Sri Ramesh Kumar vs The State of Karnataka Social Welfare Department and Others

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Hoard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondents.

It is the case of the Petitioner that he belongs to Kaniyan caste and that it is by virtue of the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Kollegal Tahuk dated 11.7.1968 that the Petitioner was appointed, as a driver in the fourth Respondent-Organization. The District Caste Verification Committee on the basis of an enquiry initiated, has recorded a finding dated 17.9.2003 that the Petitioner belongs to Kaniyan caste and not Kaniyan caste and even though the report of the Caste Verification Committee was never communicated to the Petitioner, the Management terminated the services of the Petitioner on the recommendation of the Additional Director General of Police, Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement Cell

The Government of Karnataka has issued orders from time to time notifying scheduled caste and scheduled tribes. The Government Order dated 16.5.1979 is the first of such orders. The Kaniyan caste was described as a backward caste in the said order. In the subsequent Government Order dated 13.10.1986, Kaniyan caste is said to be a scheduled caste. Similarly, Kaniyan is also indicated as being a scheduled caste The Backward Class Commission report also described the Kaniyan caste as a backward caste and Kaniyan caste is also shown as equivalent to Karsiyan caste. By virtue of the caste certificate issued to the Petitioner, it is contended, therefore, on either count, the Petitioner belongs to a scheduled, caste, sod there-fore, it could not have been alleged that the Petitioner has secured employment on a false certificate.

Subsequent to 1993 however, the Government of Karnataka has constituted a Committee comprising of three members to exclusively-address the-question of validity of a caste certificate of an individual. This is pursuant to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patila and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, . The learned Counsel would therefore submit that the District Caste Verification Committee having passed an order inspite of the Committee having been constituted to address the question exclusively would, be without jurisdiction and accordingly, would submit that the order holding that the caste certificate held, by the Petitioner was not valid ought to be set at naught and as a consequence, he herein ducted into service, pending farther enquiry by the Caste verification Committee constituted subsequent to 1993 as per Annexure-N.

The learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3 would submit that insofar as the question of jurisdiction is concerned, he would concede the position, pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court in tins case of Madhuri Patila case.

But on the question as to the validity of a caste certificate would add a rider that such adjudication shall he prospective and it could not be in relation to the certificates issued prior to 1993. This contention, forever, may not he correct since the judgment of the Supreme Court In Madhuri Patil''s case is categorical, that it is that Committee which is constituted, pursuant to the judgment alone which have the jurisdiction to address all questions of the Caste Certificate.

On the first question, whether the cancellation of the caste certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner could be sustained, would have to be answered against the Respondents as being bad in law.

The next question as to what ore the consequences that would flow from the cancellation of the caste certificate being set at naught. The Petitioner would have to be placed in the position that he was in prior to such cancellation. If the Petitioner was in employment with Respondent No. 4, the-Petitioner must be restored to the position as on date. But on principle, if the Petitioner had not worked with the fourth Respondent he shall not he entitled to any hack-wages, since the termination of the employment was for no fault of Respondent no 4. Hence the question of granting any back-wages would not arise. Accordingly, the writ, petition is allowed. Annexures-F and H are hereby set aside. The fourth Respondent is directed to reinstate the Petitioner pending further proceedings and enquiry before the Committees which shall address the validity of the caste certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner. The Petitioner is not held entitled to any back-wages. The Petitioner shall, however, be entitled to continuity of service and such other consequential benefits. The matter stands remitted to the Committee constituted, as per Annexure-N for further adjudication, as?, to the validity of the caste certificate. The Petitioner shall appear before the Committee an issuance of a notice in this regard. The restatement of the Petitioner is subject to the result of the outcome of the proceeding before the Committee.