Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

V. The I-respondent has not adduced evidence to prove that documents relied upon by him, mere production, mere marking of documents is not enough to prove the contents of documents {[i] (2003) 8 SCC 745 (Narbada Devi Gupta Vs. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal & another), [ii] (2010) 4 SCC 491 (in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India & another Vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen)}.

VI. The appellant (successful candidate) can rely on synonyms of his caste to claim reservation under Backward Class category 'A' {ILR 1994 KAR 1270 (in the case of Virupakashappa Vs.Hanumantha)}.

47. The documents marked as Ex.R.5 to Ex.R.9 are the true copies of Transfer Certificates of daughters of appellant namely Kumari P.Poornima and Kumari P.Pooja Prasad. In these documents, the caste of Kumari P.Poornima and Kumari P.Pooja Prasad is shown as "Sadara".

48. The law is fairly well settled that caste status of a descendant can be determined by caste status of his ascendent, however the caste status of ascendent cannot be determined by caste status of a descendent. The appellant had furnished this information under misconception that "Sadari Gowda" caste is synonymous to "Sadaru" caste.

Therefore, appellant cannot take shelter under the notification (Ex.R.18) issued for the purpose of reservation for education and employment.

53. The learned senior counsel for appellant, relying on the judgment reported in ILR 1994 KAR 1270 (in the case of Virupakashappa Vs. Hanumantha) would submit that "Sadaru" and "Sadari Gowda" are synonymous, therefore, caste "Sadaru or Sadari Gowda" can be treated as Backward Classes Category 'A'.

In this decision, the Government of Karnataka had issued an order on 27.03.1980, showing list of Scheduled Caste referred to at Sl.No.23 as "Bhovi" and equivalent words or synonyms as "Od, Odde, Vaddar, Waddar and Woddar". However, in the Government Order itself it is made clear that this list was not intended and shall not be treated as an alteration or amendment of the Schedule to the Presidential Order, specifying Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in relation to State of Karnataka.

56. The learned senior counsel for I-respondent, relying on a decision reported in (2001) 6 SCC 571 (in the case of M.C.D. Vs. Veena and Others) would submit that classification of Backward caste in a given State depends upon nature and extent of disadvantages and social hardships suffered by the caste or group in that State, however that may not be so in the State to which a person migrates.

57. The learned senior counsel for I-respondent would further submit that a migrant cannot claim caste status vis- à-vis backwardness even if there is a synonymous caste in the migrated State.