(BY SRI. C. JADEESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R4;
SMT. ANURADHA DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1
READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO RECALL AND
REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 11.01.2024 PASSED IN W.P.NO.
109307/2016 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO LIBERTY GRANTED TO
THE RESPONDENTS INCLUDING THE DISTRICT CASTE VERIFICATION
COMMITTEE TO INITIATE SUCH PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH LAW.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 19.12.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ii. Pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the
case, in the interest of justice and equity.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
2. What has been sought for is a review of the order
dated 11.01.2024 in W.P. No. 109307/2016 on the
ground that the matter could not be referred to the
District Caste Verification Committee (for short
'DCVC') and or no direction could have been issued to
the DCVC to initiate proceedings.
3. The submission of Sri Vijaykumar, learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the petitioner is working with the
South Western Railways, which is a Central
Government undertaking and as such, no enquiry
could be initiated against the petitioner under the
Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
Other Backward Classes (Reservation Of Appointment,
etc.) Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules
1992').
4. His submission is that in terms of sub-section (3) of
Section 2 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
(Reservation Of Appointment, etc.) Act, 1990
(hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1990'), the said Act of
1990 and consequently the Rules thereof would not be
applicable to a Central Government undertaking.
5. In this regard, he relies upon sub-section (3) of
Section 2 of the Act, which is reproduced hereunder
for easy reference:
"(3) "establishments in public sector" means,- (i) a
co-operative society registered or deemed to have
been registered under the Karnataka Co-operative
Societies Act, 1959; (ii) an educational institution
established or maintained or aided by the State
Government; (iii) a Government company within
the meaning of section 617 of the Companies Act,
1956; (iv) a local authority; (v) a statutory body or
corporation established by or under a State or
Central Act owned or controlled by the State
Government; (vi) a university established or
deemed to have been established by or under any
law of the State Legislature;"
6. His submission is that the phrase 'establishments in
public sector' does not refer to or include any Central-
Government undertaking. The verification of the caste
of an employee employed in the railways cannot be
done under the Act of 1990.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
7. In regard to the above Sri. Vijaykumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 04.03.2011 in
the case of G. Keshavamurthy S/o V.Govinda Rao
vs The MMTC Limited Corporate Office and
Others1, more particularly para nos. 4, 6 and 7
thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would
firstly draw attention to the Preamble to the 1990
Act which reads as follows:
"An Act to provide for the reservation of
appointment or posts in favour of the members of
the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other
Backward Classes in the State Civil Services and
establishments in the Public sector and in admission
to Universities and to the Educational institutions
established or maintained or aided by the State
Government.
Whereas the members of the Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes of
citizens are not adequately represented in the
services or posts of the State Civil Services and
establishments in public sector among the students
admitted to the University and to Educational
Institutions established or maintained or aided by
the State Government.
And whereas it is expedient to provide in favour of
them such reservation."
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
He would also draw attention to the definition
establishments in public sector which reads as
follows :-
"(3) Establishments in public sector means:
(i) a co-operative society registered or deemed to
have been registered under the Karnataka Co-
operative Societies Act, 1959;
(ii) A Government institution established or
nyintained or aided by the State Government,
(iii) A local authority;
(iv) A statutory body or corporation established by
of under a State or Central Act, owned or or
controlled by the State Government;
(v) A university established established or deemed
to have been by or Legislature:" under any law of
the State
And he would submit that there is no dispute that
the petitioner belongs to a Government of India
undertaking and it would fall outside the scope of
the provisions of the said Act. The impugned orders
having been passed by the authorities, under the
provisions of the said Act, are therefore, entirely
without jurisdiction.
He would further draw attention to Annexure-K to
the writ petition, which is an extract from a Circular
specifying that insofar as a dispute pertaining to the
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe to which a
person may belong, the mater would have to be
verified through the District Magistrate of the place
where the concerned ordinarity resides and in the
prescribed manner. It is only on such verification
that the candidate's claim having been proved
false, that his services could be terminated. In this
regard, he would submit that it is this Circular
which would apply to the petitioner's case.
Therefore, the competent authority who could
address the caste certificate produced by the
petitioner was the District Magistrate of the place in
which he ordinarily resides and not the authorities
prescribed under the 1990 Act. Therefore, the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
entire proceedings are bad in law, not only they are
held without notice to the petitioner, but also as
being without jurisdiction.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the
other hand, would point out that the judgment cited
is with reference to the Kerala Kerala (Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issues
of Community Certificates Act, 1996 and the tenor
of the said Act is completely different from that of
the 1990 Act and the said Act applies not only in
respect of the State Government employees, but
also the employees of Central Government
Undertaking and therefore, the said judgment
having been rendered to hold that the Act would
apply across the Board to both the Central and
State Government employees is in order, but the
same cannot be pressed into service insofar as the
present impugned orders are concerned as the
1990 Act applicable to the Karnataka Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes does not include
Central Government employees and it is Annexure-
K which would be relevant insofar as the petitioner
is concerned. He would further rely upon a
judgment of this court in G.Sathya Murthy vs.
Director, Bangalore Complex, Indian Telephone
Industries and others 2002(3) KCCR 1994, wherein
this court has held that the competent authority to
cancel a caste certificate is the authority which had
issued the caste certificate in the first instance.
Unless the same is cancelled by the very authority
which had issued it, the question of the Caste
Certificate Committee entering upon the veracity of
the said certificate would not arise and therefore,
he would submit that the impugned order is hence
bad in law for more than trie reason.
7. Given the above facts and circumstances, the
preamble to the 1990 Act and the definition of
'Establishments in Public Sector' would clearly
exclude employees of Central Government
undertaking and undisputedly, the petitioner
belonging to a Central Government Undertaking
would be outside the scope of the present Act. The
verification in the office that there is any doubt as
to the petitioner belonging to Scheduled Tribe is
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
concerned, it would be a matter which would
require the certificate issued in favour of the
petitioner being cancelled in the first instance
insofar as the petitioner is concerned in terms of
Annexure K. It is the District Magistrate, who could
go into the veracity of the certificate on which the
petitioner seeks to rely and thereafter it is possible
that the very authority which had issued the
certificate could also cancel the same.
In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed.
The impugned orders are quashed. As stated by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner
having attained the age of superannuation in the
year 2005 and his retirement benefits having been
withheld subject to the result of this writ petition,
the petitioner would be entitled to his retirement
benefits subject to any proceedings that may be
initiated by the competent authorities. Liberty is
reserved to the respondents to proceed in
accordance with law in terms of the observations
made hereinabove."
8. By relying on G. Keshavamurthy's case, he submits
that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has
categorically come to a conclusion that a Central
Government undertaking, would not come in the
purview of the Act of 1990. The verification would
have to be carried out by the District Magistrate and
not by the DCVC.
9. He relies upon the decision of another Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Ms. M.N. Kalavathi
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
vs The State of Karnataka and others2, more
particularly para nos.11 and 13 thereof, which are
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"11. Though it is a proceeding before and by the
Competent Authority, at whose instance the
proceedings sprang is what is germane to be
noticed. It is not by a candidate who lost the
appointment on account of appointment of the
petitioner. The complainant was not the one who
was a participant in the selection process. The
complainant was the one who had an axe to grind
against the petitioner for her brother had instituted
certain civil proceedings against the complainant. It
is therefore, a complaint in the form of a letter is
sent to the Tahsildar and proceedings instituted
thereafter. Therefore, the very genesis suffers from
want of locus to challenge the issuance of caste
certificate to the petitioner. It is this that merits
consideration and not the merit of the matter.
13. The issue, in the case at hand, is akin to what is
decided by the Division Bench, as the complainant
M.A.Chikkaraju was not the applicant along with the
petitioner nor claims to have lost employment on
account of the petitioner securing employment as a
scheduled caste candidate and does not even
belong to scheduled caste. Therefore, the very
genesis of the complaint suffers from want of locus.
If the foundation suffers from want of locus, the
super structure would tumble down as if the
complaint itself was not maintainable and any
finding on a complaint that was not even
maintainable is a nullity in law."
10. By relying on M.N. Kalavathi's case, he submits that
the person, who had complained against the
petitioner, had no locus in as much as, he was not a
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
co-applicant and would not be affected by the
petitioner being conferred any benefit and as such, he
submits that the proceedings ought to have been
dismissed.
11. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of K. Nirmala and Ors Vs Canara Bank
and Another3 , more particularly para nos. 34 and 35
thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
"34. Apparently thus, the above Office
Memorandum was issued in ignorance of the
Government of Karnataka's circular dated 29th
March 2003, which further extended the protection
granted by the earlier Government circular dated
11th March, 2002 to the communities including
Kotegara, Kotekshathriya, Koteyava, Koteyar,
Ramakshathriya, Sherugara, and Sarvegara as well.
This Government circular seems to have completely
escaped the notice of the Ministry of Social Justice
and Empowerment, Government of India while
issuing the Office Memorandum dated 8th July,
2013. Clearly thus, the Office Memorandum suffers
from the vice of non- consideration of a vital
document being the circular dated 29th March,
2003 issued by the Government of Karnataka.
Hence, we have no hesitation in holding that the
Office Memorandum dated 8th July, 2013, cannot
supersede the communication dated 17th August,
2005 issued by the Ministry of Finance and the
Civil Appeal No. /2024
(arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s).13484-13488 of 2019)
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
same cannot be read to the prejudice of the
appellants.
35. In wake of the discussion made above, we
conclude that the appellants are entitled to
protection of their services by virtue of the
Government circular dated 29th March, 2003 issued
by the Government of Karnataka as ratified by
communication dated 17 th August, 2005 issued by
the Ministry of Finance. The circular dated 29th
March, 2003 issued by the Government of
Karnataka specifically extended protection to
various castes, including those which were excluded
in the earlier Government circular dated 11th
March, 2002. This subsequent circular covered the
castes such as Kotegara, Kotekshathriya, Koteyava,
Koteyar, Ramakshathriya, Sherugara, and
Sarvegara, thus, ensuring that individuals of these
castes, holding Scheduled Castes Certificates issued
prior to de-scheduling, would be entitled to claim
protection of their services albeit as unreserved
candidates for all future purposes. Additionally, the
communication issued by the Ministry of Finance
dated 17th August, 2005 reinforced the protective
umbrella to the concerned bank employees and also
saved them from departmental and criminal action.
12. By relying on K. Nirmala's case, he submits that
even if the case were to be held against the petitioner,
the petitioner's employment is protected, by the
circular dated 29.03.2003 and an earlier Circular
dated 11.03.2002 and therefore, no action could be
taken. On the basis of the above, he submitted that
the review petition is required to be allowed. The
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
order insofar as referring the matter to the DCVC is
required to be reviewed and set- aside.
13. Sri C. Jagdish, learned counsel appearing for
respondents No.1 to 4 would submit that it is only the
DCVC, who has the power to verify any caste
certificate. The caste certificate not having been
issued by any Central Government Officer, but having
been issued by the Tahasildar, it is only the State
machinery, which can look into the same.
14. There being a specialized agency which had been
created for the said purpose, the Rules providing for
the same and the methodology of the working of the
Committee being in terms of the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri
Patila and Anr. vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal
Development And Ors4 , the petitioner cannot claim
that it is only the District Magistrate, who is required
to conduct the verification. He fervently submits that
AIR 1995 SC 94
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
it is only the DCVC who could do so. In this regard, he
relies upon para nos. 9 and 12 of said judgment,
which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference.
"9. The entries in the school register preceding the
Constitution do furnish great probative value to the
declaration of the status of a caste. Hierarchical
caste stratification of Hindu social order has its
reflection in all entries in the public records. What
would, therefore, depict the caste status of the
people inclusive of the school or college records, as
the then census rules insisted upon. Undoubtedly,
Hindu social order is based on hierarchy and caste
was one of the predominant factors during pre-
Constitution period. Unfortunately instead of
dissipating its incursion it is being needlessly
accentuated, perpetrated and stratification is given
legitimacy for selfish ends instead of being
discouraged and put an end to by all measures,
including administrative and legislative. Be it as it
may, people are identified by their castes for one or
the other is a reality. Therefore, it is no wonder that
caste is reflected in relevant entries in the public
records or school or college admission register at
the relevant time and the certificates are issued on
its basis. The father of the appellants admittedly
described himself in 1943 and thereafter as a Hindu
Koli. In other words his status was declared a Koli
by caste and Hindu by religion. Kolis are admittedly
OBCs. His feigned ignorance of the ancestry is too
hard to believe. The averment in the affidavit that
the entries were mistakenly made as Hindu Koli is
an obvious afterthought. The anthropological
moorings and ethnological kinshipaffirmity (sic)
gets genetically ingrained in the blood and no one
would shake off from past, in particular, when one
is conscious of the need of preserving its relevance
to seek the status of Scheduled Tribe or Scheduled
Caste recognised by the Constitution for their
upliftment in the society. The ingrained tribal traits
peculiar to each tribe and anthropological features
all the more become relevant when the social
status is in acute controversy and needs a decision.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
The correct projectives furnished in pro forma and
the material would lend credence and give an
assurance to properly consider the claims of the
social status and the officer or authority concerned
would get an opportunity to test the claim for social
status of particular caste or tribe or tribal
community or group or part of such caste, tribe or
tribal community. It or he would reach a
satisfactory conclusion on the claimed social status.
The father of the appellant has failed to satisfy the
crucial affinity test which is relevant and germane
one. On the other hand the entries in his school and
college registers as Hindu Koli positively belies the
claim of his social status as Scheduled Tribe.
12. The admission wrongly gained or appointment
wrongly obtained on the basis of false social status
certificate necessarily has the effect of depriving
the genuine Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes
or OBC candidates as enjoined in the Constitution
of the benefits conferred on them by the
Constitution. The genuine candidates are also
denied admission to educational institutions or
appointments to office or posts under a State for
want of social status certificate. The ineligible or
spurious persons who falsely gained entry resort to
dilatory tactics and create hurdles in completion of
the inquiries by the Scrutiny Committee. It is true
that the applications for admission to educational
institutions are generally made by a parent, since
on that date many a time the student may be a
minor. It is the parent or the guardian who may
play fraud claiming false status certificate. It is,
therefore, necessary that the certificates issued are
scrutinised at the earliest and with utmost
expedition and promptitude. For that purpose, it is
necessary to streamline the procedure for the
issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny
and their approval, which may be the following:
1. The application for grant of social status
certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub-
Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy
Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by
such officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or
Mandal level.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
2. The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the
case may be, shall file an affidavit duly sworn and
attested by a competent gazetted officer or non-
gazetted officer with particulars of castes and sub-
castes, tribe, tribal community, parts or groups of
tribes or tribal communities, the place from which
he originally hails from and other particulars as
may be prescribed by the Directorate concerned.
3. Application for verification of the caste certificate
by the Scrutiny Committee shall be filed at least six
months in advance before seeking admission into
educational institution or an appointment to a post.
4. All the State Governments shall constitute a
Committee of three officers, namely, (I) an
Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in
rank of the Director of the department concerned,
(II) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal
Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may
be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes
another officer who has intimate knowledge in the
verification and issuance of the social status
certificates. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes,
the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in
identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of
or groups of tribes or tribal communities.
5. Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell
consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of
Police in over-all charge and such number of Police
Inspectors to investigate into the social status
claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of
residence and original place from which the
candidate hails and usually resides or in case of
migration to the town or city, the place from which
he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer
should personally verify and collect all the facts of
the social status claimed by the candidate or the
parent or guardian, as the case may be. He should
also examine the school records, birth registration,
if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian
or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or
such other persons who have knowledge of the
social status of the candidate and then submit a
report to the Directorate together with all
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
particulars as envisaged in the pro forma, in
particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their
peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits,
deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death
ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by
the castes or tribes or tribal communities concerned
etc.
6. The Director concerned, on receipt of the report
from the vigilance officer if he found the claim for
social status to be "not genuine" or 'doubtful' or
spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director
concerned should issue show-cause notice
supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance
officer to the candidate by a registered post with
acknowledgement due or through the head of the
educational institution concerned in which the
candidate is studying or employed. The notice
should indicate that the representation or reply, if
any, would be made within two weeks from the
date of the receipt of the notice and in no case on
request not more than 30 days from the date of the
receipt of the notice. In case, the candidate seeks
for an opportunity of hearing and claims an inquiry
to be made in that behalf, the Director on receipt of
such representation/reply shall convene the
committee and the Joint/Additional Secretary as
Chairperson who shall give reasonable opportunity
to the candidate/parent/guardian to adduce all
evidence in support of their claim. A public notice
by beat of drum or any other convenient mode may
be published in the village or locality and if any
person or association opposes such a claim, an
opportunity to adduce evidence may be given to
him/it. After giving such opportunity either in
person or through counsel, the Committee may
make such inquiry as it deems expedient and
consider the claims vis-a-vis the objections raised
by the candidate or opponent and pass an
appropriate order with brief reasons in support
thereof.
7. In case the report is in favour of the candidate
and found to be genuine and true, no further action
need be taken except where the report or the
particulars given are procured or found to be false
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the
same procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be
followed.
8. Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued
to the parents/guardian also in case candidate is
minor to appear before the Committee with all
evidence in his or their support of the claim for the
social status certificates.
9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously
as possible preferably by day-to-day proceedings
within such period not exceeding two months. If
after inquiry, the Caste Scrutiny Committee finds
the claim to be false or spurious, they should pass
an order cancelling the certificate issued and
confiscate the same. It should communicate within
one month from the date of the conclusion of the
proceedings the result of enquiry to the
parent/guardian and the applicant.
10. In case of any delay in finalising the
proceedings, and in the meanwhile the last date for
admission into an educational institution or
appointment to an officer post, is getting expired,
the candidate be admitted by the Principal or such
other authority competent in that behalf or
appointed on the basis of the social status
certificate already issued or an affidavit duly sworn
by the parent/guardian/candidate before the
competent officer or non-official and such
admission or appointment should be only
provisional, subject to the result of the inquiry by
the Scrutiny Committee.
11. The order passed by the Committee shall be
final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings
under Article 226 of the Constitution.
12. No suit or other proceedings before any other
authority should lie.
13. The High Court would dispose of these cases as
expeditiously as possible within a period of three
months. In case, as per its procedure, the writ
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
petition/miscellaneous petition/matter is disposed
of by a Single Judge, then no further appeal would
lie against that order to the Division Bench but
subject to special leave under Article 136.
14. In case, the certificate obtained or social status
claimed is found to be false, the
parent/guardian/the candidate should be
prosecuted for making false claim. If the
prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of
the accused, it could be regarded as an offence
involving moral turpitude, disqualification for
elective posts or offices under the State or the
Union or elections to any local body, legislature or
Parliament.
15. As soon as the finding is recorded by the
Scrutiny Committee holding that the certificate
obtained was false, on its cancellation and
confiscation simultaneously, it should be
communicated to the educational institution
concerned or the appointing authority by registered
post with acknowledgement due with a request to
cancel the admission or the appointment. The
Principal etc. of the educational institution
responsible for making the admission or the
appointing authority, should cancel the
admission/appointment without any further notice
to the candidate and debar the candidate from
further study or continue in office in a post."
15. He once again submits that the aspect of verification
of caste is a very serious issue, which would require
anthropological moorings and ethnological kinship to
be verified. These aspects cannot be appropriately and
adequately done by a District Magistrate/Deputy
Commissioner, that is the reason why a DCVC has
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
been constituted, which is a committee that has the
necessary specialists to peruse through the same and
pass necessary orders in terms of the Act and Rules,
thereby protecting the interests of all concerned more
particularly the reserved classes.
16. He relies upon a judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of Uattara Kannada Zill
Moger Sangha ®, Bhatkal and Another vs. The
State of Karnataka and Others5 , more particularly
para nos.4 and 5 thereof, which are reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
"4. As regards the second paragraph of the circular
dated 4th November 2019, we must record that all
that it says is that those who are claiming benefit of
Scheduled Caste listed in Entry No.78 will have to
subject themselves to an enquiry on caste status as
provided in the Karnataka Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes
(Reservation of Appointment etc) Act, 1990 and the
rules made thereunder as well as the decision of the
Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and
Another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal
Development and Others, AIR 1995 SC 94.
5. It is well settled law that a certificate of caste
issued by the Competent Authority is always subject
to scrutiny by the verification committee. Therefore,
W.P.Nos.54176-54177/2018
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
we find nothing wrong about the second part of the
circular dated 4th November 2019."
17. He therefore submits that vide the judgment in
Uattara Kannada Zill Moger Sangha's case the
Division Bench of this Court has impliedly set-aside
the earlier judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in G.
Keshav Murthy's case (supra), and therefore, it is
the DCVC alone who can verify the caste certificate
issued.
18. He submitted that the decision in Kumari Madhuri
Patil's case (supra) being doubted, was referred to a
Full Bench, which is considered in the case of
Dayaram vs Sudhir Batham and Others6, where
the points formulated were as under:
"9. In view of the reference order, the following
questions arise for consideration:
(i) Whether directions 1 to 15 in Madhuri Patil are
impermissible, being legislative in nature?
(ii) Whether directions 11 and 12 in Madhuri Patil,
which exclude the jurisdiction of the civil court to
entertain suits challenging the decisions of the Caste
Scrutiny Committees, violate section 9 of the Code
of Civil Procedure?
(2012) 1 SCC 333
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
(iii) Whether direction 13 in Madhuri Patil barring
intra-court appeals against decisions of Single
Judges in writ petitions, when such appeals are
specifically provided for in State enactments/Letters
Patents, is valid and proper?"
R e: Question (i) directions (1) to (15) in Madhuri
Patil in general.
19. And the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court at para
no.22 of the above judgment has observed as under;
"Therefore, we are of the view that directions 1 to
15 issued in exercise of power under Articles
142 and 32 of the Constitution, are valid and
laudable, as they were made to fill the vacuum in
the absence of any legislation, to ensure that only
genuine scheduled caste and scheduled tribe
candidates secured the benefits of reservation and
the bogus candidates were kept out. By issuing such
directions, this court was not taking over the
functions of the legislature but merely filling up the
vacuum till legislature chose to make an appropriate
law."
20. He further relies upon para no.36 of Dayaram's case
(supra), which is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
"Having regard to the scheme for verification
formulated by this Court in Madhuri Patil, the
scrutiny committees carry out verification of caste
certificates issued without prior enquiry, as for
example the caste certificates issued by Tehsildars
or other officers of the departments of
Revenue/Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare, without any
enquiry or on the basis of self- affidavits about
caste. If there were to be a legislation governing or
regulating grant of caste certificates, and if caste
certificates are issued after due and proper inquiry,
such caste certificates will not call for verification by
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
the scrutiny committees. Madhuri Patil provides for
verification only to avoid false and bogus claims. The
said scheme and the directions therein have been
satisfactorily functioning for the last one and a half
decades. If there are any shortcomings, the
Government can always come up with an
appropriate legislation to substitute the said scheme.
We see no reason why the procedure laid down in
Madhuri Patil should not continue in the absence of
any legislation governing the matter."
21. By relying on the above, he submits that the Hon'ble
Apex Court has categorically held that it is only the
scrutiny committees, who can carry on the verification
of a caste certificate. Thus, he submits that the
decision in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra),
having been reconsidered and affirmed in Dayaram's
case (supra), the same is the law of the land.
22. He relies upon a judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of Smt. Geethanjali vs. The
Canara Bank, rep., by its General Manager,
Bangalore and Others7, more particularly para
nos.4, 8 and 9 thereof, which are reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
ILR 2012 KAR 4384
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
"4. We shall now move on to the aspect of the other
question namely - whether it is legally correct and
proper to accept the correctness or genuineness of a
Caste Certificate as per conclusions arrived at by the
DCVC, or where the caste certificate has been issued
by the Tahsildar in accordance with the then
prevailing law. Whether it is only Tahsildar to whom
it can be reverted to, and whose opinion would then
prevail? In this regard, we also have the advantage
of a decision of the Full Bench rendered in WP
No.8520-38/1989 pronounced on 19.9.1997 titled
Savitha Chandrashekar Shirali vs. State, which is
unquestionably relevant for the determination of the
present controversy. A perusal of the said Judgment
makes it manifestly clear that although the Full
Bench had given its imprimatur to the DCVC
conclusion, it refrained from going conundrum of
whether the decision of DCVC would prevail over
that of the Tahsildar. The learned Single Judge in
our view, should have extracted the ratio of the said
decision rendered by the Full Bench and applied it.
This ratio is that the decision of the DCVC prevails
over the decision of the Tahsildar, regardless of
whether the latter occurred before the statute
creating the DCVC was promulgated.
8. This comprehensively and completely answers
any doubts that may remain in the mind of the
learned Single Judge. Having regard to the ratio
of Pillai's case what the learned Single Judge would
have to satisfy himself, on is whether the
investigation into the genuineness of the caste
certificate produced by the petitioner had come to its
culmination before the Karnataka Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes
(Reservation of Appointment etc.,) Rules, 1992
came into force. The DCVC is a creature of these
Rules. If the answer is in the negative Pillai will
clarify that there is no scope to hold to conviction
that retrospectivity of the Rules would result.
9. We hold that after the promulgation of Karnataka
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other
Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment
etc.,) Rules, 1992, it will only be the DCVC which is
the Competent Authority to look into the
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
genuineness or otherwise of any caste
certificate, even if it be had been issued by the
Tahsildar in the previous legal regime as it was then
prevailing."
23. He submits that after the promulgation of the Rules of
1992, it will only be the DCVC, which is the competent
authority to look into the genuineness or otherwise of
any caste certificate, even if it had been issued by the
Tahasildar in the previous legal regime, as it was then
prevailing.
24. Lastly, he submits that there are no grounds for
review, which have been made out in the above
review petition in terms of Order XLVII of the Code of
Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') and
in this regard, he relies upon the decision of the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of The
Director General, Council of Scientific and
Industrial Research Rafi Marg, New Delhi and
others vs Sri Vinayaraya P S/o D.H Raya8, more
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
particularly para nos.4, 5 and 6 thereof, which are
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"4. From a perusal of the order passed by the
coordinate bench of this Court in
W.P.No.33168/2019 dated 06.04.2021, it is found
that the coordinate bench of this Court having
regard to the facts of the case and also the rules
governing the field, has given a categorical finding
that the rules did not provide for fixing the
percentage of marks as a criteria for eligibility and in
the absence of such power, the selection committee
was not justified in fixing the minimum marks of
85% as eligibility criteria. In the order sought to be
reviewed, it is observed that inspite of a pointed
question to the learned Counsel for the petitioners,
he had failed to point out to this court the basis on
which percentage of marks had been fixed, and on
the other hand, he had admitted that the Rules do
not provide for fixing the percentage of marks as a
criteria for eligibility.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL VS STATE TAX OFFICER &
ANOTHER - (2024)2 SCC 362, in paragraph 11, has
observed as under:
"11. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi - (1997)8 SCC
715, this Court made very pivotal observations:
(SCC p.719, para 9)
"9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be
open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an
error apparent on the face of the record. An error
which is not self-evident and has to be detected by
process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an
error apparent on the face of the record justifying
the court to exercise its power of review under Order
47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an
erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A
review petition, it must be remembered has a
limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an
appeal in disguise"."
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
6. In the case of B.DHANALAKSHMI VS M.SHAJAHAN
- AIR 2004 MAD 512, it is observed that, "if the
parties aggrieved by the judgment on the ground
that it is erroneous, remedy is only questioning the
said order in appeal. The power of review under
Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC may be opened inter alia,
only if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the
face of the record, the said power cannot be
exercised as is permissible for an erroneous decision
to be 'reheard and corrected'."
25. By relying on the above, he submits that the
petitioner is required to point out an error from the
face of the records in the judgment sought to be
reviewed. No such error has been pointed out. The
only condition of the petitioner being that in terms of
the circular issued by the Central Government, it is
the District Magistrate, who can verify the caste
certificate.
26. The petitioner being a Central Government employee,
the DCVC cannot verify the caste certificate. This
contention has been negatived by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Kumari Madhuri Patila's case (supra),
affirmed in Dayaram's case(supra) and the Division
Bench of this Court in Geetanjali's case (supra) as
also in Uttara Kannada Zilla Moger Sangha ®'s
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
case, having clearly and categorically indicated that it
is only the DCVC who can verify a caste certificate. No
grounds have been made out and as such, the petition
is required to be dismissed.
27. Heard Sri Vijaykumar, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, Sri C. Jagadish, learned counsel
appearing for respondents No.1 to 4 and Smt.
Anuradha Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.5. Perused petition papers.
28. The points that would arise for the consideration of
this Court are;
i) Whether, a caste certificate issued by the
Tahasildar prior to the Karnataka Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other
Backward Classes (Reservation Of
Appointment, etc.) Rules, 1992 coming into
force can be verified by the DCVC or will have
to be verified only by the District Magistrate?
ii) Whether after the Rules 1992 having come
into force, it is only the DCVC who can verify
a caste certificate?
iii) Whether the locus of the complainant can be
looked into in a review petition?
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
iv) Whether the petitioner has made out any
ground for review of the order dated
11.01.2024 passed in W.P.No.109307/2016?
v) What order?
29. I Answer the above points as under:
30. ANSWER TO POINT NO.1: Whether, a caste
certificate issued by the Tahasildar prior to the
Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes
and Other Backward Classes (Reservation Of
Appointment, etc.) Rules, 1992 coming into
force can be verified by the DCVC or will have to
be verified only by the District Magistrate?
30.1. The submission of Sri. Vijaykumar, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner is that the caste
certificate having been issued by the Tahasildar prior
to the Rules of 1992 coming into force, it is the
District Magistrates/ Deputy Commissioner, who can
verify the caste certificate.
30.2. That apart, his submission is that the petitioner being
a Central Government employee even after the
Rules 1992 having come into force, it is only the
Deputy Commissioner who can verify the caste
certificate. Since the phraseology used in subsection
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
(3) of Section 2 of the Act 1990, does not include a
Central Government undertaking.
30.3. In this regard, he has relied upon the decision in
G. Keshavamurthy's case rendered on
04.03.2011. Having gone through the said judgment
I'am of the considered opinion that no particular
argument had been taken up in that matter as
regards it being only the DCVC who could carry out
verification.
30.4. In fact, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Madhuri Patila's case, had not been brought to the
notice of the Co-ordinate Bench. Subsequent to the
order in G. Keshavamurthy's case, Dayaram's
decision was rendered by the Hon'ble Apex court on
11.10.2011.
30.5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Madhuri Patila's case
has considered in detail as regards the various
aspects which are relevant for verification of a caste
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
certificate. The Hon'ble Apex Court having taken into
consideration the constitutional mandate under
Article 14, 15(1), 15(4), 16(1), 51A(h) of the
Constitution of India, has come to a conclusion that
the methodology of verification of caste certificate is
very important and as such, has gone on to issue
various directions to streamline the procedure in
terms of para-12 of the said judgment which has
been reproduced herein above.
30.6. There being 15 directions which had been issued by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil's
case. These aspects were considered in Dayaram's
case and the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically
held in para-22 thereof that the directions No.1 to
15 are valid and laudable as they were made to fill
the vacuum in the absence of any legislation to
ensure that only genuine Schedule Cast and
Schedule Tribe candidates secure the benefits of
reservation and the bogus candidates were kept out.
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
30.7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Dayaram's case also held
that the State could come up with suitable
legislations in order to further strengthen the
machinery and make it more Robust. These aspects
have been considered by both Kumari Madhuri
Patil's case and Dayaram's case. It is clear that it
is a specialized agency, who is required to verify a
caste certificate when there is any issue raised and it
cannot be the Deputy Commissioner/ District
Magistrate who can verify the same since he does
not have the wherewithal to do so.
30.8. The aspect of issuance and verification of a caste
certificate as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Kumari Madhuri Patil's case is of tremendous
significance inasmuch as an eligible person cannot
be denied the benefits of the caste that he or she
belongs to, and an ineligible person cannot on the
basis of bogus documents claim any benefit that he
or she is not entitled to avail. Both these situations
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
are an anathema to the Constitution under which the
rights of the citizen of the country are required to be
protected. While benefits are being given to persons
belonging to the category of Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe and certain other castes which
qualify for such benefits, it is also required for the
State to ensure that such benefits reach the eligible
person and also to ensure that such benefits are not
cornered or taken away by persons who are not
eligible.
30.9. It is in that background that various guidelines and
directions had been issued by the Hon'ble Apex
Court, numbering 15 which were required to be
implemented.
30.10. On enquiry with Sri C. Jagdish., learned counsel
as to whether all of those directions have been
implemented by the State, he submits that most of
them have been implemented. This answer does not
satisfy the requirement inasmuch as it is required for
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
the State to implement all the directions of the
Hon'ble Apex Court, which is law of the land in terms
of Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
30.11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Dayaram's case has
categorically held that, the directions issued in
Kumari Madhuri Patil's case are laudable, it is for
the State to implement the same. As such, the
Principal Secretary, Department of Personal and
Administrative Reforms, is directed to file an
affidavit indicating the implementation of the
directions issued in Kumari Madhuri Patan's case,
the manner of implementation and which directions
are pending to be implemented.
30.12. Though, it is clear from the judgments of the
Hon'ble Apex Court that it is only the DCVC who can
verify the caste certificate, two Division Benches of
this Court have also adverted to and held the same
in Smt. Geethanjali's case and Uttara Kaqnnada
Zilla Moger Sangha ® case.
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
30.13. Thus, I answer point No.1 by holding that even
if a caste certificate has been issued by a Tahasildar
prior to the coming into the force of the Rules of
1992, it is the DCVC, who can verify the caste
certificate in terms of the Rules of 1992 by following
the due procedure.
31. ANSWER TO POINT NO.2: Whether after the
Rules 1992 having come into force, it is only the
DCVC who can verify a caste certificate?
31.1. The contention of Shri Vijay Kumar., learned counsel
is that since the petitioner is a Central Government
employee, it is only the District Magistrate who can
verify the caste certificate and in this regard, he
relies upon the circulars issued. One of the circulars
so issued reads as under:
"No.36022/1/2007-Estt.(Res)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Department of Personnel & Training
New Delhi, dated: the 20 March, 2007
To,
The Chief Secretaries of all
States/Union Territories
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
Subject: Verification of claims of candidates to belong to
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward
Classes.
Sir,
It has been brought to the notice of this Department that some
candidates manage to secure employment under the Government
against the vacancies reserved for SCs/STs/OBCs on the basis of
false/forged caste/community certificates. It is a serious matter
which can only be tackled with the cooperation of the State
Governments.
2. Instructions issued by this Department require the appointing
authorities to verify the caste status of SC/ST/OBC candidates at the
time of initial appointment. Accordingly, the concerned appointing
authorities, at the time of initial appointment of SC/ST/OBC
candidates against vacancies reserved for them, make a request to
the concerned district authorities to certify the veracity of
caste/community certificate produced by the candidate. Many a time,
the district authorities take unduly long time to respond. Where
verification is not completed in time, the candidates are given
appointment on provisional basis pending verification of their caste
status. Some candidates continue to hold the post on the basis of
false/forged certificates in the absence of proper response from
district authorities. Chances of collusion of the candidate with some
unscrupulous employee(s) at the district level cannot also be ruled
out.
3. I am directed to request you to streamline the system so that
the unscrupulous non-SC/ST/OBC persons are prevented from
securing jobs meant for SCs/ST/OBCs by producing false certificates.
It would be appreciated if you could issue instructions to the District
Magistrates/District Collectors/Deputy Commissioners of the districts
to the effect that they should ensure at their own level that veracity
of the caste/community certificate referred to the district authorities,
as stated above, is verified and reported to the appointing authority
within one month of receipt of request from such authority. In order
to rule out collusion between candidates holding false/forged
certificate and employees at the district level or sub-district level,
disciplinary proceedings may be initiated against officers who default
in timely verification of caste status in such cases or issue false
certificates.
Yours faithfully
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
(R. Ramanujam)
Joint Secretary
31.2. A perusal of the said circular would indicate that even
the Government of India is aware of the collusion of
the candidate with unscrupulous employees and the
possibility of a false certificate having been produced
and it is in that background that the circular had
been issued stating that it is the District Magistrate,
District Collector and the Deputy Commissioner of
the District would have to verify the caste certificate.
Similar such circulars were issued on 08.10.2015
and14.03.2016.
31.3. A perusal of the circulars indicate that those
circulars had been issued since there was no
particular system in many States and union
territories to verify a caste certificate. A perusal of
the circulars would indicate that it is only with the
Co-operation of the State Government that the
serious matter of bogus, false, forged community
certificates could be tackled. Thus, the
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
recommendation made in the circulars by the
Government of India is not a direction, which would
apply to a State where there is a system which has
been established for verification of a caste
certificate. Those circulars would only apply where
there is no particular system which has been
established which is not the case in the State of
Karnataka due to the Rules of 1992 being applicable.
31.4. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered
opinion that the DCVC established under the Rules
of 1992 being a comprehensive system of
verification of caste certificates, the question of the
circulars overriding those Rules and the verification
insofar as Central Government employees are
concerned to be done only by the Deputy
Commissioner, cannot be accepted.
31.5. What is also not to be lost sight of is that these caste
certificates are not issued by any Central
Government officer, but by a State Government
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
officer like the Tahasildar and it is for the State
Government to establish a proper system for
issuance of caste certificates and verification of caste
certificates thereof, which has been sought to be
done by the State of Karnataka in terms of the Rules
1992. Of course, in view of the numerous litigations,
which come up before this Court even those Rules
need to be made robust. Especially by implementing
the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Kumari Madhuri Patil's case.
31.6. In that view of the matter, I answer point No.2 by
holding that, even if a person is a Central
Government employee, the caste certificate having
been issued by the Tahasildar-State Government, it
is the DCVC, which will be the rightful authority to
verify the caste certificate of such a Central
Government Employee or proposed Central
Government Employee.
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
32. ANSWER TO POINT NO.3:- Whether the locus of
the complainant can be looked into in a review
petition ?
32.1. Sri Vijaykumar., learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has sought to contend that the complaint
which has been filed against the petitioner has not
been filed by a person having locus for the same
and the said person is not even an applicant. The
present petition is a review petition. The
complainant against whom these allegations have
been made was neither a party in the writ petition
nor he is a party in the present review petition.
32.2. Thus, without the person against whom allegations
have been levelled being made a party to the
proceedings, I am of the considered opinion that
these allegations cannot be considered. The
verification of the caste certificate being done in
order to ascertain if the caste certificate is valid and
genuine, the petitioner in my considered opinion
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
ought not to have any fear, if his caste certificate is
genuine irrespective of who the complainant is.
32.3. In that view of the matter, considering that this is a
review petition, this aspect of whether the alleged
complainant has locus, when the alleged
complainant has not been made as a party to either
the writ petition or the review petition, cannot be
looked into.
33. ANSWER TO POINT NO.4: Whether the petitioner
has made out any ground for review of the order
dated 11.01.2024 passed in
W.P.No.109307/2016?"
33.1. As rightly contended by Sri C. Jagdish, learned
counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner has not
made out any ground for review. The petitioner has
not been able to establish any aspect in the order
passed by this Court dated 11.01.2024 in WP
No.109307/2016 requiring review.
33.2. In fact, the contentions, which have been raised by
the petitioner in detail in the review petition, were
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
not even raised in the writ petition when the writ
petition was argued, and the argument then
advanced was that it is only the Caste Verification
Committee, which could refer the matter to the
Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement. Thus, even
when the writ petition had been taken up for
hearing, there was no contention taken up alleging
that the DCVC has no jurisdiction in respect of the
verification of a caste certificate of a Central
Government employee or otherwise.
33.3. Subsection (3) of Section 2 of the Act, having been
reproduced hereinabove, the same would also have
to be read along with Section 617 of Companies Act,
1956. Section 617 reads as under:
"617. DEFINITION OF "GOVERNMENT COMPANY"
For the purposes of this Act, Government company
means any company in which not less than fifty-one
per cent of the paid-up share capital is held by the
Central Government, or by any State Government or
Governments, or partly by the Central Government and
partly by one or more State Governments and includes
a company which is a subsidiary of a Government
company as thus defined."
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
31.4 Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 does not
make any distinction between a a company owned by
the State Government or Central Government.
Clause-III of subsection (3) of Section 2 of the Act
indicates that an establishment in public sector would
include a Government company within the meaning
of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 and
clause-V would indicate that establishment in public
sector would mean and include a statutory body or
corporation established by or under a State or
Central Act owned or controlled by the State
Government.
31.5 Thus, the omnibus submission made by Sri
Vijaykumar, learned counsel that the Act of 1990 and
the Rules of 1992 will not apply to any Central
Government establishment is ill-founded. In terms of
clause III of subsection (3) of Section 2 of the Act,
which would indicate that Government company
owned by both the State and Central Government is
covered and in terms of clause V of subsection (3) of
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
Section 2 of the Act, a statutory body or corporation
established by or under a Central Act owned or
controlled by the State Government would indicate
that the said Act and Rules would apply even to the
railways.
31.6 The railways having been established under a
statute, namely the 'Indian Railways Act'. The aspect
of whether being owned or controlled by the State
Government would be redundant insofar as a
statutory body is concerned.
31.7 Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the Act of
1990 and Rules of 1992, would equally apply to the
railways as indicated above.
33.4. In view of my answers to the above points, I am of
the considered opinion that the order dated
11.01.2020 passed in WP No.109307 of 2016 does
not suffer from any legal infirmity requiring review
of said order in terms of Order XLVII of the Code of
Civil Procedure,1908.
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2823
34. ANSWER TO POINT NO.5: What order?
34.1. In view of my findings above, the review petition
stands dismissed.
34.2. Though the above petition stands dismissed, re-list
on 05.03.2025 for the purpose of filing of an
affidavit by the Principal Secretary, Department of
Personal and Administrative Reforms indicating the
compliance and implementation of the directions of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil's
case (supra).
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
AM
