[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner/Appelate Authoith vs Raghavendra Fakeerappa ... on 3 December, 2025
-1-
WA No. 301 of 2025
C/W CCC No. 74 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 301 OF 2025 (GM-CC)
C/W
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 74 OF 2025
IN W.A. No. 301/2025
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER/APPELATE AUTHORITY
CASTE /INCOME VERIFICATION
DEPARTMENT OF BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE
NO. 16/D, DEVARAJA URS BHAVAN
MILLER'S TANKBED AREA
VASANTHNAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. THE CHAIRMAN
DISTRICT CASTE AND INCOME VERIFICATION
COMMITTEE AND
Digitally THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
signed by DHARWAD - 580 001
SRIDEVI S ...APPELLANTS
Location: (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA)
High Court AND:
of Karnataka
1. RAGHAVENDRA FAKEERAPPA CHANDRANANAVAR
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
S/O FAKEERAPPA CHANDANAVAR
R/O NAVALLI, ANNIGERE TALUK
DHARWAD DISTRICT - 582 205
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI H. KANTHARAJ, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI RAVI H.K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1)
-2-
WA No. 301 of 2025
C/W CCC No. 74 of 2025
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.10.2024 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION No.25063/2024
(GM-CC) & ETC.
IN CCC NO. 74/2025 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
1. RAGHAVENDRA
FAKEERAPPA CHANDRANANAVAR
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
S/O FAKEERAPPA CHANDRANANAVA
R/O NAVALLI, ANNIGERE TALUK
DHARWAD DISTRICT - 582 208
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI H. KANTHARAJ, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI RAVI H.K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. DIVYA PRABHU
MAJOR, THE CHAIRMAN DISTRICT CASTE
AND INCOME VERIFICATION
COMMITTEE AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DHARWAD DISTRICT
DHARWAD - 580 001
...ACCUSED
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001
...PRO FORMA RESPONDENT
(BY SRI NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT PRAYING TO PUNISH THE
ACCUSED FOR THE WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER
DATED 28.10.2024 PASSED IN W.P.NO. 25063/2024 (GM-CC) BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND
GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFS IN THE FACTS
AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE COSTS
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-3-
WA No. 301 of 2025
C/W CCC No. 74 of 2025
THIS WRIT APPEAL AND CCC HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS
PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU ,CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU ,CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellants have filed the present intra-court appeal
impugning an order dated 28.10.2024 [impugned order] passed
by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.25063/2024
(GM-CC).
2. The respondent had filed the said petition impugning an
order dated 06.03.2024 passed by appellant No.2 - District Caste
and Income Verification Committee [the Committee] - rejecting
the respondent's claim for reservation under 'Kuruba Caste' as
void. The Committee had concluded that the respondent falls under
'creamy layer' and therefore, is not entitled to claim reservation
under Category-II(A) of the Government Order classifying the
backward classes.
3. The petition preferred by the respondent was allowed by the
learned Single Judge and the order dated 06.03.2024 passed by
the Committee was set aside. Additionally, the learned Single
Judge directed appellant No.2, to issue a caste validity certificate
certifying that the respondent as eligible for reservation as
applicable to Category-II(A) of Kuruba caste within a period of two
weeks from the date of the said order.
Prefatory facts
4. The respondent belongs to Kuruba caste, which falls under
Category-II(A) of the Government Order, classifying the backward
classes.
5. The respondent had applied for the post of Assistant
Engineer (Electrical) with the Karnataka Power Transmission
Corporation Limited [KPTCL] and was selected for the said post
under the reserved Category-II(A). The selecting authority required
a caste certificate for substantiating the respondent's claim for
reservation.
6. On 20.02.2024, the respondent applied for Sindhuthva
Certificate to the Committee. Pursuant to the said application, the
Committee requested the concerned Tahsildar (Tahsildar, Annigere
Taluk,) to examine the caste and income certificate of the
respondent and to submit a verification report. The said Tahsildar
submitted a report dated 18.04.2019, confirming that the
respondent belongs to Kuruba caste and the family's annual
income is Rs.19,48,128/-. The concerned Tahsildar reported that
the parents of the respondent were in government service. The
annual income of the respondent's father was Rs.7,76,112/- and
the annual income of the mother was Rs.6,74,356/-. Thus, the total
income of the parents were Rs.14,50,468/-. The said amount was
in excess of Rs.8,00,000/-, which was fixed as the annual income
limit for backward classes in terms of the Government Order dated
14.09.2018.1 The respondent does not dispute that his annual
income mentioned in the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, as
Rs.6,74,916/-, is correct. He contends that while considering the
income of the family for the purpose of reservation, income from
salary and agriculture was required to be excluded.
7. The respondent also referred to the order dated 24.08.2021
passed by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.60/2019,
captioned as 'Pichra Warg Kalyan Mahasabha Haryana (Regd.)
and another v. The State of Haryana and another'
Government Order No.OBC 304 BCA 2017
(2021) 20 SCC 384, in support of his contention that the 'Creamy
Layer' cannot be determined solely on the basis of the economic
criteria.
8. The Committee did not accept the contention as advanced
and rejected the Sindhutva Certificate. The Committee found that
the respondent was required to be excluded from the benefit of
reservation on account of falling in the creamy layer.
9. The respondent appealed the said order dated 06.03.2024
before appellant No.1 (Appellate Authority/Caste/Income
Verification, Department of Backward Classes Welfare). However,
appellant No.1 concurred with the Committee's decision dated
06.03.2024 and dismissed the appeal.
10. Aggrieved by the said decision, the respondent filed a writ
petition (being W.P.No.25063/2024), which was allowed in terms of
the impugned order.
11. The learned Single Judge referred to the decisions of this
Court - decision in W.P.No.100501/20212 decided on 29.03.2021
and the W.P.No.105275/20213 decided on 22.12.2021 - and held
Shri. Vinayak v. The State of Karnataka and another
Shri. Basayya v. The State of Karnataka and another
that the income derived from the salaries of the parents of the
respondent was required to be excluded for the purpose of
determining whether the candidate fell under the creamy layer.
Additionally, the learned Single Judge referred to the Circular dated
04.07.19944 issued by the Government of Karnataka in support of
the said conclusion.
Reasons and Conclusion
12. The only controversy that falls for the consideration of this
Court is whether the salary income of the parents of the respondent
are required to be excluded for the purpose of assessing whether
the respondent is excluded from the benefit of reservation in
employment on account of falling in the creamy layer.
13. The respondent relies on the Office Memorandum dated
08.09.19935, which expressly excludes the sons and daughters of
persons having gross annual income of Rs.1,00,000/- or above or
possessing wealth above the exemption limit as prescribed in the
Wealth Tax Act, 1957 for a period of three consecutive years.
Explanation No.1 under the said clause expressly provides that
"Income from salaries or agricultural land shall not be clubbed" and
Circular No.SakaE/130/BCA/94
O.M.No.36012/22/93-Estt.(SCT) issued by the Government of India.
the income criteria in terms of rupee would be modified taking into
account the change in its value every three years.
14. On a plain reading of the said Office Memorandum dated
08.09.1993, it is apparent that it is applicable for reservation for
socially and economically backward classes in Civil Posts and
Services under the Government of India. Thus, the said Office
Memorandum is inapplicable to posts reserved under the State
Government or its Undertakings. The learned counsel for the
respondent does not dispute the same. However, he submits that
in terms of the Government Order dated 20.04.19946, the benefit of
reservation under Article 15(4) or under Article 16(4) of the
Constitution of India is not available to the persons either of whose
parents is a Class I or Class II officer in the service of the
Government; or holds an equivalent posts in the Public Sector
undertaking; or is in employment of a private employer and draws a
salary, which is not less than that of a Class II officer. And, the
respondent's case does not fall within the said exclusionary clause.
The relevant clause of the said Government Order is set out below:
"1) either of whose parents is a class I or Class II
officer in the service of the Government or holds an
equivalent posts in Public Sector Undertaking or an
employment under a private employer and draws a
salary which is not less than that of a class Il officer
(initial stage of the pay scale of Rs. 2050-3950)"
15. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the said
exclusion under the Government Order dated 20.04.1994 does not
cover the respondent, as his parents are not Class I or Class II
officers and the income from their salaries is required to be
excluded.
16. As noted above, the respondent also relies on the decisions
of this Court in W.P.No.2667/2021 (GM-CC) and in
W.P.No.100501/2021 and W.P.No.105275/ 2021, which were also
referred to in the impugned order.
17. It is also noted that the decision in W.P.No.100501/2021
decided on 29.03.2021 (supra), also rests on the Office
Memorandum dated 08.09.1993 issued by the Central Government
and the subsequent decision dated 22.12.2021 in
W.P.No.105275/2021 (supra) follows the earlier decision in
W.P.No.100501/2021.
18. Once it is found that the Office Memorandum dated
08.09.1993 relates only to reservations for employment and
services of the Government of India, the same would be
- 10 -
inapplicable. Thus, the said decisions would not carry the
respondent's case any further.
19. The learned counsel for the respondent also relied on the
decision of the Supreme Court in Siddarth Saini v. State of
Haryana and others: (2001) 10 SCC 625 and drew the attention of
this Court to paragraph No.4 of the said decision, wherein it was
observed that the amount of gross salary received by the father of
the appellant in that case, for the purpose of grant of benefit to the
Other Backward Classes (OBC) certificate, is irrelevant.
20. Additionally, the respondent also relied on the decision of a
learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.2667/2021 (GM-CC)7
decided on 30.08.2024. Plain reading of the said decision also
indicates that the same is based on the Office Memorandum dated
08.09.1993.
21. The decision in the case of Siddarth Saini (supra), is not
applicable, as the same was rendered in the context of the
clarification issued by the Government of Haryana. A plain reading
of the said judgment indicates that the Government of Haryana had
clarified that income from salary was not required to be taken into
Sri M.Anjanappa and another v. The Deputy Commissioner and others
- 11 -
account for the purpose of income / wealth test in respect of
service category. The relevant extract of the said judgment is set
out below:
"3. Pursuant to the judgment of this Court in Indra
Sawhney v. Union of India [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992
SCC (L&S) Supp 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385] the Haryana
Government vide notification dated 12-10-1993 had set up
the Haryana Second Backward Classes Commission. The
terms of reference of the Commission were to entertain,
examine and recommend upon requests for inclusion and
complaints of overinclusion and underinclusion in the list of
Backward Classes. Vide notification dated 26-5-1994, the
Commission was also assigned the function of specifying the
basis, applying the relevant and requisite socio-economic
criteria to exclude socially advanced persons/sections
(creamy layer) from Backward Classes. A perusal of the
criteria referred to above shows persons falling in certain
categories as belonging to creamy layer. In this case, we are
not concerned with any other category, except the category
of government servant Class II post. The father of the
appellant was directly recruited as Assistant Engineer (SDO)
on Class II post, in the Irrigation Department of Haryana. The
father of the appellant still continues to be a member of
Class II service only. According to the affidavit filed by the
father of the appellant, his source of income is only salary
and he derives income from no other source. The
Government of Haryana issued Clarification Order No.
22/36/2000-3GS III dated 9-8-2000 for issuance of certificate
to OBCs in Haryana on 9-8-2000. In the said order it has
been clarified that income from salary is not required to be
taken into account for the purpose of income/wealth test in
respect of service category and while calculating income or
wealth tax of a government employee of a Backward Class
who is not covered under Annexure A description of
Categories I, II (a, b, c, d), III and IV he would become
entitled to the benefit of reservation under Backward Classes
category; his salary shall not be included but his other
sources of income/wealth, be included for income/wealth
test.
4. In the present case, it is the admitted case of the
appellant that the only source of income of the father of the
- 12 -
appellant is his salary. It is also not disputed that the father of
the appellant is a Class II officer and that the mother of the
appellant is not a Class II officer. The amount of gross salary
received by the father of the appellant, for the purpose of
grant of benefit to the OBCs is irrelevant. This being the
position, which has been clarified by the Government of
Haryana itself, by government order dated 9-8-2000, it is
obvious that the appellant should not have been refused the
OBC certificate by taking the salary of the father of the
appellant into account. The order of the Deputy
Commissioner dated 24-6-1999, refusing grant of OBC
certificate, is clearly erroneous. The judgment of the High
Court, impugned before us, which upholds the order of the
Deputy Commissioner is, in view of what we have said
above, not sustainable."
22. Before proceeding to address the controversy, it would be
relevant to refer to Clause (d) of the Government Order dated
20.04.1994, which excludes certain persons from the benefit of
reservation. The said clause is set out below:
"d) No one should be entitled to benefit of
reservation under Article 15(4) or under article
16(4) of the Constitution of India:
1) either of whose parents is a class I or class II
officer in the service of the Government or holds
an equivalent posts in Public Sector Undertaking
or an employement under a private employer and
draws a salary which is not less than that of a
class Il officer (initial stage of the pay scale of
Rs.2050-3950)
2) either of whose parents is a professional i.e.
1) Doctor
2) Lawyer
3) Chartered Accountant
4) Income Tax Consultant
- 13 -
5) Financial or management consultant
6) Dental Surgeon
7) Engineer or Architect
3) either of whose parents is an income tax
assessee.
4) either of whose parents is assessed to sales
tax.
5) either of whose parents or both together own
more than 8 hectares of rainfed or dry land or its
equivalent."
23. The said clause was classified by the Government of
Karnataka in terms of the notification dated 04.07.1994. The
relevant extract of the said notification is set out below:
"As per the rules laid down in these Government
Orders, certain Thasildars, members of the public,
and various associations and organizations had
raised queries and requests for clarification.
Therefore, the Government hereby issues the
following clarifications as stated below.
(1) *** *** ***
(2) *** *** ***
(3) In identifying individuals belonging to the
"advanced" (creamy layer) section among the
backward classes, the authority must verify the
following: The income or salary range of the father,
mother, husband, wife, or guardian of the
candidate, as specified in Government Order dated
20-04-1994, Section 3(1). Whether their salary
grade falls within Rs.2050-3950 or higher.
Additionally, the authority must confirm whether
they are employed in any of the services or posts
mentioned in clauses (2), (3), (4), and (5) of the
- 14 -
same order, and whether they come under the
conditions laid down therein.
(4) *** *** ***
(5) *** *** ***
(6) If the father, mother, husband, or wife of the
applicant is a working in the State government,
central government, semi-government, or private
institution not coming within pay scale of Rs.2050-
3950 or above, then such candidates shall be
considered as belonging to the backward-class
(non-creamy layer). While assessing eligibility, only
the basic pay of the concerned person should be
taken into account. Other allowances and benefits
they may receive should not be considered for
determining whether they fall under the advanced
(creamy layer) category."
[emphasis added]
24. Paragraph No.(3) of the said Notification dated 04.07.1994
amply clarifies that the exclusions mentioned in sub clauses (2),
(3), (4) and (5) of Clause (d) of the Government Order dated
20.04.1994 would be in addition to the exclusion in sub clause (1)
of the said clause. Thus, notwithstanding that the parents of a
candidate are not Class I or Class II officers in the service of the
Government of India or whose income was at the initial stage of
pay scale of Rs.2050-3950 or below, the said candidate would be
excluded if his parents were professionals as specified in sub
clause (2) or income tax assesses as specified in sub-clause (3).
- 15 -
Paragraph No.(6) of the notification dated 04.07.1994 also clarifies
that, for the purposes of applying the pay scale of Rs.2050-3950,
only the basic pay of the person would be taken into account.
25. The learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that
there was an error in the English translation of the notification
dated 04.07.1994 as set out above. He submitted that in the
Kannada version of the said notification, the entire salary,
allowances and benefits are required to be excluded by virtue of
Paragraph No.(6) and the same is not confined to other allowances
and benefits. Thus according to the learned counsel, if the father,
mother, husband, or wife of the applicant is a working in the State
government, central government, semi-government, or private
institution and their remuneration is not within the pay scale of
Rs.2050-3950, the entire salary, allowances and benefits are
required to be excluded.
26. The learned counsel for the appellants disputes the same.
However, it is not necessary to examine this controversy. This is
because, irrespective of the clarification under paragraph No.(6) of
the notification dated 04.07.1994 (the translated version of which is
set out above); the appellant would be excluded for the benefit of
said notification. Admittedly the parents of the candidate are
- 16 -
income tax assesses and thus covered under sub-clause (3) of
clause (d) of the Government Order dated 20.04.1994. Second,
there is no dispute that the salary of the parents of the respondent
are significantly of higher basic pay band of Rs.2,050-3,950. The
documents produced on record indicate that the basic pay of the
father of the respondent was Rs.53,900/- per month and that of his
mother was Rs.52,650/- per month.
27. Although we have referred to the Government Order dated
20.04.1994, the respondent's case is required to be considered in
terms of the Government Order dated 30.03.20028. The said order
is set out below.
Government Order No. SWD 225 BCA 2000, Dated: 30th
March 2002
After careful consideration of the above proposal the
Government are pleased to make the following orders:
1. The quantum of Reservation Specified in G.O. Dated: 17-
09-1994 and 31-01-1995 read at Sl. No. (1) & (2) respectively
is continued for admission to Educational Institutions and
Employment.
2. The revised list of Backward Classes enclosed to this order
as at Annexure-l, incorporating recommendations of the BC
Commission, is brought into force with immediate effect.
3. A new comprehensive Creamy Layer Policy as detailed in
Annexure-II to this Government order is brought into force with
immediate effect. This Creamy Layer Policy does not apply to
SCs/STs and Category-1 of the Backward Classes.
Government Order No. SWD 225 BCA 2000
- 17 -
Candidates belonging to Category-II(A), II(B), III(A), and III(B)
shall be entitled to reservation in the manner specified in the
new comprehensive Creamy Layer Policy.
By Order and in the name of Governor of Karnataka,
D.M. AGA
Deputy Secretary to the Government,
Social welfare Department.
28. Annexure II to the said order sets out the new
comprehensive creamy layer policy. We consider it apposite to set
out the same as under:
th
ANNEXURE-II to G.O. No. SWD 225 BCA 2000 dated 30 March 2002
NEW COMPREHENSIVE CREAMY LAYER
Under Article 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India, the following persons shall
not be eligible for reservation of seats of posts categorised under IIA, 11B, IIIA and
111B.
NOTE:
1. This rule will not apply to direct recruitments to posts which insist on C
prescribed period of service in a lower post or experience in a post, profession
or occupation as a qualification or eligibility.
This rule applies to son(s) or daughter(s) of the persons specified below:
a) President of India
b) Vice President of India
c) All functionaries holding Cabinet rank in Government of India or Government of
any State or Union Territory.
d) Chairmen of Council of States and the State Legislative Councils
e) Governors of States
f) Speakers of Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies
g) Judges of supreme Court and High Courts
h) Chairmen of Public Service Commission
i) Attorney General of India
j) Advocate General
k) Chief Election Commissioner
l) Comptroller and Auditor General of India
m) Members of Parliament atleast for a period of five years - during the period of
their office.
n) Members of State Legislature atleast for a period of five years - during the period
of their office.
- 18 -
2 The Candidate and either of whose parents / guardian is a Group-A or Group B
officer in the services of the Government or holds an equivalent post in public sector
undertakings or an employee of a private industry / Institution and draws a salary
which is not Less than that of a Group B officer (Pay scale Rs. 6000-11200)
3 The Candidate and his/her father's mother's/Guardian Gross Annual income
exceeds Rs. 2.00 lakhs.
4 The candidate and his/her father, mother / guardian holding 10 units of Agricultural
Land as Specified in the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961, and such of those
holding more than 20 acres of plantation land.
D.M, AGA
P.R. - 398 Deputy Secretary to Government,
Social Welfare Department."
29. It is clear from the above that the respondent would fall in the
creamy layer by virtue of clause 3 as set out above, as the income
of the parents of the respondent exceeds the threshold limit as
specified, which stands increased to Rs.8,00,000/-.
30. Further, the interpretation of clause 3 of the comprehensive
creamy layer policy has also been placed beyond any doubt by
virtue of the Circular dated 23.05.2012, whereby it is expressly
clarified as under:
"2. As per item 3 of Annexure-2 of 225 52 2000, 22:30-03-2002, if
the total annual income of the candidate and his parents, including
government Group-C and Group-D employees, exceeds Rs. 2.00
lakhs, they will not be eligible for reservation as per the Creamy
Layer Policy, (This income limit has been increased to Rs. 3.50
lakhs vide Government Order No.:S.E. 104 BCA 2011, Dated:05-
02-2012)."
- 19 -
31. As noted above, the said income limit is subsequently
increased to Rs.6,00,000/- and thereafter to Rs.8,00,000/- by virtue
of Government Order dated 14.09.20189.
32. In view of the above, the impugned order cannot be
sustained. The respondent clearly falls under the creamy layer in
terms of Annexure II to the Government Order dated 02.02.2002.
33. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is
set aside.
34. In view of the above order allowing the Writ Appeal
No.301/ 2025, the complaint is closed.
35. Pending applications stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
KPS/SD
Government Order No. BCM 304 BCA 2017
