The Chief Secretary vs Sri C T Puttaraju
2022 Latest Caselaw 3215 Kant

                           1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

              R.S.A.No.1475/2016(DEC)

BETWEEN:

1.     THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
       GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
       VIDHANA SOUDHA,
       BANGALORE.

2.     THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER,
       SOMWARPET TALUK,
       SOMWARPET,
       KODAGU DISTRICT.

3.     THE HEAD MASTER,
       GOVERNMENT MODEL
       PRIMARY SCHOOL,
       CHIKKATHUR VILLAGE,
       KUSHALNAGAR, SOMWARPET TALUK,
       KODAGU DISTRICT.

4.     THE HEAD MASTER,
       GOVERNMENT MODEL,
       PRIMARY SCHOOL,
       KUDUMAGALOR, SOMWARPET TALUK,
       KODAGU DISTRICT.

       APPELLANTS 1 TO 4 REPRESENTED BY
       STATE THROUGH GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE.
                                      ... APPELLANTS

(BY SMT. B.G.NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA.)
                                2



AND:

1.     SRI. C.T.PUTTARAJU,
       AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
       S/O THIMMAIAH,
       KUSHALNAGAR HOBLI,
       SOMWARPET TALUK,
       KODAGU DISTRICT.

2.     THE VICE PRINCIPAL,
       BSS GOVERNMENT PRE-UNIVERSITY COLLEGE,
       SECONDARY SECTION,
       KONANOOR ARAKALGUD TALUK,
       HASSAN DISTRICT.            ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. ANURADHA.S.K., ADV., FOR R-1;
 NOTICE TO R-2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER
 DATED:05.01.2022)


     THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.09.2015 PASSED IN
R.A.No.44/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AT MADIKERI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.02.2014 PASSED IN
OS No.67/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC., AT SOMWARPET.

     THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 22.02.2022, COMING ON FOR
PROUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                         JUDGMENT

1. The State and its sub-ordinates i.e., defendants 1 to 4

are in second appeal.

2. The plaintiff, who is respondent No.1 in this second

appeal, filed a suit for declaration to declare that he belonged

to the caste of "Nayaka" and for a direction to defendants 4

to 6, who were the Head Masters of the Schools in which he

had studied, to rectify his caste in the school records to

indicate that he belonged to the caste of "Nayaka".

3. It was his case that he was admitted to the schools i.e.,

third to fifth defendants up to SSLC and while admitting him,

his grandfather, who was an agriculturist and uneducated,

had given all the particulars required for his admission, but

his caste was wrongly entered as a "Hindu Parivara Nayaka

(Bestaru)", instead of Nayaka and that mistake had continued

in the school records.

4. He stated that the Tahsidlar, Mudigere had issued a

caste certificate on 23.12.2009 whereby he had certified that

he belonged to the caste of "Nayaka". He stated that he was

born and brought up in the culture and customs of Nayaka

community and was following their religious principles. He

stated that his father, grandmother and grandfather, all

belonged to "Nayaka" caste. He stated that when he

approached defendants 3 to 5 with a request to rectify the

error regarding his caste in the school records, he was

informed that they could not do so without a decree of the

Civil Court. He, therefore, stated that after issuance of

statutory notice, he had preferred the suit.

5. Defendants 1 to 4 entered appearance through the

Government Pleader. The 5th defendant had remained absent

and was placed ex parte.

6. The 2nd defendant filed a written statement which was

adopted by defendants 1, 3 and 4. In the said written

statement, it was contended that having regard to the nature

of the relief sought for by the plaintiff, the Civil Court could

not grant the relief and the suit was liable to be dismissed. It

was stated that the parents of the plaintiff themselves had

informed the authorities that they belonged to "Hindu

Parivara Nayaka (Bestaru)" and accordingly, an entry was

made in the school records and in this view of the matter, no

grievance could be raised by the plaintiff.

7. The Trial Court considered the evidence adduced by the

plaintiff and took note of Ex.P4, which was a caste certificate

issued to the plaintiff's father by the Tahsildar, in which, it

was stated that the plaintiff's father belonged to "Nayaka"

caste, which came within the category of scheduled caste.

The Trial Court also took note of Ex.P12, which was a caste

certificate issued to the plaintiff by the Tahsildar, in which it

was stated that he belonged to the caste of "Nayaka".

8. The Trial Court, on consideration of these two caste

certificates came to the conclusion that the plaintiff did

belong to "Nayaka" caste as it was certified by the competent

authority namely the Tahsildar, who had issued the

certificates. The Trial Court, therefore, concluded that the

plaintiff's case had been wrongly entered in the school

records as "Hindu Parivara Nayaka (Bestaru)". The Trial Court

accordingly decreed the suit and held that in pursuance of the

caste certificates issued by the Tahsildar, the plaintiff was

declared to be belonging to "Nayaka" caste. A direction was

also issued to the school authorities to rectify the caste of the

plaintiff in the school records by making necessary

corrections and indicating that he belonged to "Nayaka"

caste, instead of "Hindu Parivara Nayaka (Bestaru)".

9. Being aggrieved, defendants 1 to 4 preferred a regular

appeal.

10. The Appellate Court, on re-assessing the entire

evidence, came to the conclusion that the Trial Court was

justified in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff

belonged to "Nayaka" caste, since the competent authority

i.e., the Tahsildar had himself issued a caste certificate to the

plaintiff and his father, both of which stated that they

belonged "Nayaka" caste. The Appellate Court relied upon the

judgment rendered by this Court in the case of

SMT.MARIYAMMA Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL

DISTRICT, KOPPAL & OTHERS - (2010) 4 KANT. LJ. 152, in

which, it had been held that if the competent authority had

already indicated the caste of the plaintiff, the suit would be

limited only insofar as accepting the said claim and declaring

the caste as per the said document and issuing a

consequential order to carry out necessary corrections.

11. It is against these concurring judgments, the present

second appeal has been preferred.

12. This Court, while admitting the appeal, has framed the

following substantial questions of law:

"i) Whether the Court below erred in not noticing that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in declaring the person's caste in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of this Court?

ii) Whether the trial Court and the 1st Appellate Court have committed a serious error in rectifying the caste of the 1st respondent in spite of there being a specific prohibition under Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 and thus, the judgments are illegal and perverse?"

13. Smt.Namitha Mahesh, learned Additional Government

Advocate contended that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in

view of the elaborate mechanism prescribed under the

Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other

Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment, etc.,) Act,

1990 (for short, 'the Act'). She contended that jurisdiction of

both the Courts stood impliedly barred and therefore, the

decrees could not be sustained.

14. In the judgment pronounced today in RSA.336/2015, it

has been held that a suit which is filed seeking for a direction

to rectify the entries in the school records relating to the

caste of the plaintiff, would not come within the bar

prescribed under Section 6B of the Act.

15. In fact, this Court in Mariyamma's case cited supra has

also stated that where the plaintiff relied on the documents

issued by the competent authority indicating the caste of the

plaintiff, in such an event, the suit would be limited insofar as

the acceptance of said document and declaring the caste as

per the document and thereafter for issuing a mandatory

injunction to the school authorities to carry out necessary

corrections.

16. In the light of these two judgments, the contention of

the Smt.Namitha Mahesh cannot be accepted as it is found

that the plaintiff was essentially seeking for rectifying the

entries in the school records on the basis of a caste certificate

which had been issued by the Tahsildar, who was the

competent authority to issue such certificates.

17. In the instant case, the Trial Court, on the basis of the

caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar in favour of plaintiff's

father - Ex.P4 and also the caste certificate issued in favour

of the plaintiff - Ex.P12, has issued a declaration, not

independently, but solely relying upon the case certificate

issued by the Tahsildar and it has specifically stated that

pursuant to the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar, the

plaintiff was being declared to belong to "Nayaka" caste. The

Trial Court, has thereafter, issued a consequential direction to

rectify the caste of the plaintiff in the school records to

indicate that he belonged to "Nayaka" caste instead of "Hindu

Parivara Nayaka (Bestaru)".

18. The Appellate Court has also affirmed this finding of

fact and has held that the Trial Court has not independently

determined the caste of the plaintiff but has merely followed

the declaration of the caste by the Tahsildar, who is,

admittedly, the competent authority to issue the caste

certificate.

19. It is, therefore, clear that the entire case of the plaintiff

was on the basis of the caste certificate already issued in his

favour by the Tahsildar and he was not seeking for a

declaration of his caste status independently at the hands of

the Civil Court. In the light of the law declared as per the

decisions stated above, it follows that the jurisdiction of the

Civil Court was not barred to entertain the suit.

20. It is to be stated here that the Tahsildar, on receipt of

an application under the Act, would cause an enquiry to be

conducted and examine all the records furnished to him and

thereafter, only on being satisfied about the authenticity of

the material produced before him, would proceed to issue a

caste certificate indicating the caste of the applicant.

21. In the instant case, admittedly, the said exercise was

undertaken not only in respect of the plaintiff, but also his

father and the Tahsildar had acknowledged that both of them

belonged to "Nayaka" caste and issued a caste certificate to

that effect.

22. Both the Courts have merely accepted the said fact and

have issued a consequential direction to the authorities to

make necessary corrections in the school records. I find no

error in the judgments of both the Courts. I, therefore,

answer the substantial questions of law in favour of the

plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein. The second appeal is

accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PKS