Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The facts to be noted from the record are that, Respondent No.1 contested his dismissal order in the light of the determination that, his Nayak Caste Certificate on which appointment as a Craft Teacher was made in the year in 1997 was allegedly fake.

3. The Respondent No.1 was appointed as a Craft Teacher in the School run by the appellant herein on a post which was reserved for Scheduled Tribe Candidate. It was the case of Respondent No.1 that, after 21 years of continuous and unblemished service, the appellant acting upon the report from the Tahsildar of K.R. Pet Taluk, Mandya District, alleging that the Respondent No.1 has falsified his community status, was put under suspension under Rule 16 of the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Recruitment and terms and Conditions of Service of Employees in Private Aided Primary and Secondary Educational Institutions) Rules 1999 (in short, 'KEI (Recruitment T & C Etc. ) Rules, 1999]. It is noted that the District Caste Verification Committee ('DCVC' in short), Mandya District, held that, the Respondent No.1 belong to the 'PARIVARA' Community instead of 'NAYAKA' (Scheduled Tribe) as claimed by the Respondent No.1, which resulted in his dismissal on 21.08.2019.

5. The case of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that the Caste Certificate produced by the Respondent No.1 at the time of his appointment in the year 1997 was found to be fake by the DCVC. It is noted by the learned Single Judge that the Appellate Authority has set aside the finding recognizing inclusion of 'PARIVARA' as a synonym of 'NAYAKA' Caste by the Constitution (ST Orders) (Amendment Act) 2020, and as such the initial determination of the fake certificate is rendered invalid.

7. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant before us is that, the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order erred in saying that the Appellate Authority has set aside the finding of the DCVC, by recognizing the inclusion of 'PARIVARA' as synonym to 'NAYAKA' Caste and consequently the initial determination of the fake certificate is rendered invalid, this according to him is because recognizing the inclusion of 'PARIVARA' as a synonym of the 'NAYAKA' Caste in terms of Amendment Act 2020, is prospective in nature and not retrospective. It is his submission that the learned Single Judge while passing an order, erred in saying that the Amendment Act of 2020 explicitly includes 'PARIVARA' as synonym of the 'NAYAKA' Caste effectively reverting back to the presidential notification of 1950, which will retrospectively validates the petitioner's caste stated as 'NAYAKA', which was the basis of his appointment in 1997. According to the learned counsel, the learned Single Judge while passing the order has not taken note of the fact that the Respondent No.1's appointment as a Craft teacher in the year 1997 on the basis of 'NAYAKA' Caste Certificate stands validated only in the year 2020 and not before that and hence, according to him it is the position as was existing on the date when the petitioner obtained caste certificate and got appointment as a Craft Teacher that need to be seen and not any subsequent development, which has taken place.

8. We are not impressed by the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, primarily for two reasons i.e., -

i) In terms of Amendment Act 2020, the NAYAKA Caste of which he had produced the certificate in the year 1997 was recognized by including 'PARIVARA' as Synonym to the NAYAKA Caste by the Amendment Act of 2020. So in that sense, the inclusion of 'PARIVARA' as synonym of the 'NAYAKA' Caste, retroactively 'NAYAKA' Caste validates the petitioner's caste status as 'NAYAKA' belonging to Scheduled Tribe; and