Karnataka High Court
Sri Dayananda S K vs State Of Karnataka on 7 June, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:20003
WP No. 9672 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 9672 OF 2024 (GM-CC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. DAYANANDA S K
S/O KALACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NO. SURAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
TIPTUR TALUK,
SURAGONDANAHALLI,
TUMAKURU
KARNATAKA-572217.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. LATHA S SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY UNDER SECRETARY,
Digitally DEPT. OF BACKWARD BACKWARD
signed by
Vandana S CLASSES WELFARE,
Location: M.S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
HIGH COURT BANGALORE-560 001.
OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE COMMISSIONER
CASTE/ INCOME REVIEW,
BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
NO. 16/D, DEVARAJA ARASU BHAWAN,
MILLERS TANK BED AREA,
VASANTHNAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 052.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:20003
WP No. 9672 of 2024
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TUMAKURU CUM THE CHAIRMAN,
DISTRICT CASTE AND INCOME
REVIEW COMMITTEE AND DISTRICT COLLECTORS
TUMKUR-572217.
4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY (ADMINISTRATION)
ZILLA PANCHAYATH CUM MEMBER,
DISTRICT CASTE AND INCOME
REVIEW COMMITTEE AND DEPUTY SECRETARIES,
DISTRICT PANCHAYAT,
TUMUKR DISTRICT-572217.
5. THE MEMBER SECRETARIES
DISTRICT CASTE AND INCOME
REVIEW COMMITTEE AND DISTRICT OFFICER
BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
6. THE THASILDAR
TIPATUR TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101.
7. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC EDUCATION,
K R CIRCLE,
BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.B. PATIL, AGA)
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 06.03.2024
IN NO.EMO KA E/MASA/SR-02/2023-24 PASSED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTERS LIST,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:20003
WP No. 9672 of 2024
ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
"a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order
dated 06.03.2024 in No.EMO KA E/MASA/SR-02/2023-24
passed by the 2nd respondent. (Annexure-A).
b. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order
dated 22.11.2023 in No.SMO.BCM-05/Seva.Sin.Pra/CR-
01/(65)/2023-24 passed by the Respondent No.3 to 7.
(Annexure-B).
c. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the
endorsement dated 27.11.2023 in No.BCM-
05/Seva.Sin.Pra/CR-01/(65)/2023-24 issued by the
Respondent No.5 rejecting the candidature of the
Petitioner under the 2A category since the income of the
petitioner family including income of petitioner wife is
above Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh) (Annexure-C).
d. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondents
to consider the case of the Petitioner under Category 2A
taking note of the Caste and Income Certificate issued by
the Tahsildar dated 20.03.2022 in No.RD0039136173927,
without taking note of the income of the petitioner wife.
(Annexure-D).
e. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the action
of Respondent herein taking note of the income of the
NC: 2024:KHC:20003
petitioner wife as a income of petitioner family as highly
arbitrary, illegal and without authority of law (Annexures-A
to C).
f. Pass such other order and further orders as may be
necessary in the interest of justice.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged
in the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on
record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
was selected to the post of Graduate Primary School Teacher
under category-2A and he had produced caste and income
certificate dated 20.03.2022 (Annexure-D) in this regard. Pursuant
thereto, the aforesaid caste certificate was forwarded for
verification to the Committee, which rejected the caste and income
certificate of the petitioner on the ground that his wife was gainfully
employed as a First Division Assistant (FDA) and had income more
than Rs.8 Lakhs. Pursuant to the said order dated 22.11.2023
passed by the Committee, respondent No.5 issued an
endorsement dated 27.11.2023, which was challenged by the
petitioner by filing an appeal before respondent No.2-Appellate
Authority. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the fact
NC: 2024:KHC:20003
that income of his wife was not capable of being
taken/reckoned/considered for the purpose of issuing his caste and
income certificate, respondent No.2 has summarily dismissed the
appeal filed by the petitioner, as such, the petitioner is before this
Court by way of the present petition.
4. In support of her contention, learned counsel for the
petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in
the case of Surinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board,
Patiala and others - (2014) 15 SCC 767 and the judgment of this
Court in the case of The State of Karnataka and others Vs. Smt.
Yogeshwari and another - W.P.No.24115/2015 C/W.
W.P.No.3390/2018 dated 19.11.2018. It is submitted that the
Apex Court as well as this Court have clearly held that the income
of spouse cannot be reckoned, considered or taken into account
for the purpose of issuance of income and caste certificate in
favour of the petitioner and consequently, the impugned order and
endorsement issued by the Committee as well as the order passed
by Appellate Authority deserves to be set aside.
NC: 2024:KHC:20003
5. Per contra, learned AGA would support the impugned
order and the impugned endorsement and submits that there is no
merit in the writ petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. In Surinder Singh's case (supra), while dealing with
the issue/question that identification of the creamy layer, the Apex
Court held as under:
11. The above issue came to be examined yet again
by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and
Training) through its memorandum dated 14-10-2004. In the
above memorandum, a large number of queries were
clarified. Queries at Serial Nos. (vi) and (vii) of Para 4 are
relevant to the present controversy, and are accordingly
reproduced hereunder:
"4. Following questions have been raised from time to
time about the application of the above provisions to
determine creamy layer.
(vi) Will a candidate who himself is a directly recruited
Class I/Group A officer or a directly recruited Class II/Group
B officer who got into Class I/Group A at the age of 40 or
earlier be treated to be falling in creamy layer on the basis of
his service status?
(vii) Will a candidate who has gross annual income of
Rs 2.5 lakhs or above or possesses wealth above the
exemption limit as prescribed in the Wealth Tax Act for a
NC: 2024:KHC:20003
period of three consecutive years be treated to fall in creamy
layer?"
The aforesaid queries came to be answered in Para 8
by observing as under:
"8. In regard to clauses (vi), (vii) and (viii) of Para 4, it
is clarified that the creamy layer status of a candidate is
determined on the basis of the status of his parents and not
on the basis of his own status or income or on the basis of
status or income of his/her spouse. Therefore, while
determining the creamy layer status of a person the status or
the income of the candidate himself or of his/her spouse
shall not be taken into account."
In view of the above, there is no room for any further
consideration, whether or not the individual's income is to be
taken into consideration, while computing the total income
relevant to determine whether an individual belongs to the
"creamy layer". The above clarification reveals, that it is only
the parents' income, which has to be taken into
consideration."
7. The said judgment of the Apex Court was followed by
this Court in Yogeshwari's case (supra) wherein it was held as
under:
"16. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned
counsel for the parties, the points that would arise for
consideration in these writ petitions are:
NC: 2024:KHC:20003
1. Whether the petitioner - Yogeshwari in W.P.
No.3390/2018 has made out a case to quash the impugned
order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the 2nd respondent -
Deputy Commissioner & Chairman, District Caste & Caste
Verification Committee and to issue direction to the 2nd
respondent to issue validity certificate in her favour subject to
the condition that her parents income does not exceed the
limit prescribed by the respondents, in the facts and
circumstances of the present case ?
2. Whether the State Government has made out a case
to interfere with the order dated 18.11.2016 passed by the
Appellate Authority, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case ?
17. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the entire material on record carefully.
V. CONSIDERATION
18. The substance of the case of the petitioner is that she
applied for the post of Civil Judge in response to the
notification issued by the 6th respondent under Category
III(B) as she belonged to Veerashiava community and she
succeeded in the preliminary and Main examinations
conducted by the 6th respondent and thereafter she also
attended viva voce. Later, she came to know that her
application was not forwarded for police verification and
medical test, as she has not submitted the caste certificate.
Therefore the petitioner has once again applied and obtained
the fresh caste and income certificate that she belongs to
Category III(B) and income of the family does not exceed
Rs.16,000/- issued by the Tahsildar, Chamarajanagar as per
Annexure-G dated 3.2.2016. Thereafter the petitioner has
NC: 2024:KHC:20003
applied for the validity certificate before the jurisdictional
authority - 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent rejected the
said application on the ground that husband's income has to
be taken into consideration. That is the subject matter of the
Appeal before the Appellate Authority - Commissioner for
Backward Classes. The Appellate Authority by an order
dated 18.11.2016 (Annexure-K) allowed the appeal and set
aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent - Deputy
Commissioner & Chairman, District Caste & Verification
Committee.
19. The order passed by the Appellate authority
has reached finality. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted
the detailed representations dated 27.2.2017 and 22.3.2017
to the 2nd respondent to issue validity certificate based on the
order dated 18.11.2016 passed by the Appellate Authority.
Inspite of the representations, when the 2nd respondent has
not proceeded to consider the representations in pursuance
of the order passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner
was forced to file writ petition before this Court in W.P.
No.17079/2017. This Court after hearing the parties, by the
order dated 9.11.2017 allowed the said writ petition and
directed the respondent - District Caste & Income
Verification Committee to consider the representations and
take a decision as expeditiously as possible, but not later
than two months from the date of receipt of the order. The
said order passed by this Court has reached finality.
20. It is an undisputed fact that the 2nd respondent -
Deputy Commissioner & Chairman, District Caste & Income
Verification Committee, Chamarajanagar and members of
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:20003
the Committee in its meeting dated 27.2.2017 raised eight
questions and sought clarification from the Appellate
Authority - Commissioner, Department of Backward Classes,
Bangalore as per Annexure-P dated 6.3.2017 and from the
Government as per Annexure-S dated 25.3.2017. It is also
not in dispute that the Appellate Authority by a letter dated
17.3.2017 (Annexure-G) intimated the 2nd respondent -
Deputy Commissioner & Chairman, District Caste & Caste
Verification Committee to issue validity certificate to the
petitioner - Yogeshwari in accordance with law since the
appeal filed before the Appellate Authority was allowed and
the order passed by the 2nd respondent was set aside. The
order passed by the Appellate Authority - Commissioner,
Department of Backward Classes has reached finality. The
Commissioner also clarified the same to the Secretary,
Backward Classes on 30.5.2017 as per Annexure-R. At
clarification No.3, he has specifically stated that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of SURINDER SINGH vs.
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PATIALA AND
OTHERS (AIR 2015 SC 537) has clarified that the creamy
layer status of a candidate is determined on the basis of the
status of his/her parents and not on the basis of his/her own
status or income or on the basis of status or income of
his/her spouse. Therefore while determining the creamy
layer status of a person, the status or the income of the
candidate himself or his/her spouse shall not be taken into
account. The clarification reveals that it is only the parents
income, which has to be taken into consideration. The said
clarification issued by the Commissioner, Department of
Backward Classes to the Secretary also has reached finality.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:20003
21. It is also relevant to state at this stage that in
response to the clarification sought by the 2nd respondent -
Deputy Commissioner dated 25.3.2017, the Prl. Secretary,
Law Department by a letter dated 6.9.2017 has answered all
the queries. The relevant portion of the clarification issued
by the Prl. Secretary to Query No.3 is as under:
eÁw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DzÁAiÀÄ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ
¸ÀASÉå: ¸ÀPÀE 225 ©¹J2000, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 30.03.2002gÀ
DzÉñÀzÀ PÀArPÉ (3)gÀ°è 'PɣɥÀzÀgÀ ¤ÃwAiÀÄÄ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁw, ¥Àj²µÀÖ
¥ÀAUÀqÀUÀ½UÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ »AzÀĽzÀ ªÀUÀðUÀ¼À ¥ÀæªÀUÀð-1PÉÌ
C£Àé¬Ä¸ÀĪÀÅ¢®.è C¨sÀåyðAiÀÄ ¥ÀwAiÀÄÄ ¥ÀæªÀUÀð-1PÉÌ ¸ÉÃjgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ
zÁRDÁwUÀ½AzÀ PÀAqÀÄ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ ¸ÀÄgÉÃAzÀæ ¹AUï
«gÀÄzÀÝ ¥ÀAeÁ¨ï ¸ÉÖÃmï JDÉQÖçPï ¹n ¨ÉÆÃqïð ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¹«Dï
C¦Ã®Ä ¸ÀASÉå: 6957/2009 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 25.09.2014 gÀ°è DzÉñÀ
¨sÁUÀ PÀArPÉ: (11) gÀ°è "In regard clauses (vi), (vii) & (viii)
of para 4, it is clarified that the creamy layer status
of a candidate is determined on the basis of the
status of his parents and not on the basis of his own
status or income or on the basis of status or income
of his/her spouse. Therefore, while determining the
creamy layer status of person the status or the
income of the candidate himself or of his/her souse
shall not be taken into account."
The above clarification reveals, that it is only the
parents income, which has to be taken into consideration.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:20003
22. It is also clarified that while determining the
creamy layer status of a person, the status or income of the
candidate himself or his/her spouse shall not be taken into
account and the clarification reveals that it is only the parents
income which has to be taken into consideration. Inspite of
the clarification issued by the Appellate Authority as well as
the Prl. Secretary, Law Department, unfortunately the 2nd
respondent - Deputy Commissioner & District Caste &
Income Verification Committee proceeded to pass the
impugned order dated 13.12.2017 mainly on the ground that
the income of the husband of the petitioner has to be taken
into consideration and the certificate sought cannot be
granted. The same is against the very Government Order
issued by the State Government dated 30.3.2002 made in
G.O. No. ¸ÀPÀE 225 ©¹J 2000 and contrary to the dictum of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SURINDER
SINGH vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
PATIALA AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2015 SC 537,
wherein at paragraphs - 9, 10 and 11 it is held as under:
9. Based on the aforesaid declaration of law, we
are of the view that it was not open to the High Court
to evaluate the office memorandum dated 8.9.1993
from any other parameters. It also needs to be
noticed, that the issue which came up for
determination in Ashok Kumar Thakur's case (AIR
1996 SC 75) came to be re-examined before a
Constitution Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar
Thakur vs. Union of India (2008) 6 SCC 1, wherein
on the subject of identification of the "creamy layer",
the Constitution Bench observed as under:
"1-B. IDENTIFICATION OF CREAMY LAYER
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:20003
415. Income as the criterion for creamy layer
exclusion is insufficient and runs afoul of Sawhney
(I). (See p.724 at para 792). Identification of the
creamy layer has been and should be left to the
Government, subject to judicial direction. For a valid
method of creamy layer exclusion, the Government
may use its post-Sawhney (I) criteria as a template.
(See OM of 8.9.1993, Para 2(c)/Column 3), approved
by this Court in Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs. State of
Bihar (1995) 5 SCC 403, para 10. This schedule is a
comprehensive attempt to exclude the creamy layer
in which income, government posts, occupation and
landholdings are taken into account."
Here again, this Court expressly approved the
office memorandum dated 8.9.1993. In view of the
decisions rendered by this Court in both Ashok
Kumar Thakur's cases (supra), we are of the view
that the High Court clearly erred in reading down the
office memorandum dated 8.9.1993 and to include
therein the income of the individual concern while
determining whether or not he fall within the "creamy
layer".
10. Despite the declaration of law in the
judgments, referred to hereinabove, it is also
necessary to take into consideration the clarification
issued by the Government of India, Ministry of
Personnel, P.G. and Pensions (Department of
Personnel and Training) dated 21.11.2002. The
aforesaid clarification was with reference to the office
memorandum dated 8.9.1993. Relevant extract of the
clarificatory letter dated 21.11.2002 is being
reproduced below:
"I am directed to refer to your letter No.2/25/2001
RC-1/670 dated 17-10- 2002 on the above noted
subject and say that determination of creamy layer
for an OBC candidate is done with reference to the
income of parents as per instructions contained in
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:20003
DOPT's O.M. No.36012/22/93-Estt(res) dated
8.9.93."
Based on the aforesaid conclusion, there is really
no room for any doubt, that the exposition with
reference to category VI in the office memorandum
dated 8.9.1993 related only to the income of the
parents of the individual concerned. And that, the
income of the individual concerned was not to be
taken into consideration.
11. The above issue came to be examined yet
again by the Government of India, Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
(Department of Personnel and Training) through its
memorandum dated 14.10.2004. In the above
memorandum, a large number of queries were
clarified. Queries at serial nos.(vi) and (vii) of
paragraph 4 are relevant to the present controversy,
and are accordingly reproduced hereunder:
"4. Following questions have been raised from
time to time about the application of the above
provisions to determine creamy layer.
(vi) Will a candidate who himself is a directly
recruited Class I/Group A Officer or a directly
recruited Class II/Group B officer who got into Class
I/Group A at the age of 40 or earlier be treated to be
falling in creamy layer on the basis of his service
status?
(vii) will a candidate who has gross annual income
of Rs.2.5 lakh or above or possesses wealth above
the Exemption limit as prescribed in the Wealth Tax
Act for a period of three consecutive years be treated
to fall in creamy layer?"
The aforesaid queries came to be answered in
paragraph 8 by observing as under:
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:20003
"8. In regard to clauses (vi), (vii) and (viii) of para
4, it is clarified that the creamy layer status of a
candidate is determined on the basis of the status of
his parents and not on the basis of his own status or
income or on the basis of status or income of his/her
spouse. Therefore, while determining the creamy
layer status of a person the status or the income of
the candidate himself or of his/her spouse shall not
be taken into account."
In view of the above, there is no room for any
further consideration, whether or not the individual's
income is to be taken into consideration, while
computing the total income relevant to determine
whether an individual belongs to the "creamy layer".
The above clarification reveals, that it is only the
parents income, which has to be taken into
consideration.
23. Writ Petition No.24115/2018 is filed by the State
Government against the order passed by the Appellate
Authority dated 18.11.2016 mainly on the ground that the
order passed by the Appellate Authority cannot be sustained
as it was not a speaking order. Admittedly the 2nd
respondent - Deputy Commissioner & Chairman, District
Caste and Income Verification Committee passed the order
on 13.12.2017 rejecting the grant of Validity certificate,
which is the subject matter of W.P. No.3390/2018 filed by the
petitioner - Yogeshwari. Admittedly, the Deputy
Commissioner & Chairman, District Caste and Income
Verification Committee raised certain queries and sought
clarification from the Appellate authority and also the State
Government and the State Government has clarified the
queries and therefore now the State Government ought not
to have filed the writ petition. Instead of filing the writ
petition against the order passed by the appellate authority,
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:20003
the State Government ought to have directed the Deputy
Commissioner & Chairman, Distinct Caste & Income
Verification Committee to issue the validity certificate in
accordance with law. The same has not been done. The
order was passed by the appellate authority on 18.11.2016
and the writ petition No.24115/2018 was filed by the State
Government on 1.6.2018 challenging the said order, after the
delay of more than 1 ½ years stating that the appellate
authority has not passed speaking order and no reasons are
assigned.
24. It is not the case of the State Government
that the income of the husband has to be taken into
consideration while considering the issue of validity
certificate to the petitioner - Yogeshwari. If that is so, the
State Government ought not to have filed the present writ
petition and drove the petitioner - Yogeshwari unnecessarily
before this Court. The State Government should act as
custodian of the citizens of the State and the State
Government is in position of the mother and treat all the
children of the State equally and should not discriminate.
Unfortunately, the State Government filed the writ petition
No.24115/2018 without there being any ground to challenge
the order passed by the appellate authority. The order of the
appellate authority has been culminated into the impugned
order passed by the 2nd respondent - District Caste
Verification Committee after obtaining clarification from the
very appellate authority and the State Government. In all
fairness, the State Government ought not to have filed writ
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:20003
petition No.24115/2018. The writ petition filed by the State
Government is devoid of merits and liable to be rejected.
VI. CONCLUSION
25. For the reasons stated above, the 1st point raised in
these writ petitions has to be answered in the affirmative
holding that the petitioner - Yogeshwari in W.P.
No.3390/2018 has made out case to quash the impugned
order dated 13.12.2017 (Annexure-W) passed by the
respondent - Deputy Commissioner & Chairman, District
Caste and Verification Committee and to issue direction to
the said respondent to issue validity certificate in her favour
subject to the condition that her parents income does not
exceed the limit prescribed in the Government Order dated
30.03.2002.
26. In view of the above, the 2nd point raised in the present
writ petitions has to be held in the negative holding that the
State Government has not made out any case to interfere
with the order dated 18.11.2016 passed by the appellate
authority, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
27. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition filed by
the petitioner - Yogeshwari in W.P. No.3390/2018 is
allowed. The impugned order dated 13.12.2017 passed by
the 2nd respondent - Deputy Commissioner & Chairman,
District Caste and Income Verification Committee as per
Annexure-W is hereby quashed. The 2nd respondent is
directed to issue validity certificate in favour of the petitioner
- Yogeshwari in pursuance of the Government Order dated
30.3.2002 made in No. G.O. No.SaKae 225 BCA 2000 and
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:20003
in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of SURINDER SINGH vs. PUNJAB STATE
ELECTIRICITY BOARD (AIR 2015 SC 537) stated supra,
within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this
order.
28. The Writ Petition No.24115/2018 filed by the State
Government is dismissed as devoid of merits."
8. As can be seen from the aforesaid judgment of the
Apex Court and this Court, income of the wife of the petitioner
could not have been reckoned/considered or taken into account by
the respondents for the purpose of issuance of caste and income
certificate and consequently, in the light of the law laid down by this
Court as well as the Apex Court, I am of the considered opinion
that the impugned order and the endorsement issued by the
respondent deserves to be quashed.
9. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The Writ Petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned orders dated 06.03.2024 and 22.11.2023
respectively (Annexures-A and B) and the impugned
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:20003
endorsement dated 27.11.2023 (Annexure-C) are hereby
quashed.
iii. The concerned respondents are directed to consider the case of
the petitioner under the category-2A taking note of the caste
and income certificate issued by the Tahasildar dated
20.03.2022 without reckoning/considering or taking into account
the income of the petitioner's wife and proceed further in
accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BMC
