Bangalore District Court
Kum.Lavanya vs The Karnataka Secondary on 12 July, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XX ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE(CCH.32), BANGALORE CITY
Present:
Sri. V.B.Suryavanshi, B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl.),
XX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore
DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF JULY, 2016
O.S.No.749/2015
Plaintiff: Kum.Lavanya,
D/o Sri Ramesh,
Aged about 18 years,
R/at No.3, 1st Main Road,
Mohankumarnagar,
Yeshwanthapura Post,
Bangalore-560 022.
(by-Sri.John Bosco A, Adv)
/VS/
Defendants: 1. The Karnataka Secondary
Education Examination Board,
Malleshwaram, Bangalore.
2. The Commissioner of Public
Instructions, Office of the
Commissioner of Public
Instructions, K.R.Circle,
Bangalore-560 001.
3. The Director,
Secondary Education,
Office of the Commissioner of
Public Instructions, K.R.Circle,
Bangalore-560 001.
4. The Deputy Director of Public
Instructions, Bangalore North,
K.G.Road, Bangalore.
5. The ead Master, BBMP,
High School for Girls, Gokula,
H.M.T.Layout Mathikere,
Bangalore-560 054.
(Sri Kiran Pradeep,Adv.)
Date of Institution of the
21.01.2015
suit
Nature of the suit Declaration
Date of commencement
08.06.2016
of recording of evidence
Date on which Judgment 12.07.2016
pronounced
Total Duration Years Months Days
01 05 21
JUDGEMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for declaration declaring that, the plaintiff belongs to 'Ganiga Shetty' instead of 'Vakkaliga' caste.
2. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff was studying at BBMP Composite Junior College, Gokula, Bangalore and she belongs to 'Ganiga Shety' caste and in the SSLC Transfer Certificate the caste has been wrongly entered as 'Vokkaliga' since the wrong entry made in the SSLC Transfer Certificate and the same was continued in the PUC record as 'Vokkaliga'. The plaintiff's elder brother by name R.Lakshmanan studied at Ananda Association School, Yeshwanthpura, Bangalore and the School authority issued the Transfer Certificate and in the Transfer Certificate, the school authority mentioned the caste of the plaintiff's brother by name Lakshmana as 'Ganiga', hence, to declare that, the plaintiff belong to Ganiga caste, hence the plaintiff filed this suit for declaration.
2(a). The plaintiff's younger sister by name Leelavathi studied at BBMP school for girls at Mathikere, Bangalore, she studied upto SSLC and Transfer Certificate issued by the school authority mentioned the caste of the plaintiff's sister by as 'Ganiga Shetty' 2(b). The plaintiff presently studying in the 1st year B.Com., degree at HKES SUP college of Arts & Commerce, Bangalore and the college authority required the caste certificate the plaintiff is unable to get the same from the concerned department.
2(c). The plaintiff at the time of admission to 8th standard in the year 2009-2010 by over sight the caste has been mentioned as 'Vokkaliga' instead of 'Ganiga Shetty' and also the Transfer Certificate issued by the BBMP Composite Junior College and the plaintiff's caste has been wrongly mentioned as 'Vokkaliga', hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit against the defendants for declaration declaring that, she belongs to 'Ganiga Shetty' caste instead of 'Vokkaliga'.
3. On the contrary, the defendants 1 to 4 have filed their written statement and contended that, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and this court has no jurisdiction to declare the change of caste of the plaintiff. As per the circular issued by the Commissioner of Education Department, there is no provision to change the caste of the student, in school records. Hence, prays for dismissal of the suit for non-joinder of necessary parties and there is no cause of action.
4. On the rival pleadings of the both the parties, the following issues have been framed by the court on 16.02.2016:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is originally belongs to Gaaniga shetty community and S.S.L.C transfer certificate and her caste has been shown as Vokkaliga?
2. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff in the present form is maintainable?
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs sought for?
4. What order or decree?
5. The plaintiff herself has been examined as PW.1 and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and plaintiff's side evidence closed. On behalf of the defendants, no evidence is produced.
6. Heard the arguments.
7. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 : In the Negative
Issue No 2 : In the Affirmative
Issue No 3 : In the Negative
Issue No 4 : As per final order
for the following
REASONS
8. Issue Nos.1 & 2: Since, these issues
being interconnected and interlinked to each other, to avoid repetition of facts and evidence, I have taken these issues together for common consideration.
9. This is the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for declaration declaring that, the plaintiff belongs to 'Ganiga Shetty' and accordingly, she seeking direction to the concerned authority.
10. It is the specific assertion of the plaintiff that, since she belongs to 'Ganiga Shetty' and in her SSLC Transfer certificate, the plaintiff's caste wrongly entered as 'Vokkaliga' since wrong entry made in the Transfer certificate and the same was continued in the PUC record.
11. On the contrary, the defendants have denied the case of the plaintiff and contended that, the suit of the plaintiff is not at all maintainable.
12. The learned counsel for the defendants has relied on the ruling reported in (1997)3 Supreme Court Cases 542, in State of Tamilnadu & others /vs/ A.Guruswamy, wherein their lordships have held that, Whether a particular community is a SC or ST in view of presidential declaration under Article 341 and 342, the jurisdiction of civil court to decide the said question impliedly ousted.
Further, their lordships also held that, the only question is whether the suit is maintainable, by operation of Sec.9 of CPC, a suit of civil nature cognizance of which is expressly or by implication excluded, cannot be tried by any civil court. The declaration of the President of India, under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, to a State, that a particular caste or tribe as defined in Article 366(24) or (25) respectively, is conclusive subject to an amendment by Parliament under Articles 341(2) and 342(2) of the Constitution. By necessary implication, the jurisdiction of the civil court to take cognizance of and give a declaration stands prohibited.
13. Moreover, the learned counsel for the defendants also relied on reported judgment Dt.14.02.2014 in Dharmanna s/o Melagineppa Sharegar /vs/ D.C and others, wherein their lordships have also held that, the jurisdiction of the civil court is implied by barred and the civil court cannot take cognizance of such a suit.
14. Moreover, the defendants have also relied on the circular issued by the Government of Karnataka Dt.26.10.2015.
15. So, keeping in mind the dictum laid down by their lordships in the supra ruling and also the circular, wherein this court has no jurisdiction to deal with the facts of the case. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff itself is not maintainable. Accordingly, I answer issue No.1 in the Negative and issue No. 2 in the Affirmative.
16. Issue No.3: In view of finding on issue No.1, the plaintiff is not entitled for the reliefs sought for. Accordingly, I answer this issue in the Negative.
17. Issue No.4: In view of finding on issue No.3, I proceed to pass the following ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
Looking to the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. .
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the judgment writer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, this the 12th day of July, 2016) ( V.B.SURYAVANSHI ) XX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the Plaintiff :
PW.1 : Kum.Lavanya List of documents marked for the Plaintiff:
Ex.P1 Transfer certificate Ex.P2 Identity card Ex.P3 & 4 Transfer certificates (2) Ex.P5 Copy of the legal notice Ex.P5(a) Postal receipt Ex.P5(b) Postal acknowledgement Ex.P6 Reply
Witnesses examined for the defendants: nil Documents marked for the defendants: nil ( V.B.Suryavanshi ) XX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY Judgment pronounced in the open court. (vide separate judgment) Order The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
Looking to the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. .
Draw decree accordingly XX ACC & SJ,B'lore