[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
T N Jagadeesh vs Chairman / Deputy Commissioner on 13 February, 2026
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
®
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 24836 OF 2016 (GM-CC)
BETWEEN
T N JAGADEESH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O NANJUNDA SWAMACHAR
WORKING AS POLICE CONSTABLE
(MYSORE CRC),
RESIDING AT ALGUD VILLAGE,
T.NARASIPURA TALUK-571 124
MYSORE DISTRICT
.... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHRIDHAR N. HEGDE., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. CHAIRMAN / DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
THE DISTRICT CASTE AND INCOME
VERIFICATION COMMITTEE,
Digitally signed BAGALKOTE-587 101
by SHWETHA
RAGHAVENDRA BAGALKOT DISTRICT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. TAHASILDAR
OFFICE OF TAHASILDAR
BAGALKOTE-587 101
BAGALKOT TALUK
BAGALKOT DISTRICT
3. SRI RAJAKUMAR Y BILAGI
S/O YAMUNAPPA S BILAGI
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESIDING AT
MUCHAKUNDI VILLAGE,
BAGALKOT TALUK-587 101
BAGALKOT DISTRICT
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
4. COMMISSIONER
BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE
DEPARTMENT,
NO.16/D, DEVARAJ US BHAVAN
III FLOOR, VASANTHNAGAR
BANGALORE-560 052
.... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR., AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. S.S. HALLI., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS PERTAINING TO ORDER DATED 25.11.2015 OF THE R-4 AT
ANNE-A AND ORDER DATED 19.07.2010 OF R-1 AT ANNEX-D AND
PERUSE THE SAME AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING
BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 27.11.2025, THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CAV ORDER
1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
a) Call for the records pertaining to Order bearing No.
Him Va Ka Ni/Ma Sha/C.R-12/2011-12
dated25.11.2015 of the fourth Respondent at
Annexure-A and order No. D.O.B C.M./ACT/2010-11
dated 19.7.2010 of Respondent No.1 at Annexure-D
and peruse the same;
b) Quash the order bearing No. Him Va Ka Ni/Ma
Sha/C.R-12/2011-12 dated 25.11.2015 of the fourth
respondent at Annexure-A and order No.
D.O.B.C.M./Act/2010-11 dated 19.7.2010 of R1 at
Annexure-D, by issue of writ of certiorari or any other
order of direction, as case may be;
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
c) Grant such other suitable reliefs as this Hon'ble
corut deems fit, in the circumstance of the case.
2. The petitioner states that he has been serving as a
Police Constable since his appointment in the year
1998. He belongs to the Vishwakarma community,
which falls under Category 2A of the Other Backward
Classes. It is alleged that respondent No.3, in fact,
belongs to the Lingayat caste, which does not fall
under Category 2A.
3. In the year 2009, pursuant to a Government
Notification inviting applications for recruitment to
the post of Police Sub-Inspector (PSI), both the
petitioner and respondent No.3 applied for the said
post. According to the petitioner, respondent No.3
secured selection during the recruitment process of
2010-11 by falsely representing that he belonged to
the Lingayat Ganiga community, which is classified
under Category 2A.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
4. Aggrieved by the said selection, the petitioner
submitted a complaint before respondent No.4 - the
Commissioner, Backward Classes Welfare
Department. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.1 -
the District Caste and Income Verification
Committee, which conducted an inquiry and, by
order dated 16.06.2010, rejected the request for
issuance of a caste certificate under Category 2A in
favour of respondent No.3. In the said order,
respondent No.1 recorded that the relevant
documents pertaining to the father, brother, and
sister of respondent No.3 were verified and all such
records reflected their caste as "Lingayat," with no
reference to "Lingayat Ganiga."
5. Respondent No.3 preferred an appeal before
respondent No.4. By order dated 13.07.2010, the
appellate authority allowed the appeal and remanded
the matter to respondent No.1 for fresh consideration
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
after affording an opportunity to respondent No.3 to
produce all relevant documents.
6. Upon remand, respondent No.1 observed that there
was a correction/insertion in the school records of
respondent No.3 indicating his caste as "Lingayat
Ganiga." Proceeding on the presumption that such
correction was made pursuant to a valid order,
respondent No.1, by order dated 19.07.2010,
directed issuance of a caste certificate under
Category 2A in favour of respondent No.3. The order
also records that the President of the Akhila Bharath
Ganigara Sangha had recommended issuance of the
caste certificate.
7. The order dated 19.07.2010 passed by respondent
No.1 was challenged before the appellate authority.
However, the appeal came to be dismissed by order
dated 25.11.2015. It is challenging the orders dated
19.07.2010 and 25.11.2015 that the petitioner is
before this Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
8. Sri.Shridhar N.Hegde, learned counsel for the
petitioner, would submit that:
8.1. The impugned order dated 19.07.2010 passed
by respondent No.1 is illegal, arbitrary,
perverse, and contrary to the material available
on record. The said order suffers from non-
application of mind and warrants interference
by this Court.
8.2. Respondent No.1, while noticing that there was
an insertion/correction in the school records of
respondent No.3, proceeded on the
presumption that such correction must have
been made pursuant to a valid order. However,
no material whatsoever was placed on record to
demonstrate that any competent authority had
directed such correction. It is submitted that in
the absence of any documentary evidence
authorising the alteration in the school records,
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
respondent No.1 could not have relied upon the
said correction. The finding is therefore based
on assumption and conjecture, rendering the
order unsustainable in law.
8.3. It is further contended that the school records
pertaining to the father, sister, cousin-sister,
brother, and cousin-brother of respondent No.3
uniformly reflect their caste as "Hindu
Lingayat." Only in respect of respondent No.3,
the caste entry has been overwritten. The
original entry "Hindu Lingayat" is shown to
have been altered by inserting the word
"Ganiga" below it, thereby making it appear as
"Hindu Lingayat Ganiga." Learned counsel
submits that such overwriting is ex facie
suspicious and appears to have been effected
solely to claim the benefit of reservation under
Category 2A, which is applicable to the Ganiga
community. The reliance placed by respondent
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
No.1 on such altered records, without proper
verification or inquiry into the legality of the
correction, is wholly unjustified.
8.4. He relies on the decision of the Hon'ble this
Court (Dharwad Bench) in the case of
Sangappa vs. the Commissioner for Backward
Classes and others1 more particularly Paras 2,
4, 10, 28, 29, 30, which are reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
2. The respondent No.4 who preferred an appeal
before the first respondent, the appellate authority
under Section 4-D of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes
(Reservation of Appointments, etc., ) Act, 1990,
hereinafter referred to as `the Act' for short and he
challenged the issuance of validation certificate
bearing No.BCM/JA.A.PA:R:98:05-06 dated
21.10.2005 issued by the Deputy Commissioner and
Chairman, District Caste and Income Verification
Committee, Bagalkot for reservation benefit under
category 2A and petitioner availed the said benefit for
the post of Gazetted Probationers Group-A and B
called for by the Karnataka Public Service
Commission. The first respondent by the order dated
23.1.2006 allowed the appeal and the certificate
issued by the Income and Caste Verification
Committee, Bagalkot dated 21.10.2005 in favour of
the petitioner has been set aside and further directed
1
WP No.1449/2006 dtd 13.6.2017
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
to launch criminal prosecution against the petitioner.
Being aggrieved of which, the present writ petition is
filed.
4. The respondent No.4 contended in the appeal
before the first respondent that petitioner belonged
to Lingayat Community and hence he is not entitled
for the benefit under Category 2A. The first
respondent had issued notice and in pursuance of the
same, the petitioner entered appearance through an
advocate and made application for vacating the
interim order. The first respondent instead of
vacating stay, directed the respondent No.3 the
District Officer, Backward Class and Minorities,
Bagalkot to submit records. On issuance of such a
direction, the respondent No.3 forwarded several
documents. The petitioner stated, he was not given
opportunity either to go through the records
produced by the respondent No.3 or the school
register etc., and without providing the fullest
opportunity to go through the records produced by
the respondent No.3, the respondent No.1 the
appellate authority has passed the impugned order
dated 23.1.2006 as per Annexure-D as aforesaid.
10. It is further stated that children inherits the caste
of the father. The petitioner had admitted that his
father belongs to Lingayat Community and when the
father belongs to Lingayat Community as per the
school records, the petitioner's caste shall also be
Lingayat and not a Ganiga. When the documents of
father namely the school records of the father
discloses that he belongs to Lingayat Community, as
against the same, report submitted by the third
respondent dated 17.12.2005 addressed to the first
respondent authority that the caste of father of the
petitioner is Hindu Lingayat as per the primary school
records and reiterates that the procedure followed in
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
issuing the validity certificate to the petitioner as
Ganiga under 2A. The respondent No.3 has not at all
verified about the petitioner's father caste during his
enquiry on 20.10.2005. The first respondent has
gone through the records, written arguments and
after hearing the oral arguments of both sides and on
the power vested under Section 4-D(2) of the Act and
Rules 7(5) of Rule 1982, has passed the order. As per
Rule 7(j), the appeal is to be disposed of within 45
days taking note of the same, the appeal was
disposed on 23.1.2006 when it was filed on
5.12.2005 within 50 days. Hence there is no
arbitrariness or non application of mind on the side of
the respondent No.1.
28. In the light of the above judgment, it is made
very clear that the certificates of the father of the
petitioner are more probative value and not the
certificate of the petitioner himself. The certificate of
father of the petitioner shows he belongs to particular
caste and therefore the petitioner cannot claim a
different caste, for the benefit, for which he is not
entitled.
29. The petitioner has stated before the Respondent
No.1 that grandfather of the petitioner was not
educated and he has not entered the caste of the
petitioner's father as Hindu Ganiga cannot be
accepted. The grandfather may be innocent or
illiterate that does not mean, he could give a false
statement. He must have shown proper caste of the
petitioner's father. On the other hand, if the caste of
the petitioner's father was wrong, it was open for him
at the stage of completion of degree or even
thereafter to get it rectified, that has not been done.
This itself shows that grandfather of the petitioner,
though he may be illiterate, he was innocent, but he
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
has furnished the correct caste of father of the
petitioner. In the circumstances, submission of the
petitioner that caste of the petitioner is to be rectified
as Hindu Ganiga cannot be accepted.
30. The other submission of the petitioner that the
first respondent should have remanded the matter to
the 2nd and 3rd respondents for reexamination has no
merit. Remanding the matter to the subordinate
authorities comes only when the disputed fact has
not been assessed by collecting evidence or materials
etc., In the instant case, no such things are made
out. The question before the first respondent was
whether the certificate issued by the Tahsildar was
genuine and further whether the petitioner obtained
genuine certificate. In order to resolve these two
issues, the relevant document examined by the first
respondent is the report submitted by the 2nd and 3rd
respondent. Initially the 2nd and 3rd respondent
stated that the petitioner does belong to Hindu
Ganiga and entitled for reservation. But the first
respondent having not satisfied with the same, he
further directed the 2nd and 3rd respondents to
secure the school certificates of father of the
petitioner. That showed that petitioner's father
certificate showed that he belonged to Lingayat &
Lingavantha, which was of undisputed point of time,
in the year 1951. When caste of father of petitioner
was clarified and cleared, question of remanding
again to the 2nd and 3rd respondent does not arise.
Remanding the case without any reason is also
arbitrary. It cannot be automatic. There is no
circumstance to warrant remand.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
8.5. By relying on Sangappa v. Commissioner for
Backward Classes, he submits that the caste
reflected in the school records and certificates
of the father carries greater probative value
than the caste certificate subsequently obtained
by the claimant. If the father's
contemporaneous records disclose a particular
caste, the son cannot ordinarily claim to belong
to a different caste for the purpose of availing
reservation benefits.
8.6. The judgment reiterates the settled principle
that a child ordinarily inherits the caste of the
father. Therefore, when the father's school
records disclose that he belongs to "Lingayat,"
a subsequent claim by the son that he belongs
to "Ganiga" under Category 2A cannot be
sustained in the absence of cogent and legally
admissible material.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
8.7. He submits that this Court disapproved reliance
on later corrections or claims unsupported by
valid documentary proof. It was observed that
where original records of an undisputed point of
time reflect a particular caste, subsequent
attempts to alter or reinterpret such entries,
without lawful rectification, cannot be accepted.
8.8. The Court further held that remand is not
automatic. Where the relevant material,
particularly the father's school records, is
already available and determinative of the
issue, directing remand would be unwarranted
and arbitrary.
8.9. Relying upon the above principles, learned
counsel submits that:
8.9.1. The school records of the father, brother,
sister and other close relatives of
respondent No.3 uniformly reflect their
caste as "Hindu Lingayat."
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
8.9.2. Only in the case of respondent No.3,
there is an overwriting inserting the
word "Ganiga" beneath "Hindu Lingayat,"
without any lawful order authorising
such correction.
8.9.3. In light of the principle that the father's
contemporaneous records prevail,
respondent No.3 cannot claim a different
caste for the purpose of availing benefits
under Category 2A.
8.9.4. Respondent No.1, instead of applying the
binding ratio of the above judgment,
wrongly relied upon the altered school
entry and presumed its validity without
enquiry.
8.9.5. It is therefore contended that the
impugned order dated 19.07.2010 is
contrary to the law laid down by this
Court and is liable to be set aside.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
8.10. He relies on the decision of the this Court in the
case of Mallikarjunappa vs. The State of
Karnataka and others2 more particularly Paras
10 and 13, which are reproduced hereunder for
easy reference:
10. What is required to be seen is whether the
petitioner would get any undue benefit by a change
in the name of the caste of the petitioner as also
whether the change of the caste is supported by the
affidavits which have been placed on record. It is not
in dispute that the caste of the petitioner in the
education records was shown as Lingayat Ganiga.
However, when the petitioner filed an application for
issuance of Caste Certificate filed in the year 2003
the petitioner had categorically brought to the notice
of the concerned authorities that the entry of the
caste of the petitioner in the School records is
wrongly made as Lingayat Ganiga and had sought
for issuance of Caste Certificate in the name of
Ganiga. It is further stated that respondent No.7-
Tahsildar had issued such a certificate. Thereafter,
the petitioner sought for rectification of the school
records which resulted in filing of a suit where the
petitioner succeeded. In the appeal, the judgment
passed in the suit was set aside and second appeal
had been filed by the petitioner and he was
relegated to avail the remedies available under the
Act of 1990 and in terms of Rules 1992. In that view
of the matter, the petitioner had made an
application before respondent No.2 i.e., District
Caste and Income Verification Committee.
2
WP No.45872/2017 dtd 1.4.2025
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
13. On enquiry whether Ganiga or Lingayat Ganiga
would be entitled for different reservation under
Article 15(4) and for employment under Article
16(4), learned AGA submits that there is no
differentiation in the reservation which is available
and all the benefits which are available either under
Article 15(4) or 16(4) in respect of Ganiga or
Lingayat Ganiga are same in nature.
8.11. Learned counsel for the petitioner places
reliance upon the decision of this Court in
Mallikarjunappa v. State of Karnataka, and
submits that when a correction or alteration in
caste description is sought, the determinative
consideration is whether such change would
confer any undue advantage and whether the
change is supported by legally acceptable
material. In that case, although the petitioner's
educational records initially reflected "Lingayat
Ganiga," he had subsequently asserted that the
entry was erroneous and sought issuance of a
caste certificate as "Ganiga." The matter
underwent scrutiny through civil proceedings
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
and thereafter before the District Caste and
Income Verification Committee under the
statutory framework.
8.12. It was held that there was no distinction in the
nature of reservation benefits available to
"Ganiga" and "Lingayat-Ganiga" under Articles
15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution. The
benefits were the same in character and extent.
8.13. Applying Mallikarjunappa to the present
matter he submits that:
8.13.1. Any alteration in caste description must
withstand statutory scrutiny and must
not be a device to secure reservation
benefits.
8.13.2. The question is not merely
nomenclature, but whether the change is
genuine, supported by lawful procedure,
and free from manipulation.
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
8.13.3. If the alteration from "Lingayat" to
"Lingayat Ganiga" or "Ganiga" is
unsupported by valid authority or
credible ancestral evidence, the same
cannot be accepted.
8.14. It is therefore contended that respondent No.1
ought to have examined whether the alleged
correction in the school records of respondent
No.3 was lawfully effected and whether such
correction conferred an unwarranted advantage
in securing appointment under Category II-A.
8.15. He relies on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of
M.V.Chandrakanth vs. Sangappa and others3
more particularly Paras 12, 31 to 36, which are
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
12. The Appellant filed an appeal under Section 4D of
the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes
3
2022 SCC OnLine SC 934
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of
Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990, hereinafter referred to
as "SC/ST and OBC Reservation Act" before the
Respondent No. 2 challenging the Caste Validity
Certificate issued to the Respondent No. 1 by the
Respondent No. 3. In the said appeal, the Appellant
enclosed the school extract of Government Higher
Primary School, Honnihala, Bagalokote wherein the
caste of the Respondent No. 1's father was recorded
as 'Hindu Lingayat'.
31. It appears that the finding of the Single Bench
that the earlier notification in which Category II-A
comprised many castes of which Ganiga was one,
did not include Lingayat-Ganiga is misconceived. In
the Government notification issued on 3rd March
2002, Category II-A comprised of Ganiga and other
castes without referring to Lingayat Ganigas.
Subsequently, on 27th January 2009, an order was
issued by the Government of Karnataka to the
effect that 19 sub-castes within Veerashaiva
Lingayat were included in Category III-B. One of
the castes so brought under Category III-B was
Lingayat/Veerashaiva-Ganiga. Subsequently,
however the Government issued a Notification on
28th February 2009 to the effect that the caste in
Serial No. 1 to 12 and 14 to 19 which were
included in Category III-B as per the
th
order/notification dated 27 January 2009 were
deleted from the Category III-B and restored to
the earlier position prevailing before 27th January
2009.
32. As observed by the Division Bench, the order
dated 27th January 2009 shows that 19 sub-castes
of Lingayat/Veerashaiva were included in Category
III-B. One of the sub-castes was
'Lingayat/Veerashaiva-Ganiga'. However, by
another notification issued within a month that is
28th February 2009, the caste mentioned in Serial
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
Nos. 1 to 12 and 14 to 19 Category III-B were
deleted and the position prevailing before 27th
January 2009 was restored. Lingayat/Veerashaiva-
Ganiga was deleted. The intent of the order was to
extend the benefit of reservation under Category
II-A to the Lingayat-Ganigas also.
33. The Division Bench found that the finding of
the Single Judge that Hindu-Ganiga and Lingayat-
Ganiga were two different castes was not possible
to accept. A Lingayat is also a Hindu governed by
the Hindu Succession Act 1956, the Hindu Marriage
Act 1955, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act
1956 and the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act
1956. The caste of the Respondent No. 1 was thus
shown as 'Hindu-Lingayat' in the school registers
by the Respondent No. 1's father.
34. The Division Bench was correct in its finding
that, the mere fact that the Caste Verification
Committee gave a report of about 16 candidates in
a few days cannot be a reason to doubt the
correctness of the report. The Division Bench found
that the report was made in accordance with the
provisions of SC/ST and OBC Reservation Act.
35. Furthermore, during the pendency of the Writ
Petition, Respondent No. 1 produced a registered
document of the year 1909 where the caste of the
great grandfather of the Respondent No. 1 was
shown as 'Ganiger'. The said document was taken
on record by the Writ Court, but there was no
discussion about it in the impugned order. The
document is relevant in that it proves the caste of
the Respondent No. 1 to be 'Ganiga'. 'Ganiger' is a
variant of the word 'Ganiga' found in north
Karnataka region. Respondent No. 1 had also relied
upon caste certificates issued to the relatives of
the Respondent No. 1 showing their caste as
'Ganiga'.
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
36. The Respondent No. 1 also referred to an order
of this Court in Lawrence Salvador D'Souza v.
State of Maharashtra (Civil Appeal No.
6539/2016), where this Court directed the
Committee to consider the caste certificate of the
niece of the Appellant in that case for making a
report about his caste. In this case, the Appellant
has produced a number of caste certificates of his
relatives indicating their caste as 'Hindu-Ganiga'.
After perusing the documents produced, this Court
held that since the caste of the forefather of the
Appellant was mentioned as 'Ganiger', an inference
may be drawn with the help of this document that
the caste of the Appellant was also 'Ganiga'.
8.16. By relying on M.V. Chandrakanth v.
Sangappa, he submits that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court noted that in proceedings under
Section 4D of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes
(Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990,
the school records of the father assume
evidentiary significance. In that case, the
extract of the Government Higher Primary
School reflected the caste of the claimant's
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
father as "Hindu Lingayat," which was relied
upon in determining caste status.
8.17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court examined a series
of Government Notifications:
8.17.1. The Notification dated 03.03.2002,
wherein Category II-A included "Ganiga"
and other castes without reference to
Lingayat-Ganiga.
8.17.2. The Order dated 27.01.2009, whereby
19 sub-castes of Veerashaiva Lingayat,
including Lingayat/Veerashaiva-Ganiga,
were included under Category III-B.
8.17.3. The subsequent Notification dated
28.02.2009, which deleted the said
entries from Category III-B and restored
the earlier position.
8.18. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
respondent No.3 is misleading the authorities
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
by contending that he belongs to the "Lingayat-
Ganiga" category and thereby claiming the
benefit of reservation under Category II-A.
8.19. The contemporaneous records of the father and
other family members uniformly reflect their
caste as "Hindu Lingayat." There is no
independent, legally established material to
demonstrate that respondent No.3 belongs to
the Ganiga community.
8.20. Mere insertion or overwriting in the school
records of respondent No.3 cannot convert a
person belonging to the Hindu Lingayat
community into "Lingayat-Ganiga" so as to
claim reservation benefits.
8.21. Relying upon M.V. Chandrakanth, learned
counsel contends that classification must be
strictly in accordance with the notified
categories and supported by authentic ancestral
records. Since respondent No.3 belongs to
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
Hindu Lingayat, he cannot claim the status of
Lingayat-Ganiga without cogent proof
establishing such sub-caste identity.
8.22. Accordingly, it is submitted that respondent
No.3 has wrongly secured the benefit under
Category II-A, and the impugned orders
upholding the caste certificate are liable to be
set aside. The writ petition, therefore, deserves
to be allowed.
9. Sri.S.S.Halli, learned counsel for Respondent No.3
submits that:
9.1. Referring to the Government Order dated
03.03.2002, learned counsel submits that
"Ganiga" is included at Sl. No.78 under
Category II-A. Therefore, a person belonging to
the Ganiga caste is entitled to the benefit of
reservation under Category II-A.
9.2. It is contended that in the case of respondent
No.3, the caste validity certificate under
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
Category II-A was issued only after due
verification of all relevant documents and upon
consideration of the local enquiry report
submitted by the Taluka Backward Classes and
Minorities Officer. The issuance of the certificate
was thus preceded by statutory scrutiny.
9.3. The school records of respondent No.3,
including the Primary School certificate, reflect
his caste as "Hindu Ganiga." These
contemporaneous entries support his claim.
9.4. It is further submitted that on the basis of such
caste records, respondent No.3 was appointed
as a Police Constable and subsequently selected
and appointed as a Police Sub-Inspector. He
has completed nearly 15 years of service as on
08.11.2025. His appointment and continued
service were based upon valid caste
certification, which has never been set aside in
accordance with law.
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
9.5. Learned counsel draws attention to various
documents including the birth certificate, school
admission register, Transfer Certificates from
Primary School, 7th Standard and 10th
Standard, and the school leaving certificate, all
of which indicate the caste of respondent No.3
as "Ganiga."
9.6. Reference is also made to the Transfer
Certificates of the sisters of respondent No.3,
wherein their caste is recorded as "Ganiga,"
and to caste certificates issued in the names of
the father, sister and brother reflecting the
caste as "Ganiga." It is therefore contended
that the entire family belongs to the Ganiga
community and respondent No.3 is no
exception.
9.7. A local enquiry having been conducted under
Section 4A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
(Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990,
and a validity certificate having been issued
pursuant thereto, the same carries statutory
sanctity and cannot be lightly interfered with.
9.8. It is further submitted that the petitioner has
unsuccessfully challenged the caste status of
respondent No.3 in multiple proceedings.
Having failed in earlier rounds, the petitioner
cannot persist with repeated challenges on the
same issue.
9.9. With regard to the allegation of interpolation in
the school records, learned counsel submits
that the entry was made pursuant to a Circular
dated 26.10.2015, which directed recording of
caste details at the Block Education Officer
level. The insertion, therefore, cannot be
characterised as an unauthorised or suspicious
alteration.
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
9.10. Ganiga is a subset of Lingayat and would be
entitled for the reservation as indicated and in
this regard, he relies upon the decision of this
Court in the case of Prabhushankar K.V., vs.
Selection Committee for Medical Colleges &
others4, more particularly para 5 thereof which
is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner does belong to Ganiga community
though by faith he is a Lingayat. In my opinion, the
fact that the petitioner was Lingayat was not
sufficient to reject the claim of the petitioner that he
belonged to Ganiga Community. It was not disputed
on behalf of the Selection Committee that among
Lingayats also there could be persons who belong to
Ganiga Community just as there were "Lingayats who
belonged to Kuruhina Setty Community (Naige or
weavers). In the case of Somashekhar Veerappar B.
Murgod v. The State of Karnataka [AIR. 1980 Kar.
63.] the question for consideration was whether a
person who belonged to Kuruhina Setty community
could be treated as belonging to backward
community even if the concerned candidate was also
a Lingayat. After referring to the report of the
Backward Class commission it was held that persons
who belonged to Kuruhina Setty Community could
not be denied reservation on the ground that they
had accepted the Lingayat faith. The same principle
holds good in the present case also. In fact it was not
and it could not be disputed on behalf of the selection
4
(1981) 1 Kant LJ 255
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
committee that if the petitioner in addition to being a
Lingayat was also a Ganiga he was entitled to be
considered for selection against one of the seats
reserved for backward communities. However, as
already stated the reason for rejection of the claim of
the petitioner was that in the transfer certificate, the
community of the petitioner was mentioned only as
Lingayat and not as Ganiga Learned Counsel
appearing for the petitioner submitted that before
Ganigas were declared as backward community, and
special provisions were made in their favour the
petitioner had given his community as Lingayat in the
school records and the same entry had been carried
forward in the transfer certificate issued after the
Pre-University examination.
9.11. By relying on Prabhushankar K.V. v.
Selection Committee for Medical Colleges,
he submits that
9.11.1. The mere description of a candidate as
"Lingayat" in school records is not
sufficient to reject a claim that he
belongs to a specific backward sub-caste
within the Lingayat fold.
9.11.2. It was recognised that among Lingayats
there may exist distinct occupational or
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
community groups such as Ganiga or
Kuruhina Setty.
9.11.3. A candidate cannot be denied
reservation merely because he professes
the Lingayat faith, if he otherwise
belongs to a recognised backward sub-
community.
9.11.4. In that case, rejection of the claim solely
on the ground that the transfer
certificate mentioned only "Lingayat" and
not "Ganiga" was held to be
unsustainable.
9.12. His submission is that the petitioner's attempt
to treat "Lingayat" and "Ganiga" as mutually
exclusive categories is legally untenable. A
person may simultaneously be a Lingayat by
religion and a Ganiga by caste/community
classification. If respondent No.3 belongs to the
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
Ganiga community within the Lingayat fold, he
is entitled to reservation under Category II-A
irrespective of the broader religious descriptor
"Lingayat." Thus, it is contended that the
existence of entries describing respondent No.3
or his family as "Lingayat" does not ipso facto
negate their status as "Ganiga," particularly
when other documents and statutory
verification support such classification.
9.13. He also relies on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of
M.V.Chandrakanth vs. Sangappa and others5,
more particularly Paras 28, 29 and 30 and 31,
which are reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
28. In Prabhushankar v. Selection Committee for
Medical Colleges (supra), a Single Bench of
Karnataka High Court held:--
5
2022 SCC OnLine SC 934
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
"6. In my view there is nothing unnatural in the
conduct of the petitioner or his parents in not
indicating that the petitioner apart from being a
Lingayat also belonged to Ganiga Community, as no
one knew at that stage that special provisions would
be made in their favour and omission to do so does
not preclude the petitioner from claiming the benefit
of reservation if in truth the petitioner belongs to
Ganiga community as indicated in the certificate
issued by the Tahsildar who is the competent
authority to issue the necessary certificate.
7. In the face of the certificate issued by the
Tahsildar, it was not open for the Selection
Committee to reject the claim of the petitioner on the
mere ground that in the transfer certificate the
community of the petitioner was shown as Lingayat
as the possibility of a Lingayat being a Ganiga could
not be excluded. Therefore in the absence of any
other material evidence before the Selection
Committee on the basis of which it could have come
to the conclusion that the positioner did not belong to
Ganiga Community, the application could not have
been rejected. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to
the reconsideration of his case."
29. The Division Bench analysed the facts of the case
but found that reservation to backward classes had
not been introduced when the Respondent No. 1's
father had been admitted to school in 1953. By the
time the Appellant came to be admitted to school,
Reservation Policy for backward classes had been
introduced. This could be the reason why the caste
was not entered in the school records of the
Respondent No. 1's father where only 'Lingayat' was
mentioned but in the case of the Respondent No. 1
the caste was mentioned as 'Hindu-Ganiga'
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
30. The Division Bench rightly held that, if the
Respondent No. 1's father was, in fact, Ganiga, the
mere fact that his caste may not have been
mentioned in his school records, or elsewhere, would
not mean that he would have to be treated as a non-
Ganiga by caste. The Division Bench referred to a
report of the Karnataka Backward Classes
Commission constituted under the Chairmanship of
L.J. Havanur and in particular Paragraph 11 thereof
which reads:--
"11. Veerashaivas (Lingayats) claim to belong to a
religion of their own, though legally they are
considered as a Hindu denomination. It originated by
uniting certain caste-blocks, and has grown by adding
new ones which did not accept the principle of status
or rank ascribed by birth. The unit of endogamy
amongst veerashaivas in principle, is their
denominational community, but in the process of
expanding itself into a still larger community, it has
allowed, perhaps, the new entrants to retain their
autonomy and identity. That appears to be the
reason why we find separate religious heads and
monasteries of each section widespread in the State.
The cases of those caste-units who have not yet been
wholly assimilated into, or are half-way to, the
Veerashaiva community but who could be readily
identified and whose population could be ascertained
have been considered separately. Such cases include
the Ganigas (oil pressers), the Kumbaras (potters),
the Kshowrikas (barbers), the Agasas (washermen),
some Neygis (weavers), etc."
31. It appears that the finding of the Single Bench
that the earlier notification in which Category II-A
comprised many castes of which Ganiga was one, did
not include Lingayat-Ganiga is misconceived. In the
Government notification issued on 3rd March 2002,
Category II-A comprised of Ganiga and other castes
without referring to Lingayat Ganigas. Subsequently,
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
on 27th January 2009, an order was issued by the
Government of Karnataka to the effect that 19 sub-
castes within Veerashaiva Lingayat were included in
Category III-B. One of the castes so brought under
Category III-B was Lingayat/Veerashaiva-Ganiga.
Subsequently, however the Government issued a
Notification on 28th February 2009 to the effect that
the caste in Serial No. 1 to 12 and 14 to 19 which
were included in Category III-B as per the
order/notification dated 27th January 2009 were
deleted from the Category III-B and restored to the
earlier position prevailing before 27th January 2009.
9.14. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 also
places reliance upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.V. Chandrakanth
v. Sangappa, and submits that
9.14.1. A mere omission in earlier school records
to specify a sub-caste such as "Ganiga"
does not preclude a candidate from
subsequently establishing that he in fact
belongs to that community.
9.14.2. The possibility of a person being both
"Lingayat" by religion and "Ganiga" by
caste cannot be excluded.
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
9.14.3. In the absence of contrary material, a
caste certificate issued by the competent
authority cannot be rejected solely
because earlier school records described
the individual or his father only as
"Lingayat."
9.14.4. If the father was in fact Ganiga, the non-
mention of such sub-caste in school
records at a time when reservation
policy had not yet assumed significance
would not extinguish the caste identity.
9.14.5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also referred
to the Havanur Commission Report,
recognising that certain occupational
groups such as Ganigas historically
existed within or alongside the broader
Lingayat/Veerashaiva fold, sometimes
retaining distinct identity.
- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
9.15. Relying further upon the analysis of
Government Notifications in M.V.
Chandrakanth, learned counsel submits:
9.15.1. Under the Government Notification dated
03.03.2002, "Ganiga" was included in
Category II-A without specifically
referring to "Lingayat-Ganiga."
9.15.2. By Order dated 27.01.2009, certain sub-
castes within Veerashaiva Lingayat,
including Lingayat/Veerashaiva-Ganiga,
were included under Category III-B.
9.15.3. Subsequently, by Notification dated
28.02.2009, the earlier position was
restored by deleting those entries from
Category III-B, thereby reinstating their
status under Category II-A.
9.16. It is therefore contended that the argument
that "Lingayat-Ganiga" was excluded from
- 37 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
Category II-A is misconceived. The legislative
and executive intent, as recognised by the
Supreme Court, was to ensure that Lingayat-
Ganigas are not deprived of the benefit
available to Ganigas under Category II-A. He
therefore submits:
9.16.1. Respondent No.3 belongs to the
Lingayat-Ganiga community.
9.16.2. His caste certificate has been issued
after due statutory enquiry under
Section 4A.
9.16.3. The family records, including certificates
of father and siblings, consistently show
Ganiga.
9.16.4. The petitioner has failed to produce any
conclusive material disproving
respondent No.3's Ganiga status.
9.17. It is therefore urged that no grounds are made
out for interference under Articles 226 and 227
- 38 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
of the Constitution, and the writ petition is
liable to be dismissed.
10. Heard Sri.Shridhar N.Hegde, learned counsel for the
Petitioner, Sri.Mahantesh Shetter, learned AGA for
Respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri.S.S.Halli, learned
counsel for Respondent No.3 and perused papers.
11. The points that would arise for determination are:
1) Whether respondent No.3 has established
that he belongs to the "Ganiga"
community falling under Category II-A, or
whether the material on record
demonstrates that he belongs to the
"Hindu Lingayat" community not entitled
to such benefit?
2) In determining caste identity, what is the
evidentiary weight to be accorded to:
a) the contemporaneous school records
of the father,
b) subsequent entries and alleged
alterations in respondent No.3's
records, and
c) caste certificates and local enquiry
reports?
3) Whether, in law, "Lingayat" and "Ganiga"
are mutually exclusive identities, or
- 39 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
whether Ganiga may subsist as a distinct
caste group within the broader Lingayat
fold, having regard to the Government
Notifications and judicial precedents relied
upon?
4) Whether the impugned orders dated
19.07.2010 and 25.11.2015, passed under
the Karnataka Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward
Classes (Reservation of Appointments,
etc.) Act, 1990, suffer from illegality,
procedural irregularity, perversity, or non-
application of mind warranting
interference under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India?
5) What Order?
12. I answer the above points as follows:
13. Answer to Point No. 1: Whether respondent
No.3 has established that he belongs to the
"Ganiga" community falling under Category II-
A, or whether the material on record
demonstrates that he belongs to the "Hindu
Lingayat" community not entitled to such
benefit?
13.1. Sri. Shridhar N. Hegde, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, would submit that
respondent No.3, namely Sri Rajakumar Y
Bilagi, does not in truth and in fact belong to
- 40 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
the Ganiga community which is classified under
Category II-A of the Other Backward Classes. It
is the categorical contention of the petitioner
that respondent No.3 belongs to the Hindu
Lingayat community, which is not entitled to
the benefit of reservation under Category II-A.
13.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner places
considerable emphasis on the school records of
the father, brother, sister, cousin-sister and
cousin-brother of respondent No.3. According
to him, all such records uniformly and
consistently reflect the caste of the family
members of respondent No.3 as "Hindu
Lingayat." He submits that the school records
are contemporaneous documents and are
prepared at or about the time of admission,
without any prospect of future advantage or
benefit being in contemplation. Therefore, these
- 41 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
records constitute the most reliable and
authentic evidence of the caste of the family.
13.3. It is specifically pointed out that only in respect
of respondent No.3, the caste entry in the
school admission register has been subjected to
an overwriting or insertion. The original entry
"Hindu Lingayat" is stated to have been altered
by the insertion of the word "Ganiga" below it,
thereby making it appear as "Hindu Lingayat
Ganiga." Learned counsel characterises this
overwriting as ex facie suspicious and contends
that such alteration appears to have been
effected for the sole and exclusive purpose of
enabling respondent No.3 to claim the benefit
of reservation under Category II-A, which is
available to the Ganiga community.
13.4. It is further submitted that respondent No.1,
the District Caste and Income Verification
Committee, while passing the impugned order
- 42 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
dated 19.07.2010, noticed that there was a
correction or insertion in the school records of
respondent No.3. However, instead of requiring
respondent No.3 to produce any order or
authority from a competent body authorising
such correction, respondent No.1 proceeded on
the presumption that such correction must have
been made pursuant to a valid order. Learned
counsel submits that this presumption is wholly
unwarranted and is not supported by any
documentary evidence whatsoever. In the
absence of any material demonstrating that a
competent authority had directed the alteration
in the school records, the finding of respondent
No.1 is based on assumption, surmise and
conjecture, rendering the order unsustainable
in law.
13.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also draws
attention to the initial order dated 16.06.2010
- 43 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
passed by respondent No.1, wherein the
request for issuance of a caste certificate under
Category II-A in favour of respondent No.3 was
rejected. In the said order, respondent No.1
itself had recorded that the relevant documents
pertaining to the father, brother and sister of
respondent No.3 were verified, and all such
records reflected their caste as "Lingayat," with
no reference to "Lingayat Ganiga" or "Ganiga."
Learned counsel submits that this initial finding
by respondent No.1, which was based on a
thorough verification of family records, was
correct and ought not to have been reversed
upon remand without any fresh or additional
material being placed on record to warrant a
different conclusion.
13.6. It is contended that the appellate authority,
respondent No.4, by order dated 13.07.2010,
allowed the appeal of respondent No.3 and
- 44 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
However, upon remand, no new or additional
material was placed on record by respondent
No.3 that could justify a departure from the
earlier finding. The only material that appears
to have weighed with respondent No.1 upon
remand was the alleged correction in the school
records and the recommendation of the
President of the Akhila Bharath Ganigara
Sangha. Learned counsel submits that the
recommendation of a community association
cannot substitute for documentary proof
emanating from official records, and that such
recommendation is, at best, an opinion and not
evidence of caste.
13.7. Accordingly, it is submitted that respondent
No.3 has failed to establish that he belongs to
the Ganiga community. The overwhelming
weight of documentary evidence, consisting of
- 45 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
the school records of the father, siblings and
other relatives of respondent No.3,
demonstrates that the family belongs to the
Hindu Lingayat community. The solitary altered
entry in the school records of respondent No.3,
unsupported by any lawful order of correction,
cannot form the basis of a valid caste certificate
under Category II-A.
13.8. Per contra, Sri. S.S. Halli, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.3, submits that
respondent No.3 in truth and in fact belongs to
the Ganiga community, which is classified
under Category II-A of the Other Backward
Classes, as per the Government Order dated
03.03.2002. He points out that "Ganiga" is
included at Serial No.78 under Category II-A,
and therefore a person belonging to the Ganiga
caste is entitled to the benefit of reservation
thereunder.
- 46 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
13.9. Learned counsel draws attention to the fact that
the caste validity certificate under Category II-
A was issued in favour of respondent No.3 only
after due and proper verification of all relevant
documents. He submits that the Taluka
Backward Classes and Minorities Officer
conducted a local enquiry, and upon
consideration of the enquiry report and the
supporting documents, the caste certificate was
duly issued. The issuance of the certificate was
thus preceded by statutory scrutiny under the
provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes
(Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1990").
13.10. With regard to the documentary evidence,
learned counsel for respondent No.3 draws the
attention of this Court to the following records
which, according to him, uniformly and
- 47 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
consistently reflect the caste of respondent
No.3 and his family as "Ganiga":
13.10.1. The birth certificate of respondent No.3;
13.10.2. The school admission register, wherein
the caste is recorded as "Hindu Ganiga";
13.10.3. The Transfer Certificates from Primary
School, 7th Standard and 10th
Standard;
13.10.4. The school leaving certificate;
13.10.5. The Transfer Certificates of the sisters of
respondent No.3, wherein their caste is
recorded as "Ganiga";
13.10.6. Caste certificates issued in the names of
the father, sister and brother of
respondent No.3, reflecting the caste as
"Ganiga."
- 48 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
13.11. On the basis of the aforesaid documents,
learned counsel submits that the entire family
of respondent No.3 belongs to the Ganiga
community, and respondent No.3 is no
exception. The documentary record is not
confined to a single isolated document but
encompasses multiple records prepared at
different points of time by different authorities,
all of which consistently reflect the caste as
Ganiga.
13.12. It is further submitted that respondent No.3
was initially appointed as a Police Constable
and subsequently selected and appointed as a
Police Sub-Inspector, based upon the said caste
certification. He has completed nearly 15 years
of service as on 08.11.2025. His appointment
and continued service were predicated upon the
validity of the caste certificate, which has never
- 49 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
been set aside in any proceedings in
accordance with law.
13.13. Learned counsel further contends that the
petitioner has unsuccessfully challenged the
caste status of respondent No.3 in multiple
proceedings. Having failed in earlier rounds of
litigation, the petitioner cannot be permitted to
persist with repeated challenges on the same
issue, thereby harassing respondent No.3 who
has been rendering public service for over a
decade and a half.
13.14. With regard to the allegation of interpolation in
the school records, learned counsel submits
that the entry was made pursuant to a Circular
dated 26.10.2015, which directed recording of
caste details at the Block Education Officer
level. The insertion, therefore, was in
compliance with an administrative directive and
- 50 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
cannot be characterised as an unauthorised or
suspicious alteration.
13.15. Accordingly, it is submitted that respondent
No.3 has established, through a preponderance
of documentary evidence, statutory verification
and administrative scrutiny, that he belongs to
the Ganiga community under Category II-A,
and the caste certificate issued in his favour is
valid and subsisting.
13.16. This Court has carefully considered the rival
submissions and examined the material on
record. The central question is whether
respondent No.3 has established that he
belongs to the Ganiga community classified
under Category II-A, or whether the record
demonstrates that he belongs to the Hindu
Lingayat community not entitled to such
benefit.
- 51 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
13.17. It is settled law that caste determination is
essentially a question of fact. The burden of
establishing entitlement to reservation benefits
lies upon the person who claims such benefit.
The competent authority is required to consider
all material in a holistic manner and arrive at a
reasoned conclusion.
13.18. The documentary material reveals two strands
of evidence. The school records of the father
and certain family members reflect the caste as
"Hindu Lingayat." Conversely, respondent No.3
has produced his birth certificate, school
admission register, Transfer Certificates, school
leaving certificate, caste certificates issued in
favour of family members, and other supporting
records reflecting the caste as "Ganiga" or
"Hindu Ganiga."
13.19. It is true that the order dated 19.07.2010
reveals that respondent No.1 relied, inter alia,
- 52 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
on a correction/insertion in the school records
of respondent No.3 without calling for the order
under which such correction was made. The
approach adopted in this regard cannot be said
to be procedurally rigorous.
13.20. However, the question does not rest solely
upon the altered school entry. Respondent No.3
has placed multiple independent documents on
record reflecting the caste as "Ganiga,"
including certificates pertaining to siblings and
other family members. These documents have
not been demonstrated to be fabricated or
invalid. The caste certificates issued to family
members, unless set aside in accordance with
law, carry evidentiary value.
13.21. The father's school records describing the caste
as "Lingayat" cannot be treated as conclusively
excluding Ganiga identity. As recognised in
judicial precedents discussed earlier, Ganiga
- 53 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
may subsist as a distinct occupational caste
group within the broader Lingayat fold. The
mere absence of the sub-caste description in
earlier records does not, by itself, negate the
existence of such sub-group identity.
13.22. The documentary evidence produced by
respondent No.3, taken cumulatively,
establishes a consistent description of the
family as belonging to the Ganiga community.
The inconsistency in certain earlier records does
not outweigh the totality of material supporting
the Ganiga identity, particularly in the absence
of any conclusive proof that the subsequent
documents are fabricated or manipulated.
13.23. Furthermore, respondent No.3 has served in
public employment for approximately 14 years
as a Police Sub-Inspector on the strength of the
caste validity certificate. His appointment was
made after statutory verification, and the
- 54 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
certificate has not been annulled in appropriate
proceedings. Long and uninterrupted service,
though not decisive of caste status, is a
relevant equitable consideration where the
material on record supports the claimed
identity.
13.24. While the enquiry conducted by respondent
No.1 upon remand may not have been
procedurally impeccable, the substantive
documentary evidence on record is sufficient for
this Court to conclude that respondent No.3 has
established his identity as belonging to the
Ganiga community under Category II-A.
13.25. Accordingly, this Court holds that respondent
No.3 has satisfactorily established that he
belongs to the Ganiga community classified
under Category II-A of the Other Backward
Classes. The inconsistencies in certain ancestral
records do not dislodge the cumulative
- 55 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
evidentiary weight of the documents produced
by him.
13.26. I answer Point No.1 by holding that the
caste status of respondent No.3 as Ganiga
under Category II-A stands established on
the material available, and no ground is
made out for interference with the
impugned orders.
14. Answer to Point No. 2: In determining caste
identity, what is the evidentiary weight to be
accorded to: (a) the contemporaneous school
records of the father, (b) subsequent entries
and alleged alterations in respondent No.3's
records, and (c) caste certificates and local
enquiry reports?
14.1. Sri. Shridhar N. Hegde, learned counsel for the
petitioner, submits that contemporaneous
school records of the father of a claimant
constitute the most reliable and probative
evidence in caste verification proceedings. Such
records are prepared at or about the time of
school admission, at a stage when reservation
- 56 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
benefits were either non-existent or had no
bearing on the declaration of caste. They
therefore reflect the genuine and unembellished
caste identity of the family.
14.2. In support of this proposition, reliance is placed
on the decision of this Court (Dharwad Bench)
in Sangappa v. Commissioner for Backward
Classes. It is submitted that this Court therein
held:
14.2.1. That the school records and certificates
of the father carry greater probative
value than subsequent certificates
obtained by the claimant himself.
14.2.2. That where the father's
contemporaneous records reflect a
particular caste, the claimant cannot
ordinarily assert a different caste identity
- 57 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
for the purpose of availing reservation
benefits.
14.2.3. That if the entry in the father's records
was incorrect, it was open to the father
to seek rectification at the relevant time;
failure to do so reinforces the
presumption of correctness of the
original entry.
14.2.4. That remand is not automatic when
determinative material, particularly the
father's school records, is already
available.
14.3. Learned counsel further places reliance upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
M.V. Chandrakanth v. Sangappa. It is
submitted that the Supreme Court recognised
the evidentiary relevance of the father's school
records in proceedings under Section 4D of the
- 58 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
Act of 1990 and treated such contemporaneous
entries as significant material in determining
caste status.
14.4. Reliance is also placed upon the decision of this
Court in Mallikarjunappa v. State of
Karnataka, wherein it was held that any
alteration in caste description must withstand
statutory scrutiny and cannot be a device to
secure reservation benefits. An alteration from
"Lingayat" to "Lingayat Ganiga" or "Ganiga," if
unsupported by valid authority or credible
ancestral evidence, cannot be accepted merely
on assertion.
14.5. On the basis of the aforesaid authorities,
learned counsel submits that:
14.5.1. The contemporaneous school records of
the father carry the highest evidentiary
- 59 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
value and form the foundational
document for determining caste identity;
14.5.2. Subsequent entries, corrections or
alterations in the claimant's records,
particularly where unsupported by any
lawful order, cannot override the father's
contemporaneous records; and
14.5.3. Caste certificates and local enquiry
reports which contradict the father's
school records must be subjected to
strict scrutiny and cannot be accepted in
the absence of independent and reliable
corroboration.
14.6. It is therefore contended that where the
father's school records uniformly describe the
caste as "Hindu Lingayat," a later assertion of
"Ganiga" identity, unsupported by legally
authenticated ancestral material, cannot form
- 60 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
the basis for conferring reservation benefits
under Category II-A.
14.7. Sri. S.S. Halli, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.3, submits that while the school
records of the father are undoubtedly relevant
in caste verification proceedings, they cannot
be treated as the sole and conclusive
determinant of caste identity. He contends that
where multiple independent documents,
including the school records of the claimant,
school records of siblings, caste certificates
issued by competent authorities, and reports of
local enquiry officers, consistently reflect a
particular caste, such cumulative evidence must
be assessed holistically.
14.8. In support of this submission, reliance is placed
upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in M.V. Chandrakanth v. Sangappa. It is
submitted that:
- 61 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
14.8.1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court recognised
that reservation policy for backward
classes was not in force at the time
when the father in that case was
admitted to school. The non-mention of
the sub-caste in earlier records was
therefore explainable and not decisive.
14.8.2. It was held that if the father was, in fact,
Ganiga, the mere absence of such
description in his school records would
not render the family non-Ganiga by
caste.
14.8.3. The Court referred to the Havanur
Commission Report, which acknowledged
that occupational groups such as
Ganigas historically existed within or
alongside the broader
Lingayat/Veerashaiva fold.
- 62 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
14.9. Learned counsel further relies upon the decision
of this Court in Prabhushankar K.V. v.
Selection Committee for Medical Colleges,
wherein it was held that the mere description of
a candidate as "Lingayat" in school records
does not automatically negate a claim that the
candidate belongs to a recognised backward
sub-caste within the Lingayat fold. The Court
recognised that Lingayat is a broad
denominational identity within which distinct
occupational or community groups such as
Ganiga may subsist.
14.10. On the strength of the aforesaid authorities,
learned counsel submits that:
14.10.1. The father's school records, though
relevant, are not conclusive, particularly
where the absence of sub-caste
description is attributable to historical
and policy context;
- 63 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
14.10.2. Subsequent records of the claimant and
siblings, prepared at a time when sub-
caste classification carried legal
significance, are equally relevant and
cannot be disregarded; and
14.10.3. Caste certificates issued by competent
authorities after statutory enquiry carry
a presumption of correctness and cannot
be lightly interfered with in writ
jurisdiction, unless shown to be vitiated
by fraud, perversity, or patent illegality.
14.11. This Court has carefully considered the rival
submissions and the authorities cited by both
sides on the question of evidentiary weight to
be accorded to different categories of evidence
in caste verification proceedings. The question
is of considerable importance and requires a
principled analysis.
- 64 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
14.12. The law is well-settled that in matters of caste
determination, school records constitute
important evidence. This is because school
records are ordinarily prepared at or about the
time of admission of a student, on the basis of
information furnished by the parent or
guardian, and are contemporaneous documents
that are maintained in the ordinary course of
institutional record-keeping. They are not
prepared with any future benefit in
contemplation and are therefore generally
considered reliable indicators of the caste of the
student and his or her family.
14.13. The school records of the father of respondent
No.3, as verified during the initial enquiry,
describe the caste as "Hindu Lingayat." These
records are contemporaneous and unaltered
and therefore carry substantial evidentiary
weight. Ordinarily, such records would
- 65 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
constitute strong foundational material in
determining caste identity.
14.14. However, the evidentiary value of these records
must be assessed not in isolation but in the
context of the legal principles governing sub-
caste recognition. As clarified by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in M.V. Chandrakanth, the
absence of a specific sub-caste description in
the father's school records, particularly at a
time when the reservation policy had not
assumed practical or legal relevance, does not
conclusively establish that the family did not
belong to such a sub-caste. The broader
descriptor "Lingayat" may have been socially
and administratively sufficient at the relevant
historical moment. It cannot therefore, be
presumed that the omission of "Ganiga" from
the father's school records reflects a denial of
Ganiga identity.
- 66 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
14.15. It is equally significant that the father's school
records do not contain any express statement
negating Ganiga identity; they merely reflect
the broader denominational description
"Lingayat." The law emerging from
Prabhushankar recognises that within the
broader Lingayat fold there may exist distinct
occupational or community sub-groups such as
Ganiga. The broader descriptor, by itself, is not
exclusionary. Therefore, while the father's
records carry high probative value, they cannot
be treated as determinative of the absence of
Ganiga identity unless accompanied by
additional material negating such sub-group
affiliation.
14.16. Turning to the documentary material produced
by respondent No.3, this Court notes that the
claim of Ganiga identity is not founded solely
upon an altered school entry. Respondent No.3
- 67 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
has placed on record multiple independent
documents reflecting the caste as "Ganiga" or
"Hindu Ganiga." These include:
14.16.1. His birth certificate;
14.16.2. School admission register entries;
14.16.3. Transfer Certificates and school leaving
certificates;
14.16.4. Caste certificates issued in favour of
family members;
14.16.5. Records pertaining to siblings
consistently describing the caste as
Ganiga.
14.17. The consistency of these documents across
different time periods and institutions lends
cumulative corroborative strength to the claim.
14.18. The alleged alteration in the school record of
respondent No.3 was rightly viewed with
caution. However, the caste determination in
the present case does not hinge exclusively
- 68 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
upon that altered entry. Even if the altered
entry is excluded from consideration, the
remaining documentary material, viewed
cumulatively, supports the Ganiga identity of
the family. The petitioner has not demonstrated
that these documents are fabricated,
fraudulently obtained, or vitiated by
misrepresentation.
14.19. The caste certificates issued in favour of
respondent No.3 and his family members were
granted pursuant to statutory enquiry under
the Act of 1990. Such certificates carry a
presumption of correctness unless successfully
challenged. No independent proceedings have
resulted in the cancellation of those certificates.
The mere existence of earlier records using a
broader descriptor does not automatically
invalidate certificates issued after statutory
verification.
- 69 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
14.20. The reconciliation of apparent documentary
inconsistency must therefore be undertaken in
a reasoned manner. On one side stand the
father's contemporaneous school records
describing the caste as "Lingayat." On the other
hand multiple later documents, including
statutory caste certificates, describing the caste
as "Ganiga." In the absence of evidence of
fraud, the Court must assess whether the
cumulative documentary pattern supports one
conclusion more convincingly than the other.
14.21. In the considered view of this Court, the
subsequent and consistent recognition of the
family as Ganiga across multiple institutional
records, coupled with statutory verification
proceedings, outweighs the inference sought to
be drawn from the non-mention of the sub-
caste in the father's school records. The
historical context, namely, that sub-caste
- 70 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
specification acquired legal significance only
upon the introduction of reservation benefits,
provides a rational explanation for the earlier
use of the broader descriptor.
14.22. The law does not elevate paternal school
records to the status of irrebuttable proof.
Rather, they constitute highly probative but
rebuttable evidence. In the present case, that
evidentiary presumption stands sufficiently
counterbalanced by consistent, corroborated
and statutorily recognised documentation
establishing Ganiga identity.
14.23. Additionally, respondent No.3 has served in
public employment for approximately fifteen
years on the basis of the caste validity
certificate. While length of service cannot
create caste identity, it reinforces the necessity
of judicial restraint where the documentary
evidence substantively supports the claimed
- 71 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
identity and no fraud has been demonstrated.
To unsettle such long-standing service on the
basis of an interpretative dispute regarding
evidentiary hierarchy would not advance the
cause of justice.
14.24. This Court is therefore satisfied that the
evidentiary matrix, when viewed holistically and
in light of governing precedent, establishes that
respondent No.3 belongs to the Ganiga
community falling under Category II-A. The
father's school records, though significant, do
not conclusively negate this conclusion.
14.25. Accordingly, I answer Point No.2 by
holding that:
14.25.1. Contemporaneous paternal school
records carry substantial probative
value but are not conclusively
determinative of sub-caste identity;
- 72 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
14.25.2. Subsequent documentary material, if
consistent, corroborated and
statutorily recognised, may rebut
the inference arising from broader
ancestral descriptors;
14.25.3. In the present case, the cumulative
documentary evidence satisfactorily
establishes that respondent No.3
belongs to the Ganiga community
under Category II-A.
15. Answer to Point No. 3: Whether, in law,
"Lingayat" and "Ganiga" are mutually exclusive
identities, or whether Ganiga may subsist as a
distinct caste group within the broader
Lingayat fold, having regard to the Government
Notifications and judicial precedents relied
upon?
15.1. Sri. Shridhar N. Hegde, learned counsel for the
petitioner, submits at the outset that he does
not dispute, as a matter of sociological
possibility, that distinct occupational or sub-
- 73 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
caste groups may exist within the broader
Lingayat fold. His contention, however, is
confined to the factual matrix of the present
case. According to him, the family records of
respondent No.3, particularly the
contemporaneous school records of the father,
uniformly describe the caste as "Hindu
Lingayat" without any reference to the Ganiga
sub-caste.
15.2. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in M.V. Chandrakanth v.
Sangappa, learned counsel draws attention to
the series of Government Notifications
examined therein:
15.2.1. Notification dated 03.03.2002 -
wherein Category II-A included "Ganiga"
as a distinct caste, without specific
reference to "Lingayat-Ganiga."
- 74 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
15.2.2. Government Order dated 27.01.2009
- whereby 19 sub-castes within
Veerashaiva Lingayat, including
"Lingayat/Veerashaiva-Ganiga," were
temporarily included under Category III-
B.
15.2.3. Notification dated 28.02.2009 -
which deleted those entries from
Category III-B and restored the earlier
classification.
15.3. Learned counsel submits that these
notifications demonstrate that "Ganiga" is
recognised as an occupational caste classified
under Category II-A, distinct in nomenclature
and classification from the broader religious
community of "Lingayat." The temporary
movement of "Lingayat/Veerashaiva-Ganiga" to
Category III-B and its subsequent restoration
establishes the sensitivity and specificity of
- 75 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
caste categorisation under the statutory
framework.
15.4. According to the petitioner, the distinction is
legally significant. While it may be true that a
person belonging to the Ganiga caste may also
profess the Lingayat faith, the converse
proposition does not automatically follow. Not
every individual described as "Lingayat" can
claim to belong to the Ganiga sub-caste. The
petitioner emphasises that caste classification
for the purpose of reservation is not determined
by religious affiliation alone but by established
sub-caste identity.
15.5. It is therefore contended that, in the absence of
any contemporaneous reference to "Ganiga" in
the father's school records or ancestral
documents, the attempt to equate the broader
descriptor "Lingayat" with the specific sub-caste
"Ganiga" is legally untenable. The petitioner
- 76 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
submits that respondent No.3 cannot derive
sub-caste identity merely from the fact that
Ganigas may exist within the Lingayat fold. The
existence of such sub-groups in general does
not establish that this particular family belongs
to that sub-group.
15.6. Learned counsel thus submits that, in the
present factual context, the consistent
description of the family as "Hindu Lingayat" in
primary records negates the claim of
respondent No.3 to belong to the Ganiga
community, and that the broader sociological
possibility of coexistence cannot substitute for
specific proof.
15.7. Sri. S.S. Halli, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.3, submits that "Lingayat" and
"Ganiga" are not mutually exclusive identities.
According to him, Ganiga is a distinct
occupational caste group which may subsist
- 77 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
within the broader Lingayat/Veerashaiva fold,
and a person may simultaneously be a Lingayat
by religious affiliation and a Ganiga by caste
classification.
15.8. In support of this contention, reliance is placed
upon the decision of this Court in
Prabhushankar K.V. v. Selection
Committee for Medical Colleges, wherein it
was held that the mere description of a
candidate as "Lingayat" in school records does
not justify rejection of a claim that he belongs
to the Ganiga community. This Court
recognised that within the Lingayat fold there
exist distinct occupational or community groups
such as Ganiga and Kuruhina Setty. It was held
that a candidate cannot be denied reservation
merely because he professes the Lingayat faith,
if he otherwise belongs to a recognised
backward sub-community.
- 78 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
15.9. Learned counsel further relies upon the
observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
M.V. Chandrakanth v. Sangappa. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court endorsed the principle
laid down in Prabhushankar and observed
that the broader descriptor "Lingayat" does not
preclude the existence of a distinct sub-caste
identity such as Ganiga.
15.10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while examining
the issue, referred to the Havanur Commission
Report, which recognised that certain
occupational groups -- including Ganigas (oil
pressers), Kumbaras (potters), Kshowrikas
(barbers), and Agasas (washermen),
historically existed within the
Veerashaiva/Lingayat fold while retaining
separate identity. The report noted that
although Veerashaivas claim denominational
unity, the community historically evolved by
- 79 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
incorporating distinct caste-blocks that retained
social and occupational distinctiveness.
15.11. Learned counsel submits that the sociological
and legal recognition of Ganiga as a distinct
occupational caste within the Lingayat fold
negates the petitioner's contention that the use
of the broader descriptor "Lingayat" in ancestral
records conclusively excludes Ganiga identity.
15.12. Attention is also drawn to the relevant
Government Notifications. The Notification
dated 03.03.2002 includes "Ganiga" under
Category II-A. The temporary inclusion of
"Lingayat/Veerashaiva-Ganiga" under Category
III-B by Notification dated 27.01.2009, followed
by its deletion by Notification dated 28.02.2009
restoring the earlier classification,
demonstrates the State's recognition that
Lingayat-Ganigas are to be treated as part of
- 80 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
the Ganiga community for the purpose of
reservation benefits under Category II-A.
15.13. Learned counsel therefore submits that the
petitioner's attempt to treat "Lingayat" and
"Ganiga" as mutually exclusive categories is
legally unsustainable. The proper legal inquiry
is not whether a Lingayat can be a Ganiga in
abstract terms, but whether respondent No.3
has established that he belongs to the Ganiga
sub-caste within the Lingayat fold. If so, he is
entitled to the benefits of Category II-A.
15.14. This Court has carefully considered the
submissions of both sides and the authorities
cited on this important question of law. The
issue is not merely academic. The
determination whether "Lingayat" and "Ganiga"
are mutually exclusive identities has direct
bearing on caste verification proceedings across
- 81 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
the State and must therefore be answered on
principled and precedential foundations.
15.15. The starting point of the analysis is the
sociological and historical structure of the
Lingayat/Veerashaiva community in Karnataka.
It is a broad religious denomination which,
historically, has encompassed within it several
occupational and caste groups. The Havanur
Commission Report, extracted and relied upon
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.V.
Chandrakanth v. Sangappa, records that the
Veerashaiva/Lingayat community evolved by
incorporating distinct caste-blocks, many of
which retained their occupational and social
identity even while participating in a common
denominational framework.
15.16. The Commission specifically identified Ganigas
(oil pressers), Kumbaras (potters), Kshowrikas
(barbers), Agasas (washermen), and other such
- 82 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
groups as caste-units that historically existed
within or alongside the Veerashaiva fold while
maintaining separate identity.
15.17. The decision of this Court in Prabhushankar
K.V. v. Selection Committee for Medical
Colleges is a seminal authority on this issue. It
was categorically held therein that the mere
description of a person as "Lingayat" does not
preclude him from belonging to a distinct
backward sub-caste such as Ganiga. This Court
recognised that denominational identity and
caste identity may operate simultaneously. A
person may profess the Lingayat faith and yet
belong to a specific occupational caste within
that fold.
15.18. In Prabhushankar, it was further observed
that prior to the introduction of reservation
benefits, there was no practical necessity to
specify sub-caste identity in school records. The
- 83 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
broader descriptor "Lingayat" would have been
socially and administratively sufficient. That
observation is directly relevant to cases such as
the present one, where the father's school
records contain the broader descriptor without
sub-caste qualification.
15.19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.V.
Chandrakanth v. Sangappa expressly
endorsed the principles laid down in
Prabhushankar. At paragraphs 28 to 30, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court recognised that the
absence of a sub-caste description in earlier
records does not conclusively negate such
identity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if
the father was in fact Ganiga, the non-mention
of that sub-caste in school records prepared
before reservation policy became legally
relevant would not compel a conclusion that the
family is non-Ganiga.
- 84 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
15.20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also examined the
relevant Government Notifications:
15.20.1. The Notification dated 03.03.2002
classifying "Ganiga" under Category II-
A;
15.20.2. The Order dated 27.01.2009 temporarily
including Lingayat/Veerashaiva-Ganiga
under Category III-B;
15.20.3. The Notification dated 28.02.2009
restoring the earlier classification.
15.21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the
legislative and executive intent underlying
these notifications was not to exclude Lingayat-
Ganigas from the benefits available to Ganigas,
but to ensure proper classification. The brief
reclassification and immediate restoration
demonstrate recognition that Lingayat-Ganigas
form part of the Ganiga community for
reservation purposes.
- 85 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
15.22. At paragraph 33 of M.V. Chandrakanth, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the proposition
that Hindu-Ganiga and Lingayat-Ganiga
constitute mutually exclusive castes. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that
denominational identity (Lingayat) does not
erase occupational caste identity (Ganiga). The
broader religious descriptor does not extinguish
the specific caste classification.
15.23. In light of the above authorities, this Court
holds that as a matter of law:
15.23.1. "Lingayat" and "Ganiga" are not mutually
exclusive identities;
15.23.2. Ganiga is a distinct occupational caste
which may subsist within the broader
Lingayat/Veerashaiva fold;
15.23.3. A person may simultaneously be
Lingayat by religious affiliation and
Ganiga by caste classification;
- 86 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
15.23.4. The description "Hindu Lingayat" in
school records does not, by itself, negate
Ganiga identity.
15.24. However, this recognition must be applied with
care. The fact that Ganigas may exist within the
Lingayat fold does not mean that every
Lingayat can claim Ganiga identity. The
coexistence of identities is a matter of legal
possibility; the establishment of such identity in
a given case is a matter of proof.
15.25. The authorities are therefore required to
conduct a careful and evidence-based enquiry
in each case where a claimant described in
ancestral records as "Lingayat" asserts Ganiga
identity. The enquiry must examine
documentary consistency, familial records,
statutory certificates, and historical context.
Mere assertion is insufficient; credible and
verifiable evidence is required.
- 87 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
15.26. The Government Notifications analysed in M.V.
Chandrakanth further reinforce that Lingayat-
Ganigas are not to be denied the benefits
available to Ganigas under Category II-A. The
restoration of classification under the
Notification dated 28.02.2009 reflects the
State's recognition that Lingayat-Ganigas fall
within the Ganiga grouping for reservation
purposes.
15.27. Accordingly, I answer Point No.3 by
holding that "Lingayat" and "Ganiga" are
not mutually exclusive identities. Ganiga
may subsist as a distinct caste group
within the broader Lingayat fold. A person
described as "Lingayat" in ancestral
records may, upon proof, establish Ganiga
identity within that fold.
15.28. In the present case, as already held under
Points No.1 and 2, the documentary
- 88 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
material on record sufficiently establishes
that respondent No.3 belongs to the
Ganiga community under Category II-A.
The broader descriptor "Lingayat" in
certain ancestral records does not negate
that conclusion.
16. Answer to Point No. 4: Whether the impugned
orders dated 19.07.2010 and 25.11.2015,
passed under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes
(Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990,
suffer from illegality, procedural irregularity,
perversity, or non-application of mind
warranting interference under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India?
16.1. Sri. Shridhar N. Hegde, learned counsel for the
petitioner, submits that the impugned order
dated 19.07.2010 passed by respondent No.1
and the appellate order dated 25.11.2015
passed by respondent No.4 are vitiated by
serious legal infirmities warranting interference
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India.
- 89 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
16.2. Non-Application of Mind: It is contended that
the order dated 19.07.2010 suffers from patent
non-application of mind. Respondent No.1,
upon noticing a correction or insertion in the
school records of respondent No.3, proceeded
on the assumption that such correction must
have been made pursuant to a valid order. No
document evidencing such authorisation was
produced. A quasi-judicial authority cannot act
on presumption; it is bound to record findings
based on material placed before it. The failure
to insist upon production of the authorising
order and the acceptance of the altered entry at
face value is submitted to be legally
impermissible.
16.3. Illegality in Compliance with Remand:
Learned counsel further submits that the
appellate authority, by order dated 13.07.2010,
had remanded the matter for fresh
- 90 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
consideration after affording opportunity to
respondent No.3 to produce all relevant
material. The remand was intended to ensure a
thorough and proper enquiry. However, upon
remand, respondent No.1 did not conduct a
comprehensive reassessment of the evidence.
Instead, it is contended, the authority accepted
the altered entry without verification. This
amounts to failure to comply with the terms
and spirit of the remand order and constitutes
illegality.
16.4. Alleged Perversity: It is further submitted
that the order is perverse. In the earlier order
dated 16.06.2010, respondent No.1 had
concluded, after verification of family records,
that the caste reflected was "Lingayat." Upon
remand, without any materially cogent new
evidence, the authority reversed its own
finding. According to the petitioner, reversal of
- 91 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
a finding without substantial additional material
demonstrates perversity and arbitrariness.
16.5. Procedural Irregularity: The petitioner also
contends that respondent No.1 relied upon the
recommendation of the President of the Akhila
Bharath Ganigara Sangha. It is submitted that
the Act of 1990 and the Rules framed
thereunder do not contemplate caste
determination on the basis of recommendations
from community associations. Such reliance,
without independent documentary
corroboration, constitutes procedural
irregularity.
16.6. Deficiencies in the Appellate Order: With
regard to the appellate order dated 25.11.2015,
it is submitted that the appellate authority
failed to address the specific grounds urged
before it. The appellate authority was required
to examine:
- 92 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
16.6.1. Whether respondent No.1 complied with
the remand directions;
16.6.2. Whether reliance on the altered school
entry was justified;
16.6.3. Whether the cumulative evidence
supported the conclusion reached.
16.7. The petitioner submits that the appellate order
does not adequately engage with these
contentions and is therefore unsustainable.
16.8. Placing reliance upon Sangappa v.
Commissioner for Backward Classes,
Mallikarjunappa v. State of Karnataka, and
M.V. Chandrakanth v. Sangappa, learned
counsel submits that the impugned orders are
liable to be quashed as being contrary to
settled principles governing caste verification
proceedings.
- 93 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
16.9. Sri. S.S. Halli, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.3, submits that the impugned
orders dated 19.07.2010 and 25.11.2015 do
not suffer from any illegality, procedural
irregularity, perversity, or non-application of
mind. It is contended that no ground is made
out for interference in exercise of this Court's
writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India.
16.10. Learned counsel submits that pursuant to the
remand order dated 13.07.2010, respondent
No.1 conducted a proper enquiry, afforded
opportunity to respondent No.3 to produce
additional material, and considered all
documents placed on record. These included
the school records of respondent No.3, his birth
certificate, Transfer Certificates, and caste
certificates issued in favour of family members.
The finding that respondent No.3 belongs to the
- 94 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
Ganiga community was not based solely on the
altered school entry but on a cumulative
assessment of documentary evidence.
16.11. With regard to the allegation of non-application
of mind, learned counsel submits that
respondent No.1 examined the relevant
material in detail and recorded reasons for
accepting the Ganiga identity of respondent
No.3. The authority considered that the school
records of respondent No.3 reflected "Hindu
Ganiga," that the Transfer Certificates recorded
"Ganiga," and that caste certificates issued to
family members corroborated the same. The
order demonstrates conscious consideration of
the evidentiary material and cannot be
characterised as mechanical or presumptive.
16.12. As regards the allegation of perversity, learned
counsel contends that the reversal of the earlier
finding dated 16.06.2010 was justified. Upon
- 95 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
remand, respondent No.3 was afforded an
opportunity to produce further material, and
additional documents were indeed placed on
record. A fresh assessment based on expanded
evidentiary material cannot be termed perverse
merely because it results in a different
conclusion. The authority was entitled to re-
evaluate the matter in light of the new
material.
16.13. With respect to the scope of judicial review,
learned counsel submits that in proceedings
under Articles 226 and 227, this Court does not
sit in appeal over findings of fact recorded by
statutory authorities. The Court's jurisdiction is
limited to examining jurisdictional errors,
violation of principles of natural justice, or
patent illegality apparent on the face of the
record. Re-appreciation of evidence is
impermissible unless the findings are
- 96 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
demonstrably irrational or unsupported by any
material.
16.14. Placing reliance upon Prabhushankar K.V. v.
Selection Committee for Medical Colleges
and M.V. Chandrakanth v. Sangappa,
learned counsel submits that the impugned
orders are consistent with the legal position
that Lingayat and Ganiga are not mutually
exclusive identities and that cumulative
documentary evidence may establish Ganiga
status notwithstanding broader ancestral
descriptors.
16.15. It is therefore submitted that the impugned
orders represent a reasoned determination
based on material placed before the statutory
authorities, and no ground is made out for
interference in writ jurisdiction.
16.16. Before examining the alleged infirmities, it is
necessary to reiterate the settled contours of
- 97 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
writ and supervisory jurisdiction. Under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution, this Court
does not function as a court of appeal over
findings of fact recorded by statutory
authorities. The jurisdiction is supervisory and
corrective, not substitutive.
16.17. Interference is warranted only where the
impugned decision suffers from:
16.17.1. Lack of jurisdiction or excess of
jurisdiction;
16.17.2. Violation of principles of natural justice;
16.17.3. Patent illegality or error of law apparent
on the face of the record;
16.17.4. Perversity i.e., a conclusion that no
reasonable authority properly instructed
in law could have reached on the
material available;
- 98 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
16.17.5. Manifest non-application of mind
resulting in prejudice.
16.18. The Court is not concerned with whether
another view is possible. So long as the view
taken by the authority is a plausible view
supported by material on record, writ
interference is impermissible.
16.19. The principal attack of the petitioner is that
respondent No.1 presumed the validity of a
correction in the school records of respondent
No.3 without insisting upon production of a
formal authorising order. It is correct that the
impugned order does not record production of a
separate administrative order authorising the
correction. However, a close reading of the
order demonstrates that the authority did not
base its conclusion solely or substantially upon
the altered entry. The authority considered:
- 99 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
16.19.1. School records of respondent No.3;
16.19.2. Transfer Certificates reflecting "Ganiga";
16.19.3. Birth certificate entries;
16.19.4. Caste certificates issued to family
members;
16.19.5. Material placed upon remand;
16.19.6. The overall pattern of documentary
consistency.
16.20. The altered school entry formed part of the
evidentiary matrix but was not the exclusive
foundation of the finding. The decision was
based on cumulative documentary assessment.
In such circumstances, the absence of separate
verification of the correction order does not, by
itself, amount to non-application of mind
sufficient to vitiate the entire proceeding.
- 100 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
16.21. Non-application of mind must be established by
demonstrating that the authority failed to
consider relevant material or relied solely upon
irrelevant material. That threshold is not
crossed in the present case.
16.22. The appellate authority, by order dated
13.07.2010, remanded the matter for fresh
consideration after affording respondent No.3
opportunity to produce additional material. The
record discloses that respondent No.3 was
indeed afforded such opportunity and additional
documentary material was placed on record.
The authority re-evaluated the matter in light of
the expanded record. A remand order requires
reconsideration; it does not dictate the
outcome. The fact that respondent No.1
ultimately arrived at a conclusion different from
its earlier order dated 16.06.2010 does not
establish non-compliance. What is required is a
- 101 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
fresh application of mind, which is evident from
the reasoning recorded in the impugned order.
16.23. Perversity is a high threshold. A finding is
perverse only when:
16.23.1. It is unsupported by any evidence;
16.23.2. It ignores vital material;
16.23.3. It is based on wholly irrelevant
considerations; or
16.23.4. It defies logic to such an extent that no
reasonable authority could have arrived
at it.
16.24. In the present case, the finding that respondent
No.3 belongs to the Ganiga community is
supported by:
16.24.1. Multiple documentary records
consistently reflecting Ganiga identity;
- 102 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
16.24.2. Statutory caste certificates;
16.24.3. Sibling records;
16.24.4. Documentary consistency over time;
16.24.5. The legal permissibility of Ganiga identity
subsisting within the Lingayat fold (as
held under Point No.3).
16.25. The existence of earlier records describing the
father as "Lingayat" does not render the
conclusion irrational. At best, it presents a
competing evidentiary strand. The authority
preferred one plausible evidentiary
interpretation over another. Where two views
are possible and the authority has adopted one
supported by evidence, the finding cannot be
labelled perverse.
16.26. The petitioner has criticised reliance upon the
recommendation of the Akhila Bharath
Ganigara Sangha. While a community
- 103 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
association's recommendation cannot be
treated as determinative proof of caste, the
impugned order does not reveal that it was
treated as the basis of the finding. It was, at
most, corroborative. Even assuming for the
sake of arguments that reference to such
recommendation was unnecessary, it does not
vitiate the decision when independent
documentary material supports the conclusion.
Procedural irregularity warrants interference
only when it results in prejudice affecting the
ultimate decision. No such prejudice is
demonstrated.
16.27. The appellate authority affirmed the findings of
respondent No.1 after considering the grounds
urged. An appellate authority concurring with
the original authority is not required to restate
every reasoning in elaborate detail. A concise
affirming order is legally sustainable so long as
- 104 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
it reflects conscious consideration of the record.
The appellate order cannot be characterised as
mechanical or bereft of reasoning merely
because it does not reproduce the entire
evidentiary discussion.
16.28. Under Points No.1 and 2, this Court has
independently examined the documentary
material and has itself concluded that
respondent No.3 has established his identity as
belonging to the Ganiga community under
Category II-A. Under Point No.3, this Court has
held that Lingayat and Ganiga are not mutually
exclusive identities in law. In light of these
findings, even if certain aspects of the enquiry
could have been more elaborately recorded, the
ultimate conclusion reached by the statutory
authorities stands substantiated by the material
on record.
- 105 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
16.29. Writ jurisdiction does not operate to quash
orders merely because the reasoning could
have been more meticulous. What is required is
legality of the conclusion and procedural
fairness, both of which stand satisfied.
16.30. The petitioner has, in substance, invited this
Court to re-appreciate evidence and substitute
its own view for that of the statutory
authorities. Such an exercise is impermissible
within the confines of Articles 226 and 227.
16.31. I therefore answer Point No.4 by holding
that the impugned orders dated
19.07.2010 and 25.11.2015:
16.31.1. Do not suffer from jurisdictional
error;
16.31.2. Do not violate principles of natural
justice;
16.31.3. Are supported by material evidence;
- 106 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155
WP No. 24836 of 2016
HC-KAR
16.31.4. Do not meet the threshold of
perversity;
16.31.5. Do not disclose such non-application
of mind as would vitiate the
decision.
17. Answer to Point No. 6: What Order? In view of
the findings recorded under Points No.1 to 4, I pass
the following:
ORDER
i. Respondent No.3 has established, on the basis of cumulative documentary evidence, that he belongs to the Ganiga community classified under Category II-A;
ii. "Lingayat" and "Ganiga" are not mutually exclusive identities in law, and Ganiga may subsist as a distinct caste group within the broader Lingayat fold;
iii. The impugned orders dated 19.07.2010 passed by respondent No.1 and 25.11.2015 passed by respondent No.4 do not suffer from such illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error, or non- application of mind as would warrant interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
- 107 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9155 WP No. 24836 of 2016 HC-KAR iv. It is however, clarified that the findings recorded in this judgment are based on the documentary material placed before the statutory authorities and examined by this Court. The dismissal of the writ petition shall not be construed as foreclosing any action that may be permissible in law if credible material demonstrating fraud, fabrication, or misrepresentation were to surface in future proceedings before a competent forum.
v. It is further clarified that this judgment does not lay down any proposition that a mere assertion of sub-caste identity within the Lingayat fold is sufficient to claim reservation. Each case must turn on its own evidence and must satisfy the statutory requirements of verification.
vi. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
SD/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE PRS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5