Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.17 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bharati Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 March, 2018
6. Per contra, the learned Special Counsel appointed
by the State to represent the respondent Nos.1 to 4 submitted
that the enquiry conducted by the CRE Cell disclosed beyond
doubt that the respondent No.7 did not belong to the scheduled
caste but was a Christian and had relinquished all her claims to
the benefits of scheduled caste and therefore, the caste
certificate obtained by her was fraudulent. He submitted that
in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Bharati Reddy vs. State of Karnataka and others
[(2018) 6 SCC 162], the proper remedy is to relegate the
petitioner and respondent No.7 before the respondent No.3.
The State Of Karnataka And Ors vs Ravindra Swamy And Anr on 13 January, 2023
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that though an appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority
under Section 4B of the Act, 1990, since it held that it had no
jurisdiction to entertain an appeal, the proceedings were
initiated before the CRE Cell. He submits that the CRE Cell had
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC:37593
WP No. 24509 of 2013
conducted a thorough enquiry and found that the respondent
No.7 was not a person belonging to the scheduled caste but
was a Christian. He submitted that the respondent No.3 taking
into account the report submitted by the CRE Cell had rightly
annulled the caste certificate. He submits that the respondent
No.2 having once held that the respondent No.3 had no
jurisdiction to entertain the report of CRE Cell, could not have
relied upon the report of the CRE Cell to give a finding that the
caste certificate in favour of respondent No.7 was justified. He
further contended that the Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.200065/2022 (The State of Karnataka and
others vs. Sri. Ravindra Swamy and others) has held that
the Act of 1990 is not only applicable when caste certificate is
used for securing employment but also for other purposes in
view of the word "etc.," used in the Karnataka Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other backward Classes
(Reservation of Appointment, etc.,) Act, 1990 and the
Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other
backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment, etc.,) Rules,
1992 (henceforth referred to as 'Rules of 1992'). He therefore,
submits that even if a representation was filed before the CRE
-7-
NC: 2023:KHC:37593
WP No. 24509 of 2013
Cell, the same had to be returned back to the appropriate
authority namely, the Assistant Commissioner under Section 4B
of the Act of 1990.
Suryakantha Rao vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. on 28 January, 2002
11. However, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the
appeal in view of the law laid down by the Co-Ordinate bench of
this Court in Suryakantha Rao vs. State of Karnataka and
others [(2002) 3 Kar.L.J. 498]. The Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court held that the Assistant Commissioner had no
jurisdiction to entertain an appeal where caste certificate issued
by the Tahsildar was not for securing employment under the
State and local bodies nor for securing admission to an
educational institution but for contesting an election. The Bench
therefore, set aside the order passed by the Assistant
Commissioner holding that he had no jurisdiction to entertain
an appeal. In the present case, the petitioner did not give up
her attempt to annul the caste certificate issued in favour of
respondent No.7. The petitioner perhaps being counseled to
complain before the Directorate, Civil Rights Enforcement
submitted a representation before the CRE Cell seeking its
indulgence to enquire into the case. Though the CRE Cell had
1