Karnataka High Court
Nikhilgouda S/O. Ishwargouda Huded vs The Departmen Of Backward Classes on 18 February, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3282
WP No. 100961 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.100961 OF 2025 (GM-CC)
BETWEEN:
1. NIKHILGOUDA S/O. ISHWARGOUDA HUDED,
AGE: 23, OCC: NIL, R/O: POST. MATTIGATTI,
TQ: KUNDGOL, DIST: DHARWAD - 580 028.
2. GIREESH S/O. SHIVAPPA MUTTAGI,
AGE: 30, OCC: NIL, R/O: TAPALAGERI ONI,
POST: SAUNSHI, TQ: KUNDGOL,
DIST: DHARWAD - 581 117.
3. CHETANKUMAR S/O. SHIVANANDA BUDIHAL
AGE: 30, OCC: NIL, R/O: TAPALAGERI ONI,
POST: SAUNSHI, TQ: KUNDGOL,
DIST: DHARWAD - 581 117.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SUNITHA P. KALASOOR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL 1. THE DEPARTMEN OF
Location: High
Court of Karnataka, BACKWARD CLASSES
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE ADMINISTRATOR
AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DISTRICT CASTE AND I
NCOME INVESTIGATING COMMUNITY,
DHARWAD DISTRICT,
DHARWAD - 580 001.
3. THE TAHASHILDAR,
TALUK KUNDAGOL,
DIST. DHARWAD - 581 113.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3282
WP No. 100961 of 2025
4. THE MEMBER SECRETARY
AND DISTRICT BACKWARD CLASSES
WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
DHARWAD - 580 001.
5. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY
AND DISTRICT BACKWARD CLASSES,
WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
DHARWAD - 580 001.
6. DISTRICT CASTE INCODE AND
ECONOMIC INSPECTION COMMITTEE
DHARWAD DISTRICT AT
DHARWAD - 580 001
REPRESENTED BY
RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 5.
7. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
RAJENDRA NAGAR, HAVERI
DIST. HAVERI, PIN 581 110.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR DIRECTION OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI BY SITTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.01.2025
VIDE NO. 1)SANKYE. DBCD. SINDUTVA. ONLINE. CR-27.2024-25 2)
SANKYE. DBCD.SINDUTVA.ONLINE.CR-35.2024-25 3) SANKYE.
DBCD. SINDUTVA.ONLINE.CR-26.2024-25 PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURES -H, H1 AND H2 PASSED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT
COMMITTEE. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR DIRECTION OR
ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY SITTING ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 22.01.2025 VIDE NO. 4) SANKYE.
DBCD.SINDUTVA.ONLINE.CR-27.2024-25/496 5) SANKYE. DBCD.
SINDUTVA.ONLINE.CR-35.2024-25/495 6) SANKYE. DBCD.
SINDUTVA.ONLINE.CR-26.2024-25/491 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J,
J1 AND J2 PASSED BY THE 2N RESPONDENT. ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR DIRECTION OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI BY SITTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2025
VIDE NO. 7) SANKYE. SIBBANDI-1/14/NEMAKATHI/APC-60/2024
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-K AND K1 PASSED BY 7TH RESPONDENT.
IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER NO.1 NIKHIL GOUDA I. HUDAD AND
PETITIONER NO.2 CHETAN KUMAR S. BHDIHAL AND ETC.,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3282
WP No. 100961 of 2025
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. Learned counsel appearing for the parties in
unison would submit that, the issue in the lis stands
answered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in
W.P.No.116190/2019 connected with
W.P.No.100571/2024, disposed of on 20th January
2025. The Coordinate Bench held as follows:
"2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the issue in the lis stands covered on its
fours to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the
case of M.V.Chandrakanth Vs.Sangappa and Others
reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 934.
3. The Apex Court while considering identical issue
has held as follows:
"9. On or about 7th October 2005, the Karnataka
Public Service Commission (KPSC) published the
provisional list of candidates selected for the
Group A and Group B posts of Probationary
Officers. After publication of the provisional list on
7 th October 2005, KPSC sent the caste certificate
of the Respondent No.1 to the Respondent No.3
for verification. On 21st October 2005, the
Respondent No.3 issued a certificate validating
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3282
the caste certificate submitted by the Respondent
No.1.
10. KPSC notified the final list of selected
candidates on 29 th November 2005. The
Appellant was selected for the post of Deputy
Superintendent of Police and the Respondent No.1
was selected for the post of Assistant
Commissioner (Junior Grade Scale). Both the
Appellant and the Respondent No.1 were selected
under the Reserved Category II-A of the
Reservation Policy. The Respondent No.1 secured
1152 marks and was placed at Sl. No. 15 in the
category of posts of Assistant Commissioner,
whereas the Appellant secured 1151 marks and
was placed at Sl. No.6 in the category of posts of
Deputy Superintendent of Police.
11. The Appellant claims that in 2005, he came
to know that the Respondent No.1's father
belonged to the 'Lingayat' caste whereas the
Respondent No.1 had claimed the benefit of
reservation under Category II-A of the
Reservation Policy claiming that he belonged to
the 'Ganiga' caste. The Appellant contends that
the 'Lingayat' caste including the sub-castes
thereof fall under Category III-B with 5%
reservation whereas Hindu Ganiga falls under
Category II-A with 15% reservation.
12. The Appellant filed an appeal under Section
4D of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3282
Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation
of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990, hereinafter
referred to as "SC/ST and OBC Reservation Act"
before the Respondent No.2 challenging the Caste
Validity Certificate issued to the Respondent No.1
by the Respondent No.3. In the said appeal, the
Appellant enclosed the school extract of
Government Higher Primary School, Honnihala,
Bagalokote wherein the caste of the Respondent
No.1's father was recorded as 'Hindu Lingayat'.
13. The Appellant alleges that Respondent No.3
issued the Validity Certificate dated 21st October
2005 in undue haste, with scant regard to the
procedure laid down in Rule 7 of the Karnataka
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other
Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment,
etc.) Rules 1992, hereinafter referred to as
"Karnataka SC/ST and OBC Reservation Rules ".
14. By an interim order dated 5th December
2005, the Respondent No.2 stayed the Validity
Certificate issued to the Respondent No.1 until
further orders. Thereafter, the Respondent No.2
called for the records from the Respondent No.1.
Notices were also issued to the Head Masters of
the concerned schools for production of original
school admission registers pertaining to the
Respondent No.1 and his father.
15. After hearing the parties and perusing the
records, the Respondent No.2 passed an order
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3282
dated 23 rd January 2006, concluding that the
Respondent No.1 belonged to the 'Hindu Lingayat'
caste as he would inherit the caste of his father.
Relying on the school register of the Respondent
No.1's father of the year 1953, his High School
records and the Service Register of DCC Bank
where he (the Respondent No.1's father) had
worked as Supervisor, the Respondent No.2
cancelled the Validity Certificate. The Respondent
No. 2 inferred that the entries in the school
records of the Respondent No.1 had been made in
the year 1982, with a view to obtain the benefit of
reservation."
4. The learned counsel would further submit that
following the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, a
Division Bench of this Court closed several proceedings in
terms of its order dated 12.10.2023. The order passed in
Writ Appeal No.100557/2023 reads as follows:
"4. A perusal of the material on record will
indicate that the complainants-writ petitioners
belong to 'Hindu Sadar' community which comes
under Category II-A. The request of the respective
complainants-writ petitioners for issuance of caste
validation certificates having been refused by the
Appellant-State, the complainants-writ petitioners
approached this Court in the instant petitions
which were allowed by this court by vide impugned
orders which are assailed in the writ appeals.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3282
5. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the
learned Single Judge will indicate that reliance is
placed by the learned Single Judge on a judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.V.
Chandrakanth Vs. Sangappa & Others, Civil
Appeal No.4963/2022, whereby the Hon'ble
Apex Court had directed issuance of caste
validation certificates in favour of
similarly/identically situated persons. So also, in
W.P. No.100175/2023, a learned Single Judge of
this Court allowed the petition vide final order
dated 25.01.2023 and directed issuance of caste
validation certificate in favour of the said writ
petitioners. The State preferred an appeal against
the said order of the learned Single Judge and the
same was affirmed by the Division Bench of this
Court in W.A. No.100381/2023 dated 12.09.2023.
Under these circumstances, having regard to the
earlier judgments of this Court and the Apex Court
referred to supra and other judgments of this
Court, we are of the considered opinion that the
learned Single Judge was justified in passing the
impugned order allowing the writ petitions and
consequently, we do not find any illegality or
infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single
Judge warranting interference by this Court in the
present appeals. Accordingly, we do not find any
merit in the appeals and the same are hereby
dismissed.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3282
6. Insofar as the contempt proceedings are
concerned, the learned Additional Government
Advocate submits that the caste validation
certificates would be issued in favour of the
respective complainants-writ petitioners and the
same would also be intimated/informed/forwarded
to the Appointing Authority within a period of five
weeks from today. Submission is placed on record.
7. The appellants-State, who are also arrayed as
accused in the contempt proceedings are hereby
directed to issue the caste validation certificates
and also forward/intimate the same to the
Appointing authority and the complainant-writ
petitioners within a period of five weeks so as to
enable the complainants-writ petitioners to obtain
appointment to the respective posts.
8. Under these circumstances, the contempt
proceedings are also hereby closed reserving
liberty in favour of the complainants-writ
petitioners to seek reopening of the contempt
proceedings and/or file fresh contempt
proceedings, if the occasion so arises."
5. The learned AGA Sri.Sharad A. Magdum would
however seek to distinguish those orders passed by the
Apex Court or that of the Division Bench on the score that
the declaration of synonyms could not have been made.
The submission is only to be rejected in the light of the
fact that the Apex Court so considered and the Division
Bench so followed the judgment of the Apex Court.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3282
6. In that light, petition deserves to succeed. For the
aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
i. Petitions are allowed.
ii. The impugned order in W.P.No.116190/2019
dated 19.07.2016 passed by the 2nd respondent produced
at Annexure-E and the order dated 26.05.2018 passed by
the 3rd respondent produced at Annexure-U1 and the
impugned order in W.P.No.100571/2024 dated
16.02.2018 passed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2
produced at Annexure-D, stand quashed.
iii. The petitioner becomes entitled for all
consequential benefit that arose from the quashment of
the order."
2. The learned AGA Sri. Sharad V. Magadum would
not dispute the position of law as laid down by the
Coordinate Bench in the aforesaid judgment.
3. In the light of the aforesaid submission, which
is in unison, the petition deserve to succeed.
4. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. Petition allowed.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3282
ii. The impugned order dated 17.01.2025 vide
Annexures-H, H1 and H2 passed by
respondent No.6; order dated 22.01.2025
vide Annexures-J, J1 and J2 passed by
respondent No.4; and order dated
23.01.2025 vide Annexure-K and K1 passed
by respondent No.7 are stand quashed.
iii. The petitioners become entitled for all
consequential benefits that would flow from
the quashment of the order to be complied,
within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
RHR/CT-ASC
