Karnataka High Court
Smt. Shoba Lakshmi W/O Shankara Rao vs The Divisional Commissioner, ... on 2 March, 2007
Equivalent citations: ILR2007KAR1566, 2007 (3) AIR KAR R 181
ORDER H.V.G. Ramesh, J.
Page 0827
1. In this petition, petitioner is seeking to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 10.12.02 at Annexure 'A' and also to quash the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 30.1.02 at Annexure 'B' and for such other orders.
2. Petitioner is said to be belonging to Maleru caste and is employed as an Administrative and Accounts Assistant in the office of the 4th respondent i.e., Sahitya Academy, Bangalore; the 4th respondent alleging that she has wrongly stated her caste as Maleru by producing the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar and thereby committed a misconduct has referred the matter to the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent being the Chairman of the Caste Verification Committee on verification ordered for cancellation of the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk. According to the petitioner, the order passed by the 2nd respondent to cancel the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar to the petitioner is self contradictory and without appreciating the fact that petitioner belongs to Maleru caste; at an undisputed point of time the caste of the petitioner's father, her brothers and her near relatives is shown as Maleru; though she hails from Shimoga District where large number of families belonging to Maleru caste are residing, as she was residing at Bangalore at the relevant point of time, she applied and obtained the caste certificate from the Tahsildar, Bangalore, who, before issuing the certificate had conducted an enquiry as contemplated and had issued the certificate which is not liable to be cancelled and without appreciating the same, the 2nd respondent held that petitioner belongs to Brahmin Maleru caste and the caste certificate issued Page 0828 to her is liable to be cancelled which order is passed without verification of relevant facts and without holding an enquiry as required under law in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and it is wholly on irrelevant and unsustainable grounds and not in terms of the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of Maduri Patil and Anr. v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development . Challenging the said order, as per the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment etc.,) Rules, 1993, petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent, who in turn, dismissed the appeal stating that appeal is not maintainable. As against the said order, she filed W.P.No. 26961/02 before this Court. This Court while allowing the said petition has remanded the matter back to the 1st respondent with a direction to hear both the parties and to decide the matter on merits in accordance with law.
3. According to the petitioner, after joining the service in the year 1994 her life has become totally miserable and she has been ill-treated and harassed by her departmental head, due to which, she had to approach various forums on several occasions; at the time of her appointment in the 4th respondent's department she had submitted the original caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Bangalore and although she belongs to Maleru caste, alleging that she has secured the appointment by falsely representing her caste, action was initiated against her and she has been kept under suspension since 16.2.02. Since she has been harassed by the Regional Secretary, she filed a writ petition which is pending before this Court. According to her, the certificate produced by her father as per the service records and also of her brother depicts that they belong to maleru caste, despite that the 1st respondent dismissed the appeal only on unsustainable grounds. The Karnataka State gazette published for Shimoga district refers to the fact that there is no caste like Maleru Brahmin but there is only one caste known as Maleru which is a scheduled tribe and that it is not in dispute that petitioners also hails from Shimoga District. The dispute as to the caste of Maleru, was taken to the Supreme Court and the Apex Court in the case of M. Narayanappa v. Govt of Karnataka in W.P.11894/85 passed an order that till such enquiry is held and a positive conclusion is arrived at, a person belonging to Maleru caste shall not be subjected to any criminal proceedings or departmental enquiry. In the said order it has also directed the State of Karnataka to withdraw all the proceedings against the persons belonging to Maleru caste and in pursuant to the said order, the Government of Karnataka has issued a G.O. dated 11.3.02 stating that the persons belonging to Maleru caste who have the benefit of the certificate should not be in any way harassed or subjected to any enquiry or dismissal and that the said order is in her favour and on the face of it, the 1st respondent could not have Page 0829 dismissed the appeal filed by her. Further, according to the petitioner, the respondent/authorities have ignored all the relevant factors that the she belongs to Maleru caste and that she has not obtained and produced any false certificate.
4. In the statement of objections filed by 4th respondent it is stated that petitioner is not entitled to any relief she has suppressed the true facts and she herself lodged a complaint against the Regional Secretary before the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell on the allegation that Regional Secretary had abused the petitioner's caste. Pursuant to her complaint, the CRE Cell authorities have conducted a detailed enquiry relating to the caste status of the petitioner and of her family members and submitted a report stating that petitioner and her family members do not belong to scheduled tribe Maleru, on the other hand, they belong to 'Maaleru' which is a sub-caste of Brahmin and also that her father's name is shown as Narayanappa instead of Narayan Rao and she has obtained a false caste certificate by suppressing the true facts. The 2nd respondent issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to submit relevant documents in support of her claim, but she failed to produce any certificate, in particular, the document relating to her father's caste and she has pleaded before 2nd respondent that she had no documents in support of her father's caste. The 2nd respondent after going through the CRE cell report has directed the Tahsildar to cancel the caste certificate earlier issued to the petitioner and accordingly, the 3rd respondent has cancelled the caste certificate and that petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands. Further, in so far as the Government circular at Annexure 'J' regarding the extension of benefit it is stated that now that her original caste is exposed, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Milind that any circular issued by the State Government contrary to Article 341 and 342 has no value and the same has to be ignored by this Court and the circular issued at Annexure 'J' by the Government of Karnataka is contrary to the rules made under the statute and it has no binding three on 4th respondent as the 4th respondent is a Central Government establishment governed by the circular issued by the Central Government. Further, it is stated that the presidential notification issued under Clause I of Article 342 of the Constitution of India specifying the scheduled tribe cannot be amended or altered by the State Government or other authorities. The State of Karnataka contrary to the same has issued a circular under which the petitioner is trying to take shelter.
5. The petitioner has also filed a rejoinder to the objections filed by the 4th respondent and also filed an application seeking for amendment of the petition to contend that in W.P. No. 36702/00 and other connected matters this Court has taken a view that the Caste Verification Committee has no jurisdiction to cancel the certificate issued prior to coming into force of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Page 0830 classes (Reservation of Appointment etc.,) Rules 1993 and that the Caste and Income Verification Committee has no jurisdiction to inquire into the validity or otherwise of the certificate issued by the Tahsildar and the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner is long prior to the coming into force of the Rules, 1993 as such the orders passed by the 1st and 2nd respondents is wholly without jurisdiction.
6. The State Government has also filed objections stating that the CRE Directorate which is the investigating agency of the State Government to ascertain the genuineness of the caste certificate of the candidates, has investigated in respect of the caste of the petitioner and also as to her status and collected all relevant documents and submitted its report to the District Level Caste Verification Committee on 18.12.02. The committee after affording opportunity to prove her case, on such failure to prove the same and to produce the documents, having noted that the school records of the brothers and sisters of the petitioner depicts that they belong to Maaleru which is a Brahmin community existing in Malnad taluks stated that it is open to the employers to get the caste verification of the employees whose claims are found to be doubtful. Accordingly, the matter was referred to CRE Directorate and the District Level Caste Verification Committee on the basis of the investigation report of the CRE Directorate, after affording opportunity to the petitioner and after detailed enquiry has given a report stating that she belongs to Brahmin Maaleru caste and ordered to cancel the caste certificate of the petitioner. In appeal, the Divisional Commissioner also has considered all these aspects and dismissed the appeal. Accordingly, resisted the petition.
7. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel appearing for 4th respondent and the learned Addl. Government Advocate.
8. While reiterating the averments made in the petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the unreported judgment of this Court rendered in W.P. Nos. 36702-36718/00 and other connected matters to contend that the Caste Verification Committee has no authority to review the findings and also the certificate issued in respect of the caste and that the CRE Cell is not authorized and constituted as per the judgment of the Apex Court. Accordingly, submitted that the finding of the CRE cell that petitioner does not belong to Maleru caste is without authority of law and in the alternative, the benefit of the G.O. of the state Government at Annexure 'J' has to be extended to the petitioner and her case has to be considered in accordance with law.
9. Per-contra, the learned Counsel appearing for 4threspondent contended that in the case of Bank of India and Anr. v. Avinash D. Mandivikar and Ors. reported in 2005 AIR SCW 4477 the effect of Milind's case has also been Page 0831 considered and accordingly, submitted that the Caste Verification committee is duly constituted and after verification it has come to the conclusion that petitioner does not belong to Maleru rather she belong to Maaleru Brahmin caste based on the material collected, as such, she is not entitled for the benefit of G.O. to hold that she belongs to Maleru community which is a scheduled tribe. He also relied upon the judgment in case of R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala and Ors. and also one more decision of this Court in the case of Shanthala, G. Rao v. The Divisional Commissioner, Mysore Division and Ors.
10. The learned Government Advocate has submitted that on such doubt being entertained the Caste Verification Committee can conduct investigation after affording opportunity to the petitioner to produce relevant documents in support of her case and after due enquiry being held if she is found guilty the same can be considered to cancel the certificate issued to her earlier and the caste committee being a quasi judicial body can review the earlier certificate issued. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2006 (6) SLR 631.
11. In the light of the arguments advanced, let me consider:
i) Whether the Caste Verification Committee could verify the caste of the petitioner and the said report of the Committee could be accepted for further actions? and
ii) Whether benefit of G.O. of the State Government at Annexure 'J' could be extended to the petitioner?
12. Based on the judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 36702/00 disposed on 30.8.01, it is the contention of the petitioner that the caste certificate issued earlier cannot be verified by the Caste Verification Committee to the detriment of the candidate. The learned single Judge in the said judgment referring to the decision of the Apex Court reported AIR 2001 SC 393 (State of Maharashtra v. Milind) and also the decision of the division bench of this Court was of the view that Caste Verification Committee and the appellate authority have no jurisdiction to go into the matter contrary to the dictum laid down by the Apex Court. The said order was with reference to consideration of Bovi community.
13. In the instant case, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 has vehemently contended that whenever there is a fraud being played in getting the certificate and same is detected by the Committee constituted for the Page 0832 said purpose, the finding of the committee based on the material evidence will be the finding of fact. When there is suppression of truth and the real facts are based on the documentary evidence then such finding cannot be easily ignored on the ground that CVC has no jurisdiction. In the decision reported in 2006 (6) SLR 631 in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar, the Supreme Court has held that the scrutiny committee had the power to go into the question as to whether the caste certificate had rightly been issued or not. In paragraph 35 of the judgment it was of the view that there is no authority laying down the law that under no circumstances an enquiry would be impermissible in law. The Supreme Court in the said decision also had reference to Milind's case.
14. Another line of argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the caste verification committee is to be constituted as per the direction in the case of Bank of India v. Avinash, D. Mandivikar reported in 2005 AIR SCW 4477. In paragraph 5 of the said judgment there is a direction regarding the constitution of committee by the State Government consisting three members. However, the Caste Verification Committee constituted in the instant case also is almost on the lines indicated by the Apex Court and no material is placed by the petitioner to say that CVC cell constituted is without any authority of law. As per the directions noted in the said judgment a due enquiry has been held by the CVC after due notice to the petitioner to show cause and after supplying the copy of the report and on following the procedure based on the report of the CRE cell it has passed the order. Father, as is evident from the certificate produced by the respondents of the brother of the petitioner at Annexure R-3 it depicts that his caste is Brahmin and as per Annexure R-1, the transfer certificate of the petitioner wherein although her religion is depicted as Maleru in column No. 9 as to whether she belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe it is mentioned as 'not'. The petitioner shown to have deliberately suppressed the true facts and his obtained employment based on the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Bangalore. The Caste Verification Committee based on the report and after due enquiry has declared the caste of the petitioner as Maaleru Brahmin and not Maleru which is a scheduled tribe and has directed to cancel the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Bangalore. I do not find any illegality either in the order passed by the Caste Verification Committee or in the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner in appeal.
15. It is the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the G.O. at Annexure 'J' extends the concession that appointments obtained by the persons belonging to Maaleru, Kuruba, Koli and other communities under the scheduled tribe quota to be treated as appointment under the general merit category and they shall not be eligible for any promotion or Page 0833 other benefits as the scheduled tribe in future. So far the extension of this benefit is concerned, it is the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondents that G.O. of the state Government is issued contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court and moreover the petitioner is a Central Government employee for which the benefit of the State Government order cannot be made applicable. Further, referring to Bank of India decision reported in 2005 AIR SCW 4477, the learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that having considered the decision of the Milind's case, the Supreme Court did not extend the benefit to the bank employee on the ground that the ratio of the Milind's case is not applicable to the said case.
16. In the instant case, admittedly, petitioner is a Central Government employee. Whether the State Government order at Annexure 'J' exempting the persons who have obtained the certificate claiming themselves as scheduled tribe gives protection to the Central Government employees or not has to be considered by the 4th respondent in accordance with law and also in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2005 AIR SCW 4477.
17. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.