Francis Jayaraj vs State Level Caste Verification Committee and Others

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 23.10.2009 passed by respondent No. 2 at Annexure-D and the order dated 07.06.2012 passed by respondent No. 1 as at Annexure-E to the petition. The petitioner joined the services of BHEL as a Stenographer on 26.06.1981 claiming that he belongs to "Jenu Kuruba" community which is a ''Scheduled Tribe''. While seeking such employment, the petitioner had relied on the Caste Certificate dated 07.12.1979. The petitioner contends that his grandfather also had been granted a certificate by Nalkeri Gram Panchayath though his name was indicated as ''Chinnappa A. Anthony''. The said certificate has been issued as early as on 26.09.1956.

Respondent No. 3 had addressed a communication to the Additional Director General of Police, Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement complaining that the petitioner does not belong to Schedule Tribe category, but he is a Christian and therefore appropriate action be initiated.

Respondent No. 3 no doubt is stated to have withdrawn the said complaint subsequently. However, in the light of what had been brought to the notice of the Authority, the order was passed with reference to the caste of the petitioner. In the proceedings before the State Level Caste Verification Committee, the report of the CRE Cell dated 23.10.2009 is relied and the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk was directed to take action to cancel the caste certificate. It is the said order dated 07.06.2012 which is assailed in this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner by relying on the order dated 28.02.2008 passed in W.P. No. 41725/2001 and also the order of the Division Bench of High Court of Bombay (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Ku. Vijaya Deorao Nandanwar Vs. Chief Officer, would seek to contend that in respect of the caste certificate which had been issued prior to coming into force of the Act, 1993, no action can be initiated by the Caste Verification Committee. In that light, it is contended that in the instant case, the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner is dated 07.12.1979. As such, the Caste Verification Committee did not have the jurisdiction to direct cancellation of such certificate.

Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand would refer to the decision of a Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Geethanjali v. The Canara Bank and others in W.P. No. 46548/2004 dated 16.07.2012 (2012 (4) AKR 292) . The Hon''ble Division Bench after referring to similar contentions and on noticing the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and Others, has held that such action for cancellation of a certificate issued earlier to the Act coming into force would also be sustainable.

If that be the position, the order impugned herein though dated 07.06.2012 would be sustainable in the view of the order of the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court. In that light, a perusal of the impugned order would also disclose that the petitioner herein had appeared before the Caste Verification Committee and on recording the statement of the petitioner that he is a Christian and taking note of all the documents, said direction has been issued. Therefore such direction issued cannot be faulted.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that in such event, the benefit of the order dated 11.03.2002 at Annexure-F would be available where the employment secured based on such caste certificate would stand protected subject to the petitioner not claiming benefit of the said caste in future. In this regard also, a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. 530/2007 dated 31.07.2012 has held that such benefit granted by the State Government would not be beneficial to such persons claiming the said benefit. In any event, at this juncture, the said question need not be gone into since the employer has not taken any action nor such action taken by the employer is assailed in this petition. However, insofar as the order/report dated 23.10.2009 and the order dated 07.06.2012 assailed herein, the same does not call for interference for the reasons stated above.

The petition is accordingly disposed of.