Karnataka High Court

Smt Muthulaxmi B N vs State Of Karnataka on 8 July, 2025

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

Reserved on : 05.06.2025 R
Pronounced on : 08.07.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION No.10897 OF 2024 (GM - CC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. MUTHULAXMI B.N.,
AGED 42 YEARS
D/O B.K.NAGRAJ
W/O SHANKARESH N.,
SHIVADHAMA NO.297
CHENNIGARAYA EXTENSION
CHANNARAYAPATNA.
... PETITIONER

(BY SMT.A.R.SHARADAMBA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF DPAR
GOVERNMENT ROOM NO.245
2ND FLOOR
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2

2. APPELLATE AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER
BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE DEPARTMENT
MILLER TANKBED AREA
VASANTHA NAGARA
BENGALURU - 52.

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND
THE CHAIRMAN
DISTRICT CASTE AND
INCOME VERIFICATION COMMITTEE
HASSAN
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.

4. THE TALUK CASTE AND
INCOME VERIFICATION COMMITTEE
CHANNARAYAPATNA
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MEMBER SECRETARY.

5. THE DISTRICT OFFICER
BACKWARD CLASSES AND MINORITES
DISTRICT CASTE AND
INCOME VERIFICATION COMMITTEE
MEMBER SECRETARY
HASSAN
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.

6. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY
ZILLA PANCHAYATH AND MEMBER
DISTRICT CASTE AND
INCOME VERIFICATION COMMITTEE
HASSAN
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.

7. THE DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF PROSECUTION AND
3

PUBLIC LITIGATION DEPARTMENT
6TH FLOOR, KAVERI BHAVAN
BENGALURU.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE, HCGP)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING BCM/SI.PRA.PA/CR-04/2023-24 DTD
06.03.2024 ANNX-G AS IT IS VIOLATING THE DECLARED PRL. OF
LAW OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AND HON'BLE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND ETC.,

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 05.06.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order

dated 06-03-2024 which declines issuance of a Validity

certificate validating the caste and income certificate already

issued, on the score that her husband's income is beyond the

permissible threshold of grant of such certificate.
4

2. Heard Smt. A.R.Sharadamba, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner and Sri Spoorthy Hegde, learned High Court

Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

The State Government issues a notification calling for

applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the posts of

Assistant Public Prosecutors through the Directorate of Prosecution

and Public Litigation Department. The notification was issued for

filling up of 181 posts on 30-09-2019. The petitioner finding herself

eligible, applies for the said post and was selected as one of the

Assistant Public Prosecutors under the Category 3A in terms of the

select list dated 17-01-2023. After the notification of the select list,

in terms of the process of selection, the petitioner is said to have

uploaded all the documents for verification on the Sevasindhu

portal on 25-05-2023 and also submitted all the copies of

documents uploaded to the 4th respondent/Taluk Caste and Income

Verification Committee. The 4th respondent refuses to issue a

Validity certificate, but instead sends a communication to the Taluk
5

Backward Caste and Income Verification Officer directing him to

visit the house of the petitioner, conduct inspection and submit a

report. The said officer, on such visit, submits a report that the

husband of the petitioner was working as Lecturer in a private

College and reports that the caste and income certificate should be

based upon the income of the husband. This report results in denial

of issuance of validity certificate to the petitioner.

4. On the denial of issuance of validity certificate, the

petitioner began knocking at the doors of several fora of officers

bringing to the notice of all those officers that the income of the

husband cannot be taken for the purpose of determination and for

issuance of caste and income certificate or a validity certificate, as

the case would be. It is only the father's income should be taken

note of. At every fora, the petitioner brought to their notice the

judgments of the Apex Court and that of this Court contending that

it was a settled principle of law. Notwithstanding the judgment of

the Apex Court and this Court having been brought to the notice of

the Authorities, the Authorities - respondents 2 and 3 passed an

order declining to issue validity certificate to the caste and income
6

certificate to the petitioner as coming under Category-3A, on the

score that the income of husband of the petitioner was beyond the

threshold limit for grant of such certificate. It is at that juncture the

petitioner is at the doors of this Court in the subject petition.

5. This Court passed several orders, interim though, on

different dates. They read as follows:

"22-04-2024:

This Court has time and again repeated that the State
should set its house in order, as they are repeating the very
same mistake on every occasion of not issuing a validity
certificate on erroneous presumption on law.

Again the petitioner is made to knock at the doors of this
Court by the respondent No.2 - Appellate Authority/
Commissioner for Backward Classes.

List this matter on 24.04.2024, in the fresh matters list.

In the event the validity certificate is not issued by then,
the respondents will have to pay costs from his/her pocket, as
the case would be.
...

24-04-2024:

Learned AGA on instructions would undertake that the
Committee for issuance of validity certificate would meet on
29.04.2024 after the elections on 26.04.2024 and would issue a
validity certificate, in accordance with law.

The submission is place on record.
7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
application seeking validity certificate was filed on
27.06.2023 and all the others who were candidates along
with the petitioner have all been appointed, as their
validity certificates are issued and the appointment of the
petitioner is postponed for eight months on account of
non-issuance of a validity certificate.

Therefore, the said aspect would be considered after the
validity certificate is issued to the petitioner, as undertaken by
the learned AGA, which is on instructions.

List this matter on 27.05.2024 at 4:00 pm for further
hearing.
...
28-05-2024:

Learned Additional Government Advocate submits
that in terms of the order dated 24.04.2024, the validity
certificate is issued on 29.04.2024.

Smt. A.R.Sharadamba, learned counsel for petitioner
would submit that respondent No.7 is yet to issue an
appointment order, which was delayed on the score of non-
furnishing of the validity certificate.

Learned Additional Government Advocate on instructions
shall submit qua respondent No.7 in not issuing the
appointment order, on the next date of hearing.

List this matter on 07.06.2024."

(Emphasis supplied)

The State Government, is said to have issued the caste and income

certificate to the petitioner, during the subsistence of the subject

petition, after the afore-quoted directions of this Court, directing
8

corrective measures to be taken immediately. The order so passed

on 24-04-2024 reads as follows:

".... .... ....
ಈ ಾಗ ೇ ೕಮ ಮುತುಲ ೕ .ಎ . . ೆ. ಾಗ ಾಜ, ಚ ಗ ಾಯ ಬ"ಾವ$ೆ,
ಚನ ಾಯಪಟ(ಣ *ೌ , ,ಾಸನ . ೆ/ ಇವ1 ೆ ಸ ಾ2ರದ ಆ6ೇಶ ಸಂ9ೆ:: ;ಎಂ:ಇಎ<=-1:;ಆ>-
115:86-87 ? ಾಂಕ:23-12-1986ರ ಆ6ೇಶದನAಯ BCಾDತ ಮDEಾ ಅ.26ಾರಳ ಉತIನ ೆJ ಅವಳ
ಪ ಯ ಉತIನ (ಪ Kೆ:ೕಕCಾL Cಾ;ಸು ದMN/) ಒಂದು CೇEೆ ಅBಭಕ ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಅಂಗCಾL
Cಾ;ಸು ದM ೆ ಅ.26ಾರಳ ಉತIನ ಮತು ಅBಭಕ ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಉತIನ ವನು ಒ=( ೆ Qೇ1;
"ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಉತIನ "ವನು ಕಂಡುDSಯTೇಕು ಎಂದು U;ದ1ಂದ ಅಭ:V2ಯ ಗಂಡನ ಆ6ಾಯವನು
ಪ1ಗW;, ಸದ1 ಹು6ೆM ೆ ಅ.2 ಸN/ಸಲು ಗY ಪS;ದ ೊ ೆಯ ? ಾಂಕದಂದು [ಾNಯN/ದM
ಸ ಾ2ರದ ಆ6ೇಶ ಸಂ9ೆ:: Dಂವಕ 304 ;ಎ 2017, ? ಾಂಕ: 14-09-2018 ರN/ ಗYಪS;ರುವ
ಕುಟುಂಬದ Cಾ\2ಕ ಆ6ಾಯ ರೂ.8.00 ಲ]ಗಳನು ಅಭ:V2ಯ ಕುಟುಂಬವ^ _ೕ1ರುವ^ದ1ಂದ ;ಂಧುತA
ಪ aಾಣ ಪತ ವನು ಪ"ೆಯಲು ಅನಹ2 ೆಂದು ಸದ1ಯವರ ಪ Qಾವ ೆಯನು ರಸJ1ಸ ಾLತು.

ಮುಂದುವ ೆದು,
ೆದು ಸ ಾಲ ತಂKಾ ಂಶದN/ 21 ?ವಸಗಳ ಾ ಾವ ಾಶBದMರು ಸಹ ಘನ
ಾ:cಾಲಯದ ಸೂಚ ೆಯನAಯ ? ಾಂಕ:24-04-2024ರಂದು
ಾಂಕ ರಂದು ತುತು2 . ಾ/ dಾ ಮತು ಆ6ಾಯ
ಪ1 ೕಲ ಾ ಸ_ ಯ ಸeೆ ಕ ೆಯ ಾfತು ,ಾಗೂ ಈ ಪ ಕರಣ ೆJ ಸಂಬಂY;ದಂKೆ BCಾDತ
ಮDEೆಯ ಆ6ಾಯವನು
ಆ6ಾಯವನು ಪ1ಗWಸುCಾಗ ಅಭ:V2ಯ ಗಂಡನ ಆ6ಾಯವನು ಪ1ಗWಸ6ೇ ತಂ6ೆಯ
ಆ6ಾಯವನು ಪ1ಗWಸTೇ ೆಂದು cಾವ^6ೇ ಸ ಾ2ರದ ಆ6ೇಶ ಇರುವ^?ಲ/. ಘನ ಾ:cಾಲಯದ
ಪ ಕರಣ ಸಂ9ೆ::
ಸಂ9ೆ: WP 10897/2024 ಆ6ೇಶವನು aಾತ ಪ1ಗW;,
ಪ1ಗW; ಈ ಒಂದು ಪ ಕರಣ ೆJ aಾತ
;ೕ_ತ ೊU;,
ೊU; ಅಭ:V2cಾದ ೕಮ ಮುತುಲ ೕ ಎ .
.ಎ . ೆ.ೆ ಾಗ ಾಜ,
ಾಜ ಚ ಗ ಾಯ
ಬ"ಾವ$ೆ,
ಬ"ಾವ$ೆ ಚನ ಾಯಪಟ(ಣ *ೌ , ,ಾಸನ . ೆ/ ಇವರು ಸ ಾ21 Cಾ:ಜ:ಗಳ ಇ ಾ9ೆಯN/ "ಸ,ಾಯಕ
ಸ,ಾಯಕ
ಸ ಾ21 ಅghೕಜಕರು-ವ
ಅghೕಜಕರು ವ-ಸ,ಾಯಕ
ಸ,ಾಯಕ ಸ ಾ21 ವiೕಲರು"
ವiೕಲರು ಹು6ೆM ೆ ಪ ವಗ2-3ಎ
ವಗ2 ಎ "ಒಕJNಗ
ಒಕJNಗ"
ಒಕJNಗ dಾ ಯS
ಆjJcಾLದುM, ಸದ1 ಅಭ:V2ಯ ಪ ಯ Cಾ\2ಕ ಆ6ಾಯ ರೂ.33,85,848/-ಗEಾLದM
ರೂ ಗEಾLದMರೂ ಸಹ ಘನ
ಾ:cಾಲಯದ ಸೂಚ ೆಯನAಯ ಪ ಯ ಆ6ಾಯವನು ಪ1ಗWಸ6ೇ,
ಪ1ಗWಸ6ೇ ಅಭ:V2ಯ ತಂ6ೆಯ Cಾ\2ಕ
ಆ6ಾಯವನು ಪ1ಗWಸಲು ಸೂk;ರುವ^ದ1ಂದ ಸದ1 ಅಭ:V2ಯ ತಂ6ೆಯ Cಾ\2ಕ ಆ6ಾಯ
ರೂ.5.00
ರೂ ಲ]ಗEಾLದುM ೆ ೆ ಪದರ _ ಒಳಪ=(ರುತ6ೆ.
ುತ6ೆ ಆದM1ಂದ,
ಂದ ಸದ1 ಅಭ:V2 ೆ ಪ ವಗ2-3ಎ
ವಗ2 ಎ
_ೕಸ ಾ ಯSಯN/ ;ಂಧುತA ಪ aಾಣ ಪತ ೕಡುವ^ದು ಎಂದು . ಾ/ dಾ ಮತು ಆ6ಾಯ
ಪ1 ೕಲ ಾ ಸ_ ಯು ಘನ ಾ:cಾಲಯದ ಸೂಚ ೆಯನAಯ aಾತ ಒಪI ಾfತು.
ಾfತು ,ಾಗೂ ಘನ
ಸ ಾ2ರ ೆJ ಈ ಬ ೆl BವರCಾದ ವರ?ಯನು ಸN/ಸಲು ೕaಾ2 ಸ ಾfತು.
ಾfತು ಸದ1 ;ಂಧುತA ಪ aಾಣ.
aಾಣ
ಪತ ವ^ ಘನ ಾ:cಾಲಯದ ಅಂ ಮ ೕm2 ೆ ಒಳಪ=(ರುತ6ೆ
ಒಳಪ=(ರುತ6ೆ.
ಪ=(ರುತ6ೆ
9

ಸeೆಯನು ವಂದ ಾಪ2$ೆhಂ? ೆ ಮು ಾಯ ೊUಸ ಾfತು.

¸À»/- ¸À»/-
ಸದಸ:ರು, ಸದಸ: ಾಯ2ದ 2ಗಳn,
. ಾ/ dಾ & ಆ6ಾಯ ಪ1 ೕಲ ಾ ಸ_ . ಾ/ dಾ & ಆ6ಾಯ ಪ1 ೕಲ ಾ ಸ_
,ಾಗೂ ತಹ ಾM>, ,ಾಗೂ ಉಪ 6ೇ2ಶಕರು,
ಚನ ಾಯಪಟ(ಣ Kಾಲೂ/ಕು DಂದುUದ ವಗ2ಗಳ ಕ ಾ:ಣ ಇ ಾ9ೆ
,ಾಸನ.

¸À»/- ¸À»/-24/4/24
ಸದಸ:ರು, CzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ,
. ಾ/ dಾ & ಆ6ಾಯ ಪ1 ೕಲ ಾ ಸ_ . ಾ/ dಾ & ಆ6ಾಯ ಪ1 ೕಲ ಾ ಸ_

,ಾಗೂ ಉಪ ಾಯ2ದ 2ಗಳ (ಆಡUತ), ,ಾಗೂ . ಾ/Y ಾ1ಗಳn

. ಾ/ ಪಂ[ಾಯo, ,ಾಸನ. ,ಾಸನ . ೆ/, ,ಾಸನ."

(Emphasis added)

A perusal at the order is indicative of the fact that the Committee

has issued a Validity Certificate only for the reason that this Court

has directed to. What this Court had directed, is quoted

hereinabove. Therefore, the observation undoubtedly amounts to

admitting ignorance of law, as settled by the Apex Court and this

Court and an act of contumacious contempt for having observed so

that they are issuing the Validity Certificate only because this Court

has directed. This Court's direction was to act in tune with law.

Since the certificate is issued, this Court is holding its hands from
10

initiating proceedings for contempt, but would undoubtedly mulct

the members of the Committee with exemplary cost.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all

others who were selected in terms of the same select list dated

17-01-2023 were given appointments. It is only the petitioner, on

an erroneous presumption, was not given appointment along with

others, and it is delayed by 12 months.

7. On the score that the certificate is granted in a manner

known to law, the petition would have to be closed as having

become infructuous. However, in the considered view of the Court,

the case cannot be closed by mere observation that the petition has

become infructuous on the ground that caste and income certificate

is given and appointment is also given and the delay in issuing the

appointment order cannot be laid at the doors of the petitioner.

The petitioner appropriately claimed Category-3A and submitted the

caste and income certificate and sought validation of the caste and

income certificate. On an erroneous presumption of law, the State

Government denied and on having a re-look at the law, the State
11

has granted it now. Between the denial and re-look, 12 months

passed by, all for ignorance of law by the State Government in

deliberate defiance of law.

8. The law, in this regard, is too well settled, where this Court

on an earlier occasion had to admonish the State Government in

the case of AKSHATA CHOUGALA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF

KARNATAKA reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 168 whereby the

State had denied caste and income certificate on the same score.

This Court, followed the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

SURINDER SINGH v. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

AND OTHERS1, wherein the Apex Court had held as follows:

".... .... ....

8. The question which still arises is, whether it was
open to the High Court, to include the individual's income
in determining his eligibility for being declared as
backward class, by reading down the policy instructions
on the subject? Insofar as the instant aspect of the
matter is concerned, there can be no doubt that the issue
is determinable with reference to the decision rendered
by this Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [Indra
Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992
SCC (L&S) Supp 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385] . But for the
determination of the present controversy, we need not
travel to the decision in Indra Sawhney case [Indra

1
(2014) 15 SCC 767
12

Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992
SCC (L&S) Supp 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385] . It will be
sufficient to make a reference to the decision rendered by
this Court in Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. State of
Bihar [Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. State of Bihar, (1995) 5
SCC 403 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 1248 : (1995) 31 ATC 159] ,
wherein this Court, having examined the Office
Memorandum dated 8-9-1993, approved the same by
observing as under: (SCC p. 417, para 10)

"10. We have carefully examined the
criteria for identifying the 'creamy layer' laid
down by the Government of India in the
Schedule, quoted above, and we are of the view
that the same is in conformity with the law laid
down by this Court in Mandal case (Indra
Sawhney v. Union of India [Indra
Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC
217 : 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1 : (1992) 22 ATC
385] ). We have no hesitation in approving the
rule of exclusion framed by the Government of
India in Para 2(c) read with the Schedule of the
Office Memorandum quoted above. The learned
counsel for the petitioners have also vehemently
commended that the State Governments should
follow the Government of India and lay down
similar criteria for identifying the 'creamy
layer'."
(emphasis supplied)

It is apparent from the observations recorded by this
Court, as have been extracted hereinabove, that the
Office Memorandum dated 8-9-1993 had been examined
by this Court, specifically with reference to the decision
rendered in Indra Sawhney case [Indra Sawhney v. Union
of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217: 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1:
(1992) 22 ATC 385]. Having done so, this Court expressly
approved and confirmed the Schedule to the Office
Memorandum dated 8-9-1993.

.... .... ....
13

11. The above issue came to be examined yet again by the
Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) through its
memorandum dated 14-10-2004. In the above memorandum, a
large number of queries were clarified. Queries at Serial Nos. (vi)
and (vii) of Para 4 are relevant to the present controversy, and are
accordingly reproduced hereunder:

"4. Following questions have been raised from time to time
about the application of the above provisions to determine creamy
layer.

(vi) Will a candidate who himself is a directly
recruited Class I/Group A officer or a directly recruited Class
II/Group B officer who got into Class I/Group A at the age
of 40 or earlier be treated to be falling in creamy layer on
the basis of his service status?

(vii) Will a candidate who has gross annual income of
Rs 2.5 lakhs or above or possesses wealth above the
exemption limit as prescribed in the Wealth Tax Act for a
period of three consecutive years be treated to fall in
creamy layer?"

The aforesaid queries came to be answered in Para 8 by observing
as under:

"8. In regard to clauses (vi), (vii) and (viii) of Para
4, it is clarified that the creamy layer status of a candidate
is determined on the basis of the status of his parents and
not on the basis of his own status or income or on the basis
of status or income of his/her spouse. Therefore, while
determining the creamy layer status of a person the status
or the income of the candidate himself or of his/her spouse
shall not be taken into account."
(emphasis supplied)

In view of the above, there is no room for any further
consideration, whether or not the individual's income is
to be taken into consideration, while computing the total
income relevant to determine whether an individual
belongs to the "creamy layer". The above clarification
reveals, that it is only the parents' income, which has to
be taken into consideration.

(Emphasis supplied)
14

The Apex Court holds that there is no room for any further

consideration of individual's income to be taken into consideration

while computing total income. The clarification issued therein would

reveal that it is only the parents' income which has to be taken into

consideration. The Apex Court, further, in the case of SUNITA

SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH2, has held as follows:

".... .... ....

5. There cannot be any dispute that the caste is
determined by birth and the caste cannot be changed by
marriage with a person of Scheduled Caste. Undoubtedly,
the appellant was born in "Agarwal" family, which falls in
general category and not in Scheduled Caste. Merely
because her husband is belonging to a Scheduled Caste
category, the appellant should not have been issued with
a caste certificate showing her caste as Scheduled Caste.
In that regard, the orders of the authorities as well as the
judgment of the High Court cannot be faulted.

(Emphasis supplied)

Considering the aforementioned judgments, coordinate Benches of

this Court had held that caste and income certificate would always

depend on father's income and not the income of the husband. This

2
(2018) 2 SCC 493
15

Court in the case of AKSHATA CHOUGALA AND OTHERS v.

STATE OF KARNATAKA3 supra had observed as follows:

".... .... ....

12. It is rather surprising that the State is time and
again repeating the very same mistake and driving the
applicants to knock at the doors of this Court despite the
declaration of law by the Apex court and that of this
Court, by clinging on to a Government order dated 12-12-
19986, which is on the face of it unsustainable.
Therefore, it is for the State to direct the selecting
authorities to act in tune with law and not contrary to
law. It is high time to State, sets its house in order, and
refrain from generating unnecessary litigation".

(Emphasis supplied)

Observing that the State has time and again repeated same

mistake of bringing the applicants to knock at the doors of Courts

despite declaration of law, had directed that, it was high time the

State set its house in order and refrain from generating

unnecessary litigation. The State, as it is known for its wont,

has again repeated the same mistake.

9. The denial of validity certificate to the petitioner -

the key that would unlock the door to her lawful

appointment was premised on a legal fallacy, long buried by

3
2023 SCC OnLine Kar 168
16

the judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court and that of

this Court, yet the State in willful ignorance or negligent

defiance, clung to the misbegotten interpretation, imputing

the income of the spouse to determine the backwardness of

a woman, born into an eligible category. The attitude of the

State cannot be countenanced. The petitioner whose

documents were in order and whose claim was squarely

covered under settled law, is left to knock on the

bureaucratic doors, until her knuckles bled with frustration

and had to approach this Court. It is the stern directions

issued by this Court that awakened the State from slumber

and issue a Validity Certificate, which was hers by right. The

appointment then followed.

10. It is necessary to observe that justice delayed is

justice dented. For 12 long months, while others from the same

select list stepped into service, the petitioner languished in

anxious limbo. Her legitimate aspirations swept under the

weight of official indifference. This Court, thus, cannot

permit the curtain to fall on this matter with a mere note of
17

closure. The law was clear, the precedent was binding, yet

the Officers with impunity, chose to act in contravention.

The members of the Committee who authored the document of

miscarriage of justice must bear the burden for their folly.

11. It is a case where the members of the Committee must

be mulcted with exemplary cost. The Chairman and the Members

who have deliberately ignored the law, as a result of which, the

petitioner is driven to unnecessary litigation and a consequential

loss of 12 months of her employment, shall bear the costs. The cost

not to be paid by State, but by the Members of the District Caste

and Income Verification Committee, Hassan District, headed by the

Deputy Commissioner at the relevant point in time from their

pockets. Imposition of exemplary cost has become necessary in the

peculiar facts of the case, not only to recompense the

petitioner, but become a cautionary call to all those who

hold public office, that dereliction cloaked in ignorance shall

find no refuge before this Court.
18

12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

(i) Writ Petition is disposed, with exemplary cost of ₹2,00,000/- to be paid to the petitioner by the Chairman and Members of the District Caste and Income Verification Committee, from out of their own funds and not from the funds of the State.

(ii) The cost shall be paid to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

(iii) The petitioner also become entitled to all consequential benefits, except the salary and other monetary benefits.

Sd/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

Bkp CT:MJ