of which stated that they belonged "Nayaka" caste. The Appellate Court relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of SMT.MARIYAMMA Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL & OTHERS - (2010) 4 KANT. LJ. 152, in which, it had been held that if the competent authority had already indicated the caste of the plaintiff, the suit would be limited only insofar as accepting the said claim and declaring the caste as per the said document and issuing a consequential order to carry out necessary corrections.
11. It is against these concurring judgments, the present second appeal has been preferred.
7
12. This Court, while admitting the appeal, has framed the following substantial questions of law:
"i) Whether the Court below erred in not noticing that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in declaring the person's caste in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of this Court?
ii) Whether the trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court have committed a serious error in rectifying the caste of the 1st respondent in spite of there being a specific prohibition under Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 and thus, the judgments are illegal and perverse?"
13. Smt.Namitha Mahesh, learned Additional Government Advocate contended that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in view of the elaborate mechanism prescribed under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment, etc.,) Act, 1990 (for short, 'the Act'). She contended that jurisdiction of both the Courts stood impliedly barred and therefore, the decrees could not be sustained.
8
14. In the judgment pronounced today in RSA.336/2015, it has been held that a suit which is filed seeking for a direction to rectify the entries in the school records relating to the caste of the plaintiff, would not come within the bar prescribed under Section 6B of the Act.
15. In fact, this Court in Mariyamma's case cited supra has also stated that where the plaintiff relied on the documents issued by the competent authority indicating the caste of the plaintiff, in such an event, the suit would be limited insofar as the acceptance of said document and declaring the caste as per the document and thereafter for issuing a mandatory injunction to the school authorities to carry out necessary corrections.
16. In the light of these two judgments, the contention of the Smt.Namitha Mahesh cannot be accepted as it is found that the plaintiff was essentially seeking for rectifying the entries in the school records on the basis of a caste certificate which had been issued by the Tahsildar, who was the competent authority to issue such certificates. 9
17. In the instant case, the Trial Court, on the basis of the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar in favour of plaintiff's father - Ex.P4 and also the caste certificate issued in favour of the plaintiff - Ex.P12, has issued a declaration, not independently, but solely relying upon the case certificate issued by the Tahsildar and it has specifically stated that pursuant to the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar, the plaintiff was being declared to belong to "Nayaka" caste. The Trial Court, has thereafter, issued a consequential direction to rectify the caste of the plaintiff in the school records to indicate that he belonged to "Nayaka" caste instead of "Hindu Parivara Nayaka (Bestaru)".
18. The Appellate Court has also affirmed this finding of fact and has held that the Trial Court has not independently determined the caste of the plaintiff but has merely followed the declaration of the caste by the Tahsildar, who is, admittedly, the competent authority to issue the caste certificate.
19. It is, therefore, clear that the entire case of the plaintiff was on the basis of the caste certificate already issued in his 10 favour by the Tahsildar and he was not seeking for a declaration of his caste status independently at the hands of the Civil Court. In the light of the law declared as per the decisions stated above, it follows that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not barred to entertain the suit.
20. It is to be stated here that the Tahsildar, on receipt of an application under the Act, would cause an enquiry to be conducted and examine all the records furnished to him and thereafter, only on being satisfied about the authenticity of the material produced before him, would proceed to issue a caste certificate indicating the caste of the applicant.
21. In the instant case, admittedly, the said exercise was undertaken not only in respect of the plaintiff, but also his father and the Tahsildar had acknowledged that both of them belonged to "Nayaka" caste and issued a caste certificate to that effect.
22. Both the Courts have merely accepted the said fact and have issued a consequential direction to the authorities to make necessary corrections in the school records. I find no error in the judgments of both the Courts. I, therefore, 11 answer the substantial questions of law in favour of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PKS