Karnataka High Court
Mallikarjunappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 April, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:13580
WP No. 45872 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 45872 OF 2017 (GM-CC)
BETWEEN:
MALLIKARJUNAPPA
S/O. M. MAHABALESWARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NEXT TO KHADAR BASHA HOUS,
OLD MINERVA CONVENT SCHOOL ROAD,
N.G.O. COLONY, THYAGARAJANAGAR,
CHALLAKERE,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 577 522.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R. B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
by SHWETHA VIDHANA SOUDHA,
RAGHAVENDRA DR. AMBEDKAR BEEDI,
Location: HIGH BENGALURU- 560 001.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
AND CHAIRMAN,
DISTRICT CASTE AND INCOME
VERIFICATION COMMITTEE,
CHITRADURGA, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:13580
WP No. 45872 of 2017
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
INSTRUCTIONS,
BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT,
BENGALURU - 577 009.
5. HEAD MASTER,
SRI. SWAMI VIVEKANANDA,
HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL,
AJJANAGUDI ROAD,
CHALLAKERE TOWN,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 577 522.
6. HEAD MASTER,
JANASEVA EDUCATION CENTRE,
BOYS RESIDENTIAL HIGH SCHOOL,
CHENNENAHALLI, TAVAREKERE HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGLAURU RURAL DISTRICT - 577 009.
7. THE TAHSILDAR
CHALLAKERE TALUK,
CHALLAKERE - 577 522.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE
FOR R1- R4 AND R7;
(MA NOT FILED) R6- SERVED;
V/O. DATED 13.04.2023, NOTICE TO R5 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED RESOLUTION/ PROCEEDINGS/ ORDER DATED
4.4.2017 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN RESPECT OF SERIAL NO.3
WHICH CONCERNED TO THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNEX-W
AND CONSEQUENTLY TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO RECTIFY THE
CASTE OF THE PETITIOENR AS "GANIGA" IN PLACE OF
"LINGAYAT GANIGA" FOR ALL PURPOSES IN THE RECORD.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:13580
WP No. 45872 of 2017
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
i) ISSUE a Writ in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned
Resolution/proceedings/order dated 04-04-
2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and
Chairman, District Caste and Income
Verification Committee, Chitradurga/ the
which concerned to the petitioner as per
Annexure-W and consequently to direct the
Respondent No. 2 to rectify the caste of the
petitioner as "GANIGA" in place of "LINGAYAT
GANIGA" for all purposes in the record;
ii] ISSUE any other writ, order or direction as
deemed fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case including the cost of
the Writ Petition, in the interest of justice and
equity.
2. The petitioner claims to belong to the Ganiga caste and a
caste certificate came to be issued in respect thereto by
respondent No.7-Tahsildar. However, in the School
records, his caste was shown as 'Lingayat Ganiga' and in
that background, the petitioner has submitted the
representation seeking for correction of his caste in the
School records from 'Lingayat Ganiga' to 'Ganiga' to
NC: 2025:KHC:13580
which the petitioner belongs to. On the representation he
submitted, the respondents called upon the petitioner to
get a decree from a competent Civil Court. Thereafter,
the petitioner filed a original suit in O.S.No.18/2004
which was contested by the respondents. After trial, the
Civil Court directed the rectification of the caste of the
petitioner in all his education records by removing
Lingayat Ganiga and inserting his caste Ganiga. The State
challenged the same in RA.No.23/2005 which came to be
allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial
Court came to be set aside and suit came to be
dismissed.
3. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the First Appellate
Court in RA.No.23/2005, the petitioner has filed RSA
No.2261/2007. This Court vide order dated 17.11.2014
disposed of the said RSA reserving liberty to the
petitioner to avail the remedy before the Caste
Verification Committee under the provisions of the
Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and
other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments,
etc.) Rules Act, 1992. Pursuant to that the petitioner filed
NC: 2025:KHC:13580
an application before respondent No.2-Deputy
Commissioner and Chairman, District Caste and Income
Verification Committee, Chitradurga seeking for
rectification and issuance of caste certificate in the name
of Ganiga. Similar application was also filed by
respondent Nos.3 to 7 being the officers in Education
Department, the Head Master of the School and the
Tahsildar. Though several documents were submitted by
the petitioner starting from the Caste Certificate issued by
the Tahsildar in the year 2004, the application filed by the
petitioner came to be rejected on the basis of fresh report
of the Tahsildar stating that all entries have been made
indicating that the petitioner belongs to Lingayat Ganiga.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court
seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.
4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the petitioner in the application filed way back on
05.11.2003 to Tahsildar who had issued the certificate
who had clearly indicated that the petitioner though was
shown to belong to Lingayat Ganiga community in the
education records, he belongs to the Ganiga community
NC: 2025:KHC:13580
and as such, the request was made in the year 2003 for
issuance of the certificate indicating that the petitioner
belongs to Ganiga community in pursuance of which the
certificate came to be issued. The further submission is
that there is no further benefit for the petitioner by
rectifying the caste of the petitioner from Lingayat Ganiga
to Ganiga inasmuch as in terms of the notification dated
06.12.1999 issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment in the State of Karnataka, both Ganiga and
Lingayat Ganiga are found at Sl. No.164 of the list of
OBCs and as such, both Ganiga and Lingayat Ganiga
coming under same classification, there is no additional
benefit that the petitioner would derive by rectifying the
same. The Caste Certificate having been issued as
Ganiga, it is only the educational records which indicate
that he belongs to Lingayat Ganiga. The rectification has
been sought for by the petitioner to rectify the mistake
which has occurred in all the records which reflect the
true caste of the petitioner as that of Ganiga.
NC: 2025:KHC:13580
5. Learned AGA seeks to support the impugned order by
contending that all the aspects which are required to be
considered, have been considered.
6. The father and mother of the petitioner having given the
caste of the petitioner as Lingayat Ganiga, the same has
been recorded in the education records and as such, now
the petitioner cannot seek to rectify the same. There is no
clerical error which has occurred for such rectification. No
new certificate can be issued in favour of the petitioner
indicating the caste of the petitioner as being Ganiga
instead of Lingayat Ganiga. Reliance is sought to be
placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
M.V.Chandrakanth v. Sangappa and Others1, more
particularly paras 32 & 33 which are reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
"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
Nos. 1 to 12 and 14 to 19 Category III-B were
2022 SCC OnLine SC 934.
NC: 2025:KHC:13580
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.
7. By relying upon Chandrakanth's case referred to supra,
learned AGA sought to contend that the Division Bench of
this Court had set aside the findings of the Single Bench
that Lingayat Ganiga and Lingayat are two different
communities. The Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the order of
the Division Bench by coming to a conclusion that the
notification which had been issued on 27.01.2009 and
classification made in the notification on 27.01.2009 was
deleted by notification dated 28.02.2009, as such the
petitioner cannot seek for benefit or change in the Caste
Certificate.
NC: 2025:KHC:13580
8. In that background, learned AGA was called upon to
produce the notification dated 27.01.2009 which has been
produced today. A perusal of the said notification would
indicate that item No.9 thereof indicates the caste name
to be Lingayat/Veerashaiva Ganiga but however this
classification at Sl.No.9 came to be deleted on
28.02.2009. It is in that background that the claim of the
petitioner has to be considered without reference to the
notification 27.01.2009 since such classification came to
be deleted on 28.02.2009.
9. Heard Sri.R.B.Deshpande learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri.Mahantesh Shettar learned AGA for
respondent Nos.1 to 4 and respondent No.7. Perused the
records.
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
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:13580
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.
11. A perusal of the notification dated 06.12.1999 issued by
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government
of India indicates that the list in respect of other
backward classes in the State of Andra Pradesh, Bihar,
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:13580
Chandigarh and Goa at Sl No.164 coming under the OBC
and for the State of Karnataka, Ganiga, Ligayat Ganiga,
Ganigar are found. Thus, Ganiga is a separate
classification from Lingayat Ganiga.
12. Though in the year 2009, Lingayat and Veerashaiva
Ganiga were regarded as one and the sub-classification at
Sl No.9 made by the State of Karnataka came to be
deleted on 28.02.2009. Thus the position was restored to
the notification dated 06.12.1999 as indicated supra there
being no further amendment to the said classification
thereafter. Thus it is clear that at Sl. No.164, Ganiga and
Lingayat Ganiga come under OBC and are entitled for the
very same benefit.
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.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:13580
14. Such being the case, the petitioner wanting to correct his
caste has been made to run from pillar to the post and
then filing a suit where he succeeded, subsequently
resulting in an appeal filed by the State which came to be
allowed, then the second appeal filed by the petitioner
whereunder he was remanded to the remedy available
under the Act, 1990.
15. There being no particular benefit or additional benefit
which the petitioner can claim by getting his Caste
Certificate rectified as Ganiga from that of Lingayat
Ganiga which is shown in the educational records. I am of
the considered opinion that the respondents misconstrued
themselves and have on the basis of the entry made in
the school records sought to contend that the petitioner
would not be entitled for rectification.
16. Though there may be several errors which are made at
the time of recording of the name of caste at the time of
admission in the school so long as sufficient details and
records are produced by the concerned person indicating
the requirement of such correction, such correction ought
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:13580
to have been allowed by the respondent authorities as
made available in the present case as stated supra.
17. The petitioner in the application filed on 05.11.2023 itself
had categorically informed about wrong entry made in the
school records and sought for issuance of correct Caste
Certificate as 'Ganiga' which came to be issued by
Tahasildar. Thereafter same ought to have been taken
into consideration for rectifying the entries made in the
education records, not having done so, resulted in this
entire litigation which could have been avoided, as such, I
pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) A certiorari is issued order dated 04.04.2017
passed by respondent No.2-the Deputy
Commissioner and Chairman, District Cast and
Income Verification Committee, Chitradurga at
Annexure W is quashed.
(iii) Respondent Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 are directed to rectify
the entry of the name of the caste of the petitioner
as 'Ganiga' in terms of Caste Certificate issued by
respondent No.7-Tahasildar on 25.11.2004 in all
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:13580
education records within a period of 60 days from
the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
DS
CT:TSM
