Mallikarjunappa vs State of Karnataka

A.V. Chandrashekara, J.—Plaintiff of an original suit bearing O.S. No. 18/2004, which was pending on the file of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC, Challakere is before this Court challenging the judgment passed by Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Challakere in R.A. 28/2005. Respondents are the defendants in the said suit.

The sole plaintiff had filed the suit to effect necessary amendment in the school records incorporating his caste as "Ganiga" instead of "Lingayat Ganiga". Appellant is stated to be belonging to Ganiga Caste. He is stated to have studied in Sri. Swamy Vivekananda Higher Primary School at Challakere upto VII Std. and he is stated to have completed his high school i.e., 8th to 10th Std. in Janaseva Boys High School, Channenahally. It is his case that Tahsildar, Challakere has issued caste certificate treating him as person belonging to Ganiga Caste, which is a backward caste. He had got issued notice calling upon the defendants to correct the necessary corrections in the school records. According to plaintiff, he will be eligible for all benefits under Category II(A).

Defendant No. 5 has filed a detailed written statement denying all the material averments and called upon the plaintiff to strictly prove the contents of the plaint. According to defendant No. 5, plaintiff is a person belonging to Lingayat Caste and the same is found in the school records and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. With these pleadings, he has requested for dismissal of the suit.

On the basis of the above pleadings, following issues came be framed by the Trial Court:

a) Whether the plaintiff proves that in his school records, his caste is wrongly mentioned as Lingayath Ganiga?

b) Whether he further proves that he belongs to Ganiga cast?

c) Whether the suit in the present form is maintainable?

d) Whether the suit is within the period of limitation?

e) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the relief sough for?

f) What decree or order?

Plaintiff himself is examined as PW-1 and Tahsildar who has issued caste certificate vide Ex. P-4 is examined as PW-2. No witness or evidence is adduced on behalf of the defendants.

Ultimately, the suit came to be decreed on 29.1.2005 answering issues Nos. (a) to (e) in the affirmative. It is this judgment, which is called in question in an appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC in R.A. 28/2005. The regular appeal has been allowed by judgment dated 4.7.2007.

The following points were framed by the First Appellate Court for consideration:

a) Whether delay in filing the appeal is to be condoned?

b) Whether finding of the learned trial Judge that the plaintiff belongs to Ganiga caste is correct?

c) Whether finding of the trial Judge that there is error in the school records of the plaintiff regarding his caste is correct?

d) Whether findings of the trial Judge that the suit is maintainable in the present form is correct?

e) Whether judgment of the Trial Court calls for interference?

f) What order

The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties has answered points Nos. (a) and (e) in the affirmative and issues (b), (c) and (d) in the negative and ultimately allowed the appeal. It is this judgment, which is called in question on various grounds as set out in the appeal memo.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the records, the following substantial question of law was framed on 6.1.2011:

"Whether the lower appellate court was justified in reversing the judgment and the decree of the Trial Court, directing correction of the School records and whether the appreciation of evidence on record is illegal and capricious?"

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

Admittedly, the caste of the plaintiff is mentioned as "Hindu Lingayat Ganiga" in school records. This is evident from Ex. P-3 admission register maintained by Sri. Swamy Vivekananda Higher Primary School, Challakere in which his caste is mentioned as "Hindu Lingayat Ganiga". Normal presumption will be that caste of a person will be informed by the parents at the time of admission to school. In the instant case, the parents of the plaintiff are not been examined.

The learned Judge had held that if Tahsildar has issued the caste certificate considering him as Ganiga, then he has issued the same contrary to the contents of the admission register mentioned by the Primary School and High School. In this regard, the First Appellate Court has doubted the very genuineness of the caste certificate.

If a person claims any benefit either as member belonging to SC, ST or Backward Class, relevant law applicable would be under the provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 (Karnataka Act No. 7 of 1991) (As amended by Act No. 27 of 1997). The Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Rules Act, 1992 (for short "Rules") have been framed under the said Act and have come into being from 22.4.1993.

Rule 4 mandates that there shall be a Caste Verification Committee for each district to verify the caste certificate issued in respect of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Rule 5 is in respect of other backward classes. The committees shall consists of the following members:

a) The deputy Commissioner of the District who shall be the Chairman

b) The Deputy Secretary (Administration) of the Zilla Panchayat

c) The Tahsildar of the Taluk

d) The District Backward Classes and Minorities Officer who shall be member secretary

Rule 5-A mandates the validity of the certificate issued by the Caste Verification Committee. Rule 6-the application for validity certificate mandates that every person claiming reservation either for appointment or for admission, shall submit an application in Form-1 for verification of caste to the Caste Verification Committee. As per Rule 6-A, the Verification Committee shall refer the application for issue of validity certificate. The Verification Committee shall hold an enquiry as to whether he/she belongs to backward class. On getting the report made under Rule 6-A, certificate has to be given.

Ex. P-4 certificate issued by the Tahsildar is not based on such report and therefore, the relevant provisions of the above Rules are not applied. Admittedly, caste "Ganiga" is a backward as per Item No. 78(a) of Annexure-2 in Category-II(A). The best persons who could have spoken about the actual caste of the plaintiff are his parents and they have not been examined. Just because the certificate has been issued by Tahsildar, who is not competent to issue the same, this Court cannot countenance it as valid certificate so as to hold that plaintiff belongs to backward Class.

In this regard, the First Appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment of the Trial Court holding that Trial Court has not property appreciated the evidence placed on record and the approach adopted by the Trial Court is incorrect. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

ORDER

Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC is dismissed by confirming the judgment of the First Appellate Court passed in R.A. 28/2005.

Notwithstanding the dismissal of the appeal, plaintiff is at liberty to avail his remedy before the Caste Verification Committee under the provisions of The Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Rules Act, 1992. In such an event the Committee to expedite the matter.

There is no order as to costs.