Karnataka High Court

Mr Neon S vs The Chief Secretary on 7 March, 2024

                             1

                                                        R
       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

                          BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

             R.S.A.NO. 359 OF 2022 (DEC/INJ)
                           C/W
             R.S.A.NO. 340 OF 2022 (DEC/INJ)

IN RSA NO.359/2022
BETWEEN:

     MS. ALFA S
     D/O MR. SRINIVASU H V,
     AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
     R/AT 4TH BLOCK,
     KARIAPPA BADAVANE,
     KUSHALNAGAR TOWN,
     KODAGU DISTRICT-571 236.

                                               ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.    THE CHIEF SECRETARY
      GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
      VIDHANA SOUDHA,
      BENGALURU-560 001

2.    THE HEAD MASTER/HEAD MISTRESS
      ST. MARRY'S PRIMARY SCHOOL,
                               2


     SUNTICOPPA

3.   THE HEAD MASTER/HEAD MISTRESS
     BHARATHAMATHAT PRIMARY SCHOOL,
     KOPPA, PIRIYAPATTNA TALUK,
     MYSORE DISTRICT-571 236.

4.   HEAD MASTER
     SHANTHINIKETHAN HIGH SCHOOL,
     KODAGARAHALLI, SOMWARPET TALUK,
     KODAGU DISTRICT-571 236.

5.   THE PRINCIPAL
     NALANDA PU COLLEGE,
     GUDDENAHALLI, KOPPA,
     PIRIYAPATTNA TALUK,
     MYSORE DISTRICT.

6.   THE PRINCIPAL
     ST. PHILOMINA COLLEGE,
     B M ROAD, MYSORE.

7.   THE CHAIRMAN / DIRECTOR
     S.S.L.C BOARD, K.S.E.E.B.,
     6TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
     BENGALURU-560 003

8.   THE DIRECTOR
     P U BOARD, BENGALURU-560001

                                         ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. ANUKANKSHA KALKERI, HCGP FOR R1, R7 & R8;
R2 TO R6 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

     THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC 1908,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.10.2019
PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, KUSHALNAGAR IN
                            3


O.S.NO.45/2019 AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
25.11.2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
SOMAWARPET IN RA 47/2019 AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL.

IN RSA NO.340/2022
BETWEEN:

     MR. NEON S
     D/O MR. SRINIVASU H V,
     AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
     R/AT 4TH BLOCK, KARIAPPA BADAVANE,
     KUSHALNAGAR TOWN, KODAGU DISTRICT.

                                           ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI MURUGESH V CHARATI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE CHIEF SECRETARY
       GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
       BENGALURU-560001

2.     THE HEAD MASTER/HEAD MISTRESS
       ST.MARRY'S PRIMARY SCHOOL,
       SUNTICOPPA-571216.

3.     THE HEAD MASTER/HEAD MISTRESS
       FATHIMA HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL,
       KUSHAL NAGAR,
       KODAGU DISTRICT-571216

4.     HEAD MASTER
       SHANTHINIKETHAN HIGH SCHOOL,
       KODAGARAHALLI, SOMWARPET TALUK,
       KODAGU DISTRICT-571 216.

5.     THE PRINCIPAL
                             4


      COPS PU COLLEGE, GONIKOPPAL,
      KODAGU DISTRICT.

6.    THE PRINCIPAL
      NIE COLLEGE,
      MANANDAVADI ROAD,
      MYSORE.

7.    THE CHAIRMAN/DIRECTOR
      S.S.L.C BOARD,
      BENGALURU-560 003

8.    THE DIRECTOR
      P U BOARD, BENGALURU-560 001

                                            ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. ANUKANKSHA KALKERI, HCGP FOR R1, R7 & R8;
R2 TO R6 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

      THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC 1908,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.10.2019
PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE, KUSHALNAGAR IN
O.S.NO.44/2019 AND THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
25.11.2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
SOMAWARPET IN RA 48/2019 AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL.


      THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR    JUDGMENT   ON    06.03.2024,      COMING     ON     FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT     OF   JUDGMENT   THIS    DAY,    THE    COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                5


                         JUDGMENT

The captioned second appeals are by unsuccessful

plaintiffs assailing the concurrent judgments rendered by

both the Courts, wherein both the Courts have dismissed

the suits filed by plaintiffs seeking relief of declaration that

plaintiffs belong to Bhovi community which falls under

Scheduled Caste category and for mandatory injunction to

direct defendants to amend caste in the school records on

the ground that the reliefs are barred under Section 9 of

Civil Procedure Code.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred

to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The facts leading to the case are as under:

Plaintiff in O.S.No.45/2019 claimed that at the time of

institution of suit she was studying in final year B.Sc. at St.

Philomin's College, Mysuru. Plaintiff has studied from 3rd to

7th Standard at Fathima Higher Primary School,

Kushalnagar and she has studied 8th Standard at Bharath

Matha High School, Koppa. Plaintiff further studied 9th and

10th standard at Shanthinikethan High School,

Kodagarahalli.

Plaintiff in O.S.No.44/2019 claimed that he studied

from 1st to 4th standard at St. Marry's school, Sunticoppa

and from 5th to 7th standard, he studied at Fathima Higher

Primary School, Kushalnagar. Plaintiff further claimed that

he pursued his P.U.Education at COPs Gonikoppal and

thereafter, he completed his B.E. degree from N.I.E.

College of Engineering, Manandavadi Road, Mysore.

Plaintiffs claim that their father belong to Bhovi

community which comes under Scheduled Caste category.

However, while admitting plaintiffs to school, caste was

wrongly shown as 'Gowda' instead of 'Bhovi'. In the school

records, plaintiffs caste is shown to be 'Gowda'. Therefore,

plaintiffs instituted suits seeking relief of declaration to

declare that they belong to Bhovi community which falls

under Scheduled Caste category and that defendants have

wrongly entered the caste in the school records and

consequently, sought for mandatory injunction.

4. The trial Court dismissed both the suits by

placing reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in

the case of Government of Karnataka, Rep. by Deputy

Commissioner and Others vs. Kumari Shilpa Shrishail

Baragadagi and Another1. The trial Court while

dismissing the suits held that plaintiffs have a remedy

before the caste verification committee where they can

seek redressal of their grievance and seek correction of the

school records including caste certificate. Therefore, trial

Court was of the view that civil Court has no jurisdiction to

grant relief sought in the plaint.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of

the trial Court, plaintiffs preferred appeals before the

appellate Court.

ILR 2014 Kar 5389

6. Before the appellate Court, plaintiffs withdrew

the prayer seeking relief of declaration and only restricted

the claim to relief of mandatory injunction. Though relief of

declaration was deleted by way of amendment, appellate

Court was of the view that relief of mandatory injunction to

rectify the school records cannot be agitated before civil

Court and civil Court has no jurisdiction to issue mandatory

injunction to rectify the school records. Appellate Court

was of the view that plaintiffs have to approach the

committee constituted by the State Government. Appellate

Court while dismissing the appeals placed reliance on the

law laid down by this Court in the case of P.S.Venugopal

vs. The Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka

and Others2.

7. This Court vide order dated 20.12.2023 admitted

the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of

law:

2016 SCC Online Kar 8398

"1. Whether both the Courts erred in holding that Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to issue mandatory injunction to the School Authorities to rectify the mistakes in the school records relating to the caste and bring it in conformity with the Caste Certificate issued by the Competent Authority?

2. Whether remedy under Section 4C(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment Etc) Act, 1990 can operate as a bar to the Civil Courts to entertain a suit for mandatory injunction to rectify the school records in terms of Caste Certificate issued by the jurisdictional Tahasildar?"

8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the

plaintiffs and learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-

State. I have also given my anxious consideration to the

unreported judgment rendered by this Court in

RSA.No.1032/2004. I have also given my anxious

consideration to the judgments cited by the counsel

appearing for the plaintiffs and learned HCGP.

9. Learned HCGP has strongly resisted the present

second appeals by placing reliance on the Circular dated

20.04.2020 issued by the State Government. The relevant

portion of the said Circular reads as under:

"ಸು ೋ ೆ ಸಂ ೆ : ಸಕಇ 93 ಎ ಎ 2017 ಾಂಕ:06.09.2017 ರ ಕಂ ೆ [3] ರ ಈ ೆಳ ನಂ ೆ ಇರುತ ೆ.

" ಾನ ಸ ೕ!ಚ# ಾ $ಾಲಯದ (ೕಪ*!ಗಳಂ ೆ ,-. ಾ $ಾಲಯಗ/0ೆ 1ಾ(ಗಳ ಬ0ೆ3 4ಧ!6ಸುವ ಅ9 ಾರ ಇಲ ೇ ಇರುವ*ದ6ಂದ, ,-.

     ಾ $ಾಲಯಗಳ: ;ಾ ಾ         ಾಖ ಾ(ಗಳ     1ಾ( ಬದ ಾವ=ೆ ಬ0ೆ3 4ೕ ದ
    ಆ ೇಶಗಳನು@ ABಣ ಇ ಾ ೆಯ ಉನ@ತ ಾ $ಾಲಯಗಳ             EೕಲFನ- ಸ ,,
    ಸೂಕ ಆ ೇಶಗಳನು@ ಪGೆಯಬಹುದು. ;ಾ ಾ             ಾಖ ೆಗಳ    ತಪ*I 1ಾ(
    ನಮೂ ಾ ದKLೆ ABಣ ಇ ಾ ೆಯು ಅದನು@ ಸ6ಪ ಸMೇ ಾದ             ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟO
    ಅP! ಾರರು Qದಲು 1ಾ( ಪR ಾಣ ಪತR ಪGೆಯMೇ ಾ               ೆ ಮತು ಅದರ

ಆSಾರದ Eೕ ೆ ಮುಂ ನ ಕRಮ ಜರು ಸಬಹುದು. ತಹAೕ ಾKರರು 4ೕ ದ 1ಾ( ಪR ಾಣ ಪತRದ ಸಂಶಯಗ/ದKLೆ ಅಥVಾ ಅದ6ಂದ Mಾ9ತLಾದವರು Wೕಸ ಾ( ಾXK 1990 ಕಲಂ 4(Y) ರ ಯ ಕಂ ಾಯ ಇ ಾ ೆಯ ಉಪ-Zಾ0ಾ9 ಾ6ಗ/0ೆ EೕಲFನ- ಸ ಸಬಹುದು. ;ಾ ಾ ಾಖ ಾ(ಗಳ ಮು ೊ ೕ[ಾSಾ ಯರು $ಾವ* ೇ -\ಾರ=ೆ ಇಲ ೆ ]ೕಷಕರು 4ೕ ದ ಾ_( Eೕ ೆ 1ಾ(ಗಳನು@ ನಮೂ ,ರು ಾLೆ. ಆದK6ಂದ ;ಾ ಾ ಾಖ ಾ(ಗಳ ನಮೂ ,ರುವ 1ಾ(Xೕ ೈಜ 1ಾ( ಎಂದು ಪ6ಗaಸಲು bಾಧ Vಾಗುವ* ಲ."

ಆದK6ಂದ ;ಾ ಾ ಾಖ ಾ(ಗಳ ತಪ*I 1ಾ( ನಮೂ ಾ ದK ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟO ಅP! ಾರರು Qದಲು 1ಾ( ಪR ಾಣ ಪತR ಪGೆದು ಸಂಬಂ9,ದ ;ಾ ಾ ಮುಖ ಸd60ೆ ಅP! ಸ ಸಲು (/ಸುವ*ದು. eಾಗೂ ಸದ6 1ಾ( ಪR ಾಣ ಪತRದ

ಆSಾರದ Eೕ ೆ ;ಾ ಾ ಾಖ ಾ(ಗಳ 1ಾ( (ದKಪ ಾಡಲು ಮುಖ ABಕರು ಸಂಬಂ9,ದ gೇತR AB=ಾ9 ಾ6ಗಳ ಮು ಾಂತರ ಸಂಬಂ9,ದ ಉಪ4 ೇ!ಶಕರು(ಆಡ/ತ) ಇವರುಗ/0ೆ ಪRbಾವ ೆ ಸ ಸುವ*ದು. ಉಪ4 ೇ!ಶಕರು(ಆಡ/ತ) ರವರು ಪRbಾವ ೆಯನು@ ಸು ೋ ೆಯಂ ೆ ಪ6Aೕ ,, ಾಖ ೆಗಳ: ಸ6 ಇದKLೆ 1ಾ( (ದುKಪ ಾಡಲು ಆ ೇಶ 4ೕಡುವ*ದು. ಸದ6 ಆ ೇಶದಂ ೆ (ದುKಪ $ಾದ ನಂತರ ;ಾ ೆಯ ಾಖ ಾ( ವ_ಗಳ ಉಪ4 ೇ!ಶಕರು(ಆಡ/ತ) ಇವರು ದೃiೕಕ6ಸುವ*ದು. ಈ ಸೂಚ ೆಗಳಂತ ಕRಮವ_ಸಲು Lಾಜ ದ ಎ ಾ P ಾ ಉಪ4 ೇ!ಶಕರು (ಆಡ/ತ), bಾವ!ಜ4ಕ ABಣ ಇ ಾ ೆ ಮತು Lಾಜ ದ ಎ ಾ gೇತR AB=ಾ9 ಾ6ಗಳ:, bಾವ!ಜ4ಕ ABಣ ಇ ಾ ೆ, ಇವ60ೆ (/, ೆ."

10. Learned HCGP has also placed reliance on the

Circular dated 06.09.2017. The relevant portion is as

under:

"2. ಕ ಾ!ಟಕ ಅನುಸೂjತ 1ಾ(ಗಳ: ಮತು ಅನುಸೂjತ ಬುಡಕಟುOಗಳ:

eಾಗೂ ಇತgÉ _ಂದು/ದ ವಗ!ಗಳ ( ೇಮ ಾ( ಮುಂ ಾದವ*ಗಳ Wೕಸ ಾ() ಅ94ಯಮ 1990 ಾXKಯಂ ೆ ತಹAೕ ಾKರರು 1ಾ( ಪR ಾಣ ಪತRಗಳನು@ 4ೕಡುವ ಅ9 ಾರ eೊಂ ರು ಾLೆ ಮತು 1ಾ( ಪR ಾಣ ಪತR 4ೕಡುವ ಮುಂ\ೆ ತಹAೕ ಾKರರು ;ಾ ಾ ಾಖ ಾ(ಗಳನು@ bೇ6 ಇತರ ಾಖ ಾ(ಗಳನು@ ಮತು ಸdಳ ಪ6Aೕಲ ೆ ಇ ಾ ಪ6Aೕ , ೈdåVಾದ ಅP! ಾರ60ೆ 1ಾ( ಪR ಾಣ ಪತR 4ೕಡತಕkದುK. ೇವಲ ;ಾ ಾ ಾಖ ಾ( ಆSಾರದ Eೕ ೆXೕ 1ಾ( ಪR ಾಣ ಪತR 4ೕಡತಕkದKಲ. ಆದK6ಂದ, P ಾ 1ಾ( ಪ6Aೕಲ ಾ ಸW(, ತಹAೕ ಾKರರು 4ೕ ದ 1ಾ( ಪR ಾಣ ಪತRಗಳನು@ ಪ6Aೕ , 1ಾ( ,ಂಧುತl ಪR ಾಣ ಪತRವನು@ 4ೕಡಬಹು ೇ eೊರತು ;ಾ ಾ ಾಖ ಾ( (ದುKಪ ಗಳ ಬ0ೆ3 ಕRಮ ವ_ಸುವಂ(ಲ.

3. ಾನ ಸ ೕ!ಚm ಾ $ಾಲಯದ (ೕಪ*!ಗಳಂ ೆ ,-. ಾ $ಾಲಯಗ/0ೆ 1ಾ(ಗಳ ಬ0ೆ3 4ಧ!6ಸುವ ಅ9 ಾರ ಇಲ ೇ ಇರುವ*ದ6ಂದ. ,-.

     ಾ $ಾಲಯಗಳ: ;ಾ ಾ                 ಾಖ ಾ(ಗಳ    1ಾ( ಬದ ಾವ=ೆ ಬ0ೆ3 4ೕ ದ
    ಆ ೇಶಗಳನು@ ABಣ ಇ ಾ ೆಯು ಉನ@ತ ಾ $ಾಲಯಗಳ                   EೕಲFನ- ಸ ,
    ಸೂಕ ಆ ೇಶಗಳನು@ ಪGೆಯಬಹುದು. ;ಾ ಾ                    ಾಖ ೆಗಳ    ತಪ*I 1ಾ(
    ನಮೂ ಾ ದKLೆ ABಣ ಇ ಾ ೆಯು ಅದನು@ ಸ6ಪ ಸMೇ ಾದ                    ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟO
    ಅP! ಾರರು Qದಲು 1ಾ( ಪR ಾಣ ಪತR ಪGೆಯMೇ ಾ                      ೆ ಮತು ಅದರ

ಆSಾರದ Eೕ ೆ ಮುಂ ನ ಕRಮ ಜರು ಸಬಹುದು. ತಹAೕ ಾKರರು 4ೕ ದ 1ಾ( ಪR ಾಣ ಪತRದ ಸಂಶಯಗ/ದKLೆ ಅಥVಾ ಅದ6ಂದ Mಾ9ತLಾದವರು Wೕಸ ಾ( ಾXK 1990 ಕಲಂ4(Y)ರ ಯ ಕಂ ಾಯ ಇ ಾ ೆಯ ಉಪ-Zಾ0ಾ9 ಾ6ಗ/0ೆ EೕಲFನ- ಸ ಸಬಹುದು. ;ಾ ಾ ಾಖ ಾ(ಗಳ ಮು ೊ ೕ[ಾSಾ ಯರು $ಾವ* ೇ -\ಾರ=ೆ ಇಲ ೆ ]ೕಷಕರು 4ೕ ದ ಾ_( Eೕ ೆ 1ಾ(ಗಳನು@ ನಮೂ ,ರು ಾLೆ. ಆದK6ಂದ, ;ಾ ಾ ಾಖ ಾ(ಗಳ ನಮೂ ,ರುವ 1ಾ(Xೕ ೈಜ 1ಾ( ಎಂದು ಪ6ಗaಸಲು bಾಧ Vಾಗುವ* ಲ."

11. On meticulous examination of the culled out

portion of the above said Circulars, the objections raised by

learned HCGP on behalf of the State is found to be totally

misconceived. The Circulars which are culled out supra

clearly reveals that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide

caste of citizen. The Circular dated 20.04.2020 also clearly

reveals that if there is a wrong caste entry in the school

records, the concerned applicant should first get the caste

certificate and inform the concerned school Principal to

adopt further course of action and on the basis of said caste

certificate, the Head Master is required to submit a proposal

to the concerned Deputy Director (Administration) through

the concerned Field Education Officer to rectify the caste in

the school records. The Circular dated 06.09.2017 on

which the State is placing reliance also clearly reveals that

Tahsildar is the competent authority to issue caste

certificate as per Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled

Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of

Appointment, etc.,) Act, 1990 (for short '1990 Act'). The

Tahsildar being the competent authority before issuance of

caste certificate is not only bound to check school records

and other documents but does so by place verification and

other requisite formalities. The above Circular also gives an

indication that caste certificate should not be issued only on

basis of school enrollment.

12. On meticulous examination of the above two

circulars, what emerges is that there is total bar on civil

Court to decide to which caste the applicant belongs. The

enquiry and the authority to issue caste certificate is vested

with the jurisdictional Tahsildar. The above two Circulars

also gives an indication that the caste certificate issued by

the Tahsildar is not absolute. Based on caste certificate, if

appointments are sought in the Government sector, the

selected candidate who is placing reliance on caste

certificate has to secure validity of the caste certificate from

the District Caste Verification Committee.

13. In the light of discussion made supra, now let

me examine as to whether the jurisdiction of civil Court in

issuing mandatory injunction to the respondent/authorities

to rectify the error that has crept in the school records and

bring it in conformity with the caste certificate issued by the

competent authority, is barred under Section 9 of CPC.

14. If plaintiffs restrict their claim to relief of

mandatory injunction, this Court is of the view that

substantive relief of declaration being withdrawn, plaintiffs

are entitled to seek adjudication and substantiate that they

are entitled for relief of mandatory injunction. The plaint is

presented by placing reliance on caste certificate issued by

the jurisdictional Tahsildar. If plaintiffs have restricted their

claim to relief of mandatory injunction, the bar in regard to

adjudication of the caste certificate being not the subject

matter of the suit, this Court is more than satisfied that the

bar under Section 9 has no application to the present case

on hand. Civil Court's competency to entertain the relief of

mandatory injunction based on a caste certificate is not

expressly barred. The jurisdiction of civil Court to which the

right to decide the lis between the parties has been

conferred can only be taken by statute in specific terms and

such exclusion of right cannot be easily inferred because

there is always a strong presumption that civil Courts have

the jurisdiction to decide all questions of civil nature.

Therefore, if at all there has to be an inference, the same

should be in favour of jurisdiction of the Court rather than

exclusion of such jurisdiction. It is also necessary to

consider what the cause of action in the plaint is and what

is the substantive relief which plaintiff would be entitled if

he succeeds in the suit in order to determine whether Court

has jurisdiction.

15. Generally speaking, the broad guiding

considerations for determining whether civil Court

jurisdiction is ousted are that wherever a right, not pre-

existing in common law, is created by a statute and the

statute itself provided a machinery for the enforcement of

the right, both the right and remedy having been created

and there being a declaratory mechanism under special

statute, the litigant needs to be relegated to avail remedy

under the statute and not under common law by knocking

the doors of the civil Court.

16. Interestingly, plaintiffs in both the suits have

given up the substantive relief of declaration that they

belong to Bhovi community. The relief sought in the plaint

hinges on the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar. The

Tahsildar is a competent authority to issue caste certificate.

Plaintiffs are not seeking validation of the caste certificate

and therefore, they have no remedy before the District

Caste Verification Committee. The validation of caste

certificate would arise for consideration where

appointments are sought in Government jobs based on

caste certificate indicating that a candidate belongs to

backward class or reserve category. If the relief sought in

the plaint is restricted, to seek direction to rectify the

school records based on caste certificate issued by the

Tahsildar, plaintiffs remedy is only under common law

before the competent civil Court as the special statute does

not provide any mechanism to align caste of student in

school records in conformity with the caste certificate

issued by the Tahsildar. Therefore, the Civil Court was very

much competent to entertain the relief of mandatory

injunction.

17. Plaintiffs are not seeking validity certificate and

therefore, they cannot seek redressal of their grievance by

invoking 4C(2) of the 1990 Act. In that view of the matter,

this Court is of the view that first substantial question of

law is liable to be answered in the affirmative and the

second substantial question of law is liable to be answered

in the negative and are accordingly answered.

18. After careful consideration of the submissions

made by the parties and perusal of relevant legal

provisions, precedents and arguments, this Court hereby

records the conclusions as follows:

a) The issue regarding competency of Tahsildar to

issue certificate, it is firmly established that the Tahsildar

being a designate competent authority as per the statutory

provisions outlined under the Act is unequivocally

empowered to issue caste certificate to eligible individuals

in accordance with the prescribed procedures delineated by

law;

b) With regard to competence of District Caste

Verification Committee to issue validity certificates, it is

evident from the pertinent laws that the said committee

holds the authority to issue validity certificate after due

verification of caste status in accordance with applicable

regulations;

c) The issue that has arisen for consideration in the

captioned second appeal relates to error in mentioning

caste in school records. This Court acknowledges the

profound implications of such inaccuracies that have on

individuals seeking to obtain caste certificates. It is well

settled that in instances where discrepancies or errors

exists in school records regarding an individual caste

affiliation, the aggrieved parties are entitled to seek

redressal through initiation of suit for mandatory injunction

before the civil Court. Such matters falls squarely within

the jurisdiction of Civil Court, which is empowered to

adjudicate and provide appropriate remedies for

rectification of such errors;

d) Regarding the applicability of bar under Section 9

of CPC, this Court finds no impediment to exercise its

jurisdiction in the present matter. Section 9 of the Code

does not operate to preclude the jurisdiction of civil Court in

adjudication upon the issues raised in this case as they

involve distinct legal questions and remedies falling outside

the ambit of the above said Act;

e) The fundamental principles of administrative law

and statutory interpretation guide this Court's analysis of

the competency of Tahsildar and the District Caste

Verification Committee to issue caste and validity certificate

respectively. The clear delineation of powers and functions

within the statutory frame work provides a mechanism to

these authorities and they have their own restrictions in

deciding the issues of caste certificate and on verification,

issuing a validation certificate of a caste certificate issued

by a competent Tahsildar;

f) Recognition of error of discrepancies in school

records is a legitimate ground for seeking judicial

intervention and it underscores the importance of ensuring

accuracy and reliability in official documents. This Court

reaffirms the foundational principles of access to justice and

the right to seek redressal of grievances before a

competent civil Court. The civil Court as a guardian of

individual rights and liberties, stands ready to adjudicate

upon matters within its jurisdiction and to provide

appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Therefore, bar

under Section 9 of Code does not operate as a bar to the

jurisdiction of the civil Court in the present matter, as the

issues at hand fall outside the scope of the above said Act;

g) In the event of errors in school records, the 1990

Act does not provide a mechanism for addressing such

discrepancies. The above said Act encompasses provisions

aimed at issuing a validity of caste certificate to enable a

candidate to secure government jobs. Therefore, the

remedies provided under the 1990 Act prove insufficient or

inadequate to address the grievances of the plaintiffs,

recourse to civil Court remains a viable option. The civil

Courts therefore are vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate

upon matters pertaining to civil rights and remedies. It also

stands as a forum where aggrieved parties may seek

appropriate redressal of their grievances. Therefore,

jurisdiction of civil Court in such matters is not precluded by

the provisions contained under 1990 Act as the matters at

hand pertains to distinct legal questions and remedies that

warrant adjudication before civil Court. Therefore, this

Court acknowledges that in certain circumstances, the

remedies provided under statutory enactments may prove

inadequate to address the grievances of the aggrieved

party. In such instances, the civil Court stands as a forum

where individuals may seek recourse and obtain appropriate

remedies for vindication of their rights and interest.

19. For the reasons stated supra, this Court

proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The second appeals are allowed;

           (ii) The impugned judgment and decree
     passed       by     the       appellate       Court          in
     R.A.Nos.47/2019        and        48/2019     respectively

confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.Nos.45/2019 and 44/2019 respectively are hereby set aside. Consequently, both the suits are decreed in part;

(iii) Defendant Nos.2 to 6 shall submit a proposal to the concerned authority to correct the caste in the school records/college records;

(iv) The competent authority shall scrutinize the proposal and by taking cognizance of caste certificate issued by the jurisdictional

Tahsildar, shall accordingly amend the caste of plaintiffs in all relevant documents;