Karnataka High Court
The Chief Secretary vs M T Thimmaiah 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.336/2015(DEC)
BETWEEN:
1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE -560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
TUMKUR - 572 102.
3. THE HEAD MASTER,
GOVERNMENT HIGHER PRIMARY
SCHOOL, K.MAVINAHALLI VILLAGE,
TURUVEKERE TALUK - 572 227.
4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER,
TURUVEKERE - 572 227.
5. THE HEAD MASTER,
GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL,
ALADAHALLI,
TURUVEKERE TALUK - 572 227.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. B.G.NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA.)
AND:
M.T.THIMMAIAH,
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH,
2
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/O K.MAVINAHALLI VILLAGE,
KANATHUR POST,
DABBEGHATTA HOBLI,
TURUVEKERE TALUK - 572 227.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PAWAN KUMAR S., ADV., FOR
SRI.M.N.MADHUSUDHAN, ADV.)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC.,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:17.04.2013
PASSED IN R.A.No.11/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, AT
TURUVEKERE, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.01.2013 PASSED IN
OS.No.134/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, TURUVEKERE.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 15.02.2022, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. The State and its sub-ordinates, who were the defendants in the suit OS.No.134/2012, have preferred this second appeal.
2. The plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that in all his school records, his caste was required to be mentioned as Adi-Dravida instead of Adi-Karnataka. He sought for a 3 direction to the defendants to enter his caste in the school records as Adi-Dravida instead of Adi-Karnataka.
3. It was his case that he belonged to Adi-Dravida caste, which was a schedule caste community, however, at the time of admission in the Primary School, his caste was mentioned as Adi-Karnataka, instead of Adi-Dravida and the said mistake had crept in because his parents were illiterate and innocent persons and the concerned Master, who was working at that point of time, had wrongly entered the caste. It was stated that the very same mistake was continued right from primary school to SSLC in all his school records and hence, it was necessary for rectification of the same.
4. It was stated that about a month prior to the filing of suit, his father, who was working as an Attender in the Survey Department, had passed away and after his death, he had approached the authorities for providing him with an employment on compassionate ground. He produced all the relevant documents and at that point of time, it came to his notice that his caste had been shown as Adi-Karnataka, instead of Adi-Dravida in the school records and immediately 4 he had approached the defendants to effect necessary changes in the caste column, but he was informed that they could not do so, until he obtains a decree and hence, issued a legal notice and had thereafter filed the suit.
5. It was thus his specific case that he belonged to Adi- Dravida caste, but the same had been wrongly entered in the school records as Adi-Karnataka and therefore, that was required to be rectified.
6. Defendants 3 and 5, who were the Head Masters of the Primary School and the High School, in which the plaintiff studied, filed a written statement. The 3rd defendant stated that the caste of the plaintiff had been entered as Adi- Karnataka and in the year 1998, the plaintiff had produced a caste certificate and sought for change of his caste in the school records and the then Head Master Gangaiah had accepted the said request and had made the necessary changes.
7. The 5th defendant, however, stated that in their school records, the caste of the plaintiff was entered as Adi-Dravida 5 and the same had been entered on the basis of the Transfer Certificate issued by the 3rd defendant.
8. It may be pertinent to state here that neither of the defendants contended that the plaintiff did not belong to Adi- Dravida caste.
9. The Trial Court, on consideration of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had not been able to establish that he belonged to Adi-Dravida caste. The Trial Court also went on to hold that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the decision rendered by this court in the case of S.P.Mahadevappa Vs. Smt.Suma Vasanth and Others - 2011(1) AIR Kar. 324. The Trial Court accordingly dismissed the suit.
10. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal.
11. In the appeal, by consent, three documents were marked, which were the caste certificates relating to the plaintiffs' two children, in which, their caste had been mentioned as Adi-Dravida.
6
12. The Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence, especially that of the 3rd defendant, who had admitted in the cross-examination that the plaintiff did belong to Adi-Dravida caste, proceeded to come to the conclusion that the plaintiff did in fact belong to Adi-Dravida caste and the said fact had been confirmed by the fact that his children's caste was also stated as Adi-Dravida in their caste certificates.
13. The Appellate Court also came to the conclusion that the decision relied upon by the Trial Court to the effect that the Civil court had no jurisdiction was inapplicable since the appellant was not challenging the validity of the caste certificate or for a declaration of his caste to belong to a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. The Appellate Court accordingly allowed the appeal and decreed the suit.
14. It is against these two divergent judgments, the present second appeal has been preferred.
15. Smt.B.G.Namitha Mahesh, learned Additional Government Advocate contended that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is her specific case that the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other 7 Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment, etc.) Act, 1990 (for short, "the Act"), specifically bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and the Civil Court could not have therefore entertained the suit. It is her contention that there is a full fledged mechanism provided under the Act for verification of the caste and in view of the said provisions, the Civil Court could not embark upon a trial to decide as to which caste the plaintiff belongs. She relied upon the following citations:
i) The Government of Karnataka, rep., by Deputy Commissioner and others Vs. Kumari Shilpa Shrishail Baragadagi and Another - ILR 2014 KAR 5389
ii) S.P.Mahadevappa Vs. Smt. Suma Vasanth and Others - 2010 SCC Online Kar 5217
iii) State of T.N. and Others Vs. A Gurusamy
- (1997) 3 SCC 542.
16. Learned Additional Government Advocate also fairly stated that the caste of the plaintiff's father who passed away had also been declared as Adi-Dravida and he was considered as a schedule caste candidate. It is, therefore, clear that the 8 fact that the plaintiff did belong to Adi-Dravida caste, which is classified as a schedule caste, cannot be in dispute. (Ex.P15)
17. I have considered the contentions of the learned Additional Government Advocate representing the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and also perused the entire materials on record.
18. As far as the factum as to which caste the plaintiff belongs, it has been found by the Appellate Court that the plaintiff did belong to Adi-Dravida caste. The Appellate Court has noticed that the Head Master of the Primary School had admitted this fact during his cross-examination and the Head Master of the High School feigned ignorance about the plaintiff's caste. It has also come out in evidence that the children of the plaintiff have been considered as belonging to Adi-Dravida caste and have also been issued a caste certificate in that regard.
19. The contention, however, that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction is the point that is strongly urged by the learned Additional Government Advocate. She submitted that there is a specific bar for the Civil Court to entertain the suits relating 9 to the issue of the caste of a person, especially, when it relates to matters regarding employment and since in the instant case, the plaintiffs had categorically contended that he was seeking for rectification of the entry in relation to his caste in order to secure an employment, the provisions of the Act would automatically be attracted and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would stand ousted.
20. The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment, etc.) Act, 1990 was enacted to provide for reservation of appointments or posts in favour of the members belonging to the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other backward classes in the State Civil Services and establishments in the Public Sector and in admission to Universities and to the educational institutions established or maintained or aided by the State Government. It is thus clear that the Act was basically enacted for providing reservation.
21. Section 4 of the Act mandates that posts should be reserved for the members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes to such extent 10 and in such manner as may be specified from time to time in the order made by the Government under clause (4) of Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
22. Section 4A of the Act provides for issuance of a caste certificate on the basis of an application made by any candidate or his parent or guardian who belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe in order to claim the benefit of reservation under Section 4, either for the purpose of securing an appointment to any service or post or for an admission to a course of study in a university or in any educational institution.
23. The Section provides for the Tahsildar to hold an enquiry in the manner he deems fit and after satisfying himself regarding the genuineness of the claim made by the applicant, he is empowered to pass an order issuing the caste certificate. There is also an appeal provided against any order passed under Section 4A of the Act to the Assistant Commissioner of the Revenue Sub-division.
24. Under Section 4C of the Act, a Caste Verification Committee is constituted for the purposes of verifying the 11 caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar. Any person, who has obtained a caste certificate or an income and caste certificate under Section 4A or 4B or the appointing authority or any authority making admission to a course of study in the university or any educational institution, is permitted to make an application to the Caste Verification Committee and the said Caste Verification Committee, after holding such enquiry, is empowered to grant a validity certificate or order for rejection of the application. Against the said order, an appeal is also provided under Section 4D of the Act.
25. For the purpose of this appeal, Section 6B of the Act would be relevant, which reads as follows:
"6B. Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court:- No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any order passed by any officer or authority under this Act and no stay or injunction shall be granted by a court in respect of any action taken or to be taken by such officer or authority under this Act in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act."
26. As could be seen from the said Section, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred only in respect of any order passed by any officer or authority under the Act and no stay or 12 injunction can be granted by a Court in respect of any action taken or to be taken by such officer or authority under the Act in pursuance of any power conferred by or under the Act. It is thus clear that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred only in respect of any order passed by any officer. The bar for the filing of a suit, therefore, would be to a suit in which a caste certificate is sought to be challenged or an order that is passed under the provisions of the Act is sought to be challenged.
27. In the instant case, the prayer made in the plaint was for a declaration that the entries made in the school records of the plaintiff were incorrect and his caste had been entered as Adi-Karnataka, instead of Adi-Dravida and a necessary direction be issued to the school authorities to rectify the same.
28. The principal grievance, as could be seen from the plaint, was regarding the incorrect entries made in the school records and it was nothing to do with either the caste certificate issued under the Act or any order passed under the provisions of the Act. In fact, there was no claim whatsoever 13 in respect of anything that was done under the Act in relation to the issuance of a caste certificate to the plaintiff. In this view of the matter, the argument of the learned Additional Government Advocate that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction cannot be accepted.
29. The reliance placed on the judgment rendered in the case of Kumari.Shilpa Shrishail Baragadagi cited supra would be of no avail to the argument advanced by the learned Additional Government Advocate. In the said suit, the plaintiff had filed a suit for a declaration that she belonged to "Hindu Hatagar" caste and for consequential relief of rectification of her school records by incorporating her caste as "Hindu Hatagar", instead of "Hindu Lingayat". Since in that case, a declaration that she belonged to a particular caste was made, this Court held that the provisions of the Act would be attracted and the Civil Court's jurisdiction was impliedly barred.
30. The said decision would not be applicable in this case since the plaintiff did not seek for a declaration that he belonged to Adi-Dravida caste. His specific case was that he 14 belonged to Adi-Dravida caste and the entry in the school records did not reflect his correct caste and it was, therefore, required to be rectified.
31. The reliance placed on the decision of this Court in S.P.Mahadevappa 's case cited supra would also be of no avail because in that case the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that the defendant therein did not belong to a scheduled tribe and for a further relief of restraining her from putting herself out to be a person belonging to a scheduled tribe and seeking benefits available to the scheduled tribe. Thus, in that case, there was a declaration sought for that the defendant did not belong to a particular caste. That is not the case here. In the instant case, as stated above, the plaintiff contended that he belonged to Adi-Dravida, but in the school records, his caste was wrongly entered as Adi-Karnataka.
32. The reliance placed on the decision of the Apex Court in A.Gurusamy 's case cited supra cannot also be of any assistance. In that case, a certificate issued to a person stating that he belonged to a scheduled tribe on the basis of a Presidential Order had been cancelled since it was found that 15 subsequently as per a later Presidential order, his caste had been included in the Scheduled Caste. In that context, the Apex Court stated that the Civil Courts would have no jurisdiction to decide as to whether a person belongs to a particular scheduled caste or scheduled tribe with reference to a Presidential Order. It is, therefore, clear that the said decision would also be of no assistance to the appellants.
33. Sub-clause (3) of Section 4A categorically states that the Tahsildar, on receipt of an application under sub-section (1) or (2) and after holding an enquiry and satisfying himself regarding the genuineness of the claim made by the applicant, may issue a caste certificate. Rule 3A (2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment, etc.) Rules, 1992 also stipulates that the Tahsildar is required to verify the information, documents and materials furnished by the applicant and if on verification of such documents, he is satisfied that the information provided by the applicant is correct, he is required to issue a caste certificate. Thus, a caste certificate is issued only after an enquiry is conducted 16 and after the Tahsildar is satisfied that the information provided by the applicant is correct.
34. In the instant case, not only has the Tahsildar issued a caste certificate to the plaintiff, but also to both of the plaintiff's children stating that they belonged to Adi-Dravida caste. It is therefore clear that the plaintiff did in fact belong to the Adi Dravida caste and hence he was issued with a Caste certificate.
35. As stated above, since it is also not in dispute that the plaintiff's father was considered as a scheduled caste and was employed by the Survey Department, it is clear that there was no claim made by the plaintiff before the Civil Court that he belonged to a particular caste, nor was any claim made regarding the caste certificate that had been issued to him by the Tahsildar. It is, therefore, clear that the bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court would not be attracted.
36. The Appellate Court, in fact, has taken into consideration the above aspects and by applying the same line of reasoning, has come to the conclusion that the judgment of the Trial Court holding that it had no jurisdiction 17 cannot be sustained. I find no error in the approach made by the Appellate Court and in any view of the matter, there is no substantial question of law arising for consideration in this second appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PKS