Karnataka High Court
Shivaraj V vs The Chief Secretary on 14 November, 2024
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:46298
RSA No. 584 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 584 OF 2014 (DEC/INJ)
BETWEEN:
SHIVARAJ V.,
S/O VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
R/O MARABANAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHENNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213.
...APPELLANT
[BY SRI RAMESH H.E., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI PRAKASHA H.C., ADVOCATE (PH)]
AND:
1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVT.OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALOORU - 560 001.
Digitally signed 2. THE HEAD MASTER,
by ANUSHA V HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL,
Location: High MARABANAHALLI VILLAGE,
Court Of CHANNAGIRI TALUK - 577 213.
Karnataka
3. THE HEAD MASTER,
SRI ANJANEYA HIGH SCHOOL,
KUMBLURU VILLAGE,
HONNALI TALUK - 577 217.
4. THE HEAD MASTER,
GOVT.HIGH SCHOOL,
KARIGUNURU VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK - 577 213.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:46298
RSA No. 584 of 2014
5. THE HEAD MASTER,
SRI KALIKAMBA HIGH SCHOOL,
KOTEHAL VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK - 577 213.
6. THE PRINCIPAL,
L.SIDDAPPA P.U.COLLEGE,
BASAVAPATTANA VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK - 577 213.
7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER,
CHENNAGIRI,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK - 577 213.
8. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
9. THE SECRETARY,
K.S.E.E.B.,
BENGALURU - 560 003.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 TO R9 ARE SERVED)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST
THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED 20.12.2013 PASSED IN
R.A.NO.32/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, CHANNAGIRI, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.4.2013 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.197/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, CHANNAGIRI.
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and decree dated 20.12.2013
passed by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channagiri, in
R.A.no.32/2013 and judgment and decree dated 18.04.2013
NC: 2024:KHC:46298
passed by Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Channagiri, in
O.S.no.197/2012, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri Ramesh H.E., learned counsel appearing for
Sri Prakash H.C., learned counsel for appellant submitted that
appeal was by plaintiff in suit filed for declaration that plaintiff
belongs to 'Gangamatha' caste and for mandatory injunction to
defendants to make corrections in cumulative records of
plaintiff. It was submitted, trial Court dismissed suit on ground
of bar under Section 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC'
for short). First appellate Court though confirmed judgment and
decree, however, decided plaintiff's claim on merits instead of
remanding matter back to trial Court. It was submitted, during
pendency of above proceedings, appellant had obtained
certificate stating that he belongs to 'Gangamatha' caste under
Category-I from Caste and Income Verification Committee,
after due enquiry, which was sought to be produced as
Document no.2. Therefore, submits, following substantial
question of law would arise for consideration and seeks for
allowing appeal:
"Whether the trial Court as well as the first appellate
court has erroneously dismissed the suit of the
Appellant/Plaintiff without appreciating the evidence in
proper perspective?"
NC: 2024:KHC:46298
3. Heard learned counsel for appellant and perused
impugned judgment and decree.
4. From above, it is seen that plaintiff in
O.S.no.197/2012 is in appeal challenging concurrent order of
dismissal of suit. Relief sought before trial Court was for
declaration that plaintiff belongs to 'Gangamatha' caste by birth
along with mandatory injunction to defendants to make
corrections in his academic records. While passing judgment
and decree, trial Court dismissed suit as barred under Section 9
of CPC by referring to decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case of State of Tamil Nadu and Others v. A.Gurusamy
reported in 1997(3) SCC 542. In appeal, first appellate Court
reversed findings of trial Court insofar as maintainability of suit,
proceeded to consider material on record and dismissed appeal
by holding that plaintiff was not entitled for declaration. It is
seen, this Court in case of The Government of Karnataka
rep. by Deputy Commissioner and Others v. Kumari
Shilpa Shrishail Baragadagi and Another reported in ILR
2014 KAR 5389, has held, in view of specific mechanism
provided under Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes
and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc)
NC: 2024:KHC:46298
Act, 1990, jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 9 of CPC
would be barred. Said judgment would squarely apply to
present case. Judgment and decree passed by trial Court
holding suit as not maintainable would be justified. Though first
appellate Court has reversed finding of trial Court on said
aspect, same requires interference but, would not entail any
substantive relief to appellant. Since this is not a case of claim
for declaration of caste status of plaintiff simplicitor but for
changing entries in school cumulative records, ratio in case of
A.Gurusamy (supra) would also apply.
5. In view of same, no substantial question of law
arises for consideration and accordingly, appeal is dismissed
by clarifying plaintiff's suit is dismissed as not maintainable, in
view of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case
A.Gurusamy (supra) and of this Court in case of Kumari
Shilpa Shrishail Baragadagi (supra).
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
AV
