Smt. M. Jayashree vs The State of Karnataka

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court assailing the direction issued by the communication dated 24.03.2009 as at Annexure-D. The brief facts are that the petitioner was selected and appointed as the Head Mistress to the post reserved for Scheduled Caste Category. The petitioner in that regard had produced a caste certificate obtained in the year 1990. At an earlier instance, when certain orders were passed to the prejudice of the petitioner, the petitioner was before this Court assailing the same. Thereafter at present, the impugned communication has been issued by the Police Inspector, CRE Cell. By the said communication, the Police Inspector has directed the Tahsildar to look into the Caste Certificate dated 09.08.1990 issued in favour of the petitioner and to cancel the same. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the same is before this Court.

Having heard the learned counsel, a perusal of the said communication dated 24.03.2009 would disclose that the Police Inspector, CRE Cell, while directing the Tahsildar to do so has referred to the earlier order passed by the District Caste Verification Committee dated 16.01.2001 and also the Circular dated 30.06.2007. In that view, what is necessary to be noticed is that the petitioner was before this Court against the order dated 16.01.2001 by filing a petition in W.P. No. 4546/2003. The said petition was allowed on 19.07.2005 and the order impugned therein which includes the order dated 1.6.01.2001 was quashed. Liberty no doubt had been granted to the respondents to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law. The petitioner was once again before this Court in a circumstance where the Tahsildar had passed the order dated 19.12.1996. Even in the W.P. No. 4482/2006 disposed of on 19.06.2007, the order passed by the Tahsildar was quashed and the competent authority was permitted to initiate fresh action against the petitioner.

From the above, it is seen that the order dated 16.01.2001 passed by the District Verification Committee had been quashed by this Court. The very same order could not have been relied on by the Police Inspector to request the Tahsildar to take further action. Further the Circular dated 30.06.2007 referred therein has also been modified by the subsequent Government Order dated 06.05.2009 whereunder a Committee has been constituted. When such a change had been made, the very same earlier Circular could not have been relied on in the communication. Therefore, the manner in which the communication dated 24.03.2009 has been issued to the Tahsildar based on the non-existent order and the Circular, the same would not be justified. Needless to mention that since in the earlier orders passed by this Court, leave had been granted to take action in accordance with law and if such procedure is to be adopted, certainly the competent authority would be entitled to do so, but not in the manner as has been done by the Police Inspector presently by the communication dated 24.03.2009. In that view, the communication dated 24.03.2009 (Annexure-D) stands quashed.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.