(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
Applicability of Karnataka SC/ST and Other BC
(Reservation of appointments, Etc.) Act, 1990 and The
Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes And
Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments,
Etc.) Rules, 1992 Rules.
Whether a Jangama belonging to Veerashaiva Lingayat
could claim benefits of Beda Jangama?
1. Writ Appeal No.200053/2024 filed by the State
No.201181/2023 as not maintainable.
2. Writ Appeal No.200162/2024 is filed by the
Judge in Writ Petition No.201181/2023.
3. Writ Appeal Cross-Objection No.200001/2024 is
4. In all these matters, the order passed in
W.P. No.201181/2023 has been assailed on various
taken up together for consideration.
5. By virtue of the order passed in W.P.
Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-'Z13'1 was set aside.
6. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner
Certificate dated 27.08.2019. The Tahsildar, vide order
7. By virtue of the order of learned Single Judge in
8. While the State entities, including the
9. It is to be noticed that by virtue of the interim
27.08.2019 issued was not to be relied upon.
10. At the time of passing such interim order, the
and declare that the person does not belong
to Schedule Caste or is it incumbent upon
him to direct the Tahsildar to conduct further
enquiry based on the criteria fixed by him?
iii) Whether the Deputy Commissioner is obliged
to obtain report of the District Caste
Verification Committee before considering a
revision petition filed under Section 4-F of
Act of 1990 or whether enquiry conducted by
him itself would be sufficient?"
11. Heard Sri C. Jagadeesh, learned counsel
Senior Advocate appearing for Sri Ravi B. Patil for
respondent No.3 and Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned
Senior Advocate appearing for Sri S. Wilson for respondent
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
12. In the present factual matrix, arguments
C. Whether the Deputy Commissioner is obliged
to obtain report of the District Caste
Verification Committee before considering a
revision petition filed under Section 4-F of
Act of 1990 or whether enquiry conducted by
him itself would be sufficient?
Point Nos. A to C are those by an interlocutory order dated 27.08.2019.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
D. Applicability of Karnataka SC/ST and Other
BC (Reservation of appointments, Etc.) Act,
1990 and The Karnataka Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes And Other Backward
Classes (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.)
Rules, 1992 Rules in the Present Factual
Context.
E. Whether a Jangama belonging to
Veerashaiva Lingayat could claim benefits of
Beda Jangama?
13. Before addressing the points raised for
consideration, it would be appropriate to examine the
factual context of the proceedings.
14. The details of earlier round of litigation/
proceedings initiated at the instance of petitioner -
Ravindra Swamy are as follows:-
SL. CASES FILED/ DETAILS
NO. PROCEEDINGS INITIATED
1. Application for Caste Ravindra Swamy made out an application
Certificate dated seeking for issuance of Caste Certificate as
26.04.2016 belonging to Beda Jangama
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
2. Proceedings of Tahsildar Tahsildar, Bidar, rejected the application
dated 20.05.2016 seeking for issuance of caste certificate
vide an endorsement dated 20.05.2016.
3. Proceedings before Appeal was filed by Ravindra Swamy
Assistant Commissioner against the endorsement dated
dated 08.05.2017 20.05.2016.
The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the
appeal upholding the endorsement.
4. Proceedings before Ravindra Swamy filed revision petition
Deputy Commissioner under section 4-F of the Act against the
dated 23.03.2018 in order of the Assistant Commissioner dated
No.REV/Appeal/R(Misc)- 08.05.2017.
04/2017-18
The revision petition came to be dismissed
upholding the order of the Assistant
Commissioner, affirming the endorsement
of Tahsildar.
5. Application for Caste Ravindra Swamy filed another application
Certificate dated seeking for issuance of Caste Certificate as
05.04.2018 Beda Jangama for purpose of contesting
election.
6. Proceedings of Tahsildar Tahsildar, Bidar, Rejected the application
dated 13.04.2018 seeking for issuance of caste certificate.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
7. W.P.No.201304/2018- Writ Petition was filed by Ravindra Swamy
assailing the Orders passed by the Deputy
Commissioner in Appeal
No.REV/Appeal/R(Misc)-04/2017-18 dated
23.03.2018 wherein, the Deputy
Commissioner dismissed the revision
petition filed by Ravindra Swamy and
upholding the order of the Assistant
Commissioner affirming the endorsement
dated 20.05.2016 of Tahsildar rejecting
issuance of Caste Certificate.
However, W.P.No.201304/2018 was
dismissed on 21.01.2019 as withdrawn
with liberty to challenge the order dated
23.03.2018 in separate proceedings
W.P.No.201303/2018 Filed by Ravindra Swamy challenging the
order of Tahsildar dated 13.04.2018
whereby, the Tahsildar rejected the
application filed by Ravindra Swamy
seeking issuance of Caste Certificate.
The learned Single Judge vide its order
dated 21.01.2019 set aside the order of
Tahsildar dated 13.04.2018 and remanded
the matter back to the Tahsildar for
reconsideration.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
8. Proceedings before After remand, the Tahsildar took up the
Tahsildar dated proceedings in No.ELE/CR/26/2018-19 and
01.04.2019 by order dated 01.04.2019 the application
of the petitioner seeking for issuance of
Caste Certificate as 'Beda Jangama' has
been rejected after recording a finding
that the petitioner's father Kallayya
Swamy belonged to the 'Veerashaiva
Lingayat' Caste and did not belong to the
Caste of 'Beda Jangama' (Scheduled
Caste).
9. W.P.No.202022/2019 Filed by Ravindra Swamy challenging the
order dated 01.04.2019 passed by the
Tahsildar.
The writ petition was disposed off as per
the order passed on 17.06.2019, setting
aside the order passed by the Tahsildar on
01.04.2019 and once again remitting the
matter for fresh consideration.
10. Proceedings before Upon remand, once again the Tahsildar,
Tahsildar dated after a detailed consideration, by order
23.08.2019 No.CR-26/2018-19 dated 23.08.2019
ordered for grant of Caste Certificate on
the basis of the reports of the Revenue
Inspector dated 10.04.2018 and
22.03.2019. Caste Certificate came to be
issued on 27.08.2019.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
11. W.P.No.200829/2019 Filed by Ravindra Swamy assailing the
order of Deputy Commissioner in Appeal
No.REV/Appeal/R(Misc)-04/2017-18
dated 23.03.2018 whereby the order of
Assistant Commissioner and endorsement
of Tahsildar dated 20.05.2016 were
affirmed.
The learned Single judge by order dated
29.08.2019 set aside the order of the
Deputy Commissioner vide its order dated
29.08.2019.
12. Complaint dated KSDSS lodged a Complaint before the
23.10.2019 Assistant Commissioner, Bidar, stating that
Ravindra Swamy belongs to 'Lingayat
Community' and suppressing this he had
obtained Beda Jangama (Scheduled Caste)
certificate dated 27.08.2019.
13. 30.11.2019 The Assistant Commissioner forwarded the
said complaint to the Deputy
Commissioner.
14. Proceedings of Deputy The Deputy Commissioner, Bidar issued
Commissioner dated show cause notice under section 4-F of the
18.12.2019. Act dated 18.12.2019 to Ravindra Swamy.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
15. W.P.No.200002/2020 Filed by Ravindra Swamy challenging the
Notice dated 18.12.2019 under section 4-F
of the Act to Ravindra Swamy issued by
the Deputy Commissioner calling in
question the order of the Tahsildar dated
23.08.2019 and the Caste Certificate
dated 27.08.2019.
The Single Judge quashed the proceedings
of the Deputy Commissioner (notice dated
18.12.2019) as non est vide its order
dated 25.02.2022
16. W.A.No.200065/2022 As against such order of the Single Judge
in W.P.No.200002/2020, the State
preferred an appeal in
W.A.No.200065/2022.
The Division Bench vide its order dated
13.01.2023 upheld the jurisdiction of the
Deputy Commissioner under section 4-F of
the Act and set aside the order of learned
Single Judge dated 25.02.2022.
17. S.L.P.(C). Filled by Ravindra Swamy assailing the
No.4672/2023 order passed in W.A.No.200065/2022 and
the same was disposed off as withdrawn
with a liberty to contest impugned notice.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
18. R.P.No.200036/2023 Review petition was filed by Ravindra
Swamy seeking to review the order passed
in W.A.No.200065/2022.
Review Petition was rejected on the
ground that the Apex Court in
S.L.P.(c).No.4672/2023 had directed
petitioner to appear before the Deputy
Commissioner to contest the impugned
notice on merits, while, the review
petitioner had overreached the order of
the Apex Court by filing the Review
Petition and costs of Rs.25,000/-. was
imposed.
19. Proceedings before the The Deputy Commissioner set aside the
Deputy Commissioner in order of the Tahsildar dated 23.08.2019
No.CasteVerification23/ and cancelled the Caste Certificate dated
2019-20 dated 27.08.2019 issued to Ravindra Swamy.
03.04.2023
20. W.P.No.201181/2023 Filed by Ravindra Swamy challenging the
order dated 03.04.2023 passed by the
Deputy Commissioner whereby the order
of Tahsildar dated 23.08.2019 and Caste
Certificate dated 27.08.2019 were
annulled.
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
15. It must be noticed that the petitioner Ravindra
Swamy had sought for issuance of Caste Certificate that
he belongs to 'Beda Jangama' at the first instance of
26.04.2016. As regards such application, on 20.05.2016
endorsement was issued by the Tahsildar rejecting the
application as against which appeal filed before the
Assistant Commissioner also came to be rejected on
08.05.2017 and revision preferred before the Deputy
Commissioner under section 4-F of the Act was also
rejected by order dated 23.03.2018. It is necessary to
notice that immediately on 05.04.2018 fresh application
was made by petitioner seeking for issuance of Caste
Certificate once again.
16. W.P.No.201304/2018 came to be filed
challenging the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner
in Revision Appeal No.REV/Appeal/R(Misc)-04/2017-18
dated 23.03.2018, which however came to be withdrawn
reserving liberty to challenge the same separately.
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
17. In the interregnum, the proceedings relating to
the application dated 05.04.2018 was proceeded with. The
said application came to be rejected by the Tahsildar on
13.04.2018 and pursuant to order in W.P.No.201303/2018
the claim was directed to be reconsidered by the Tahsildar.
Once again claim having been rejected by order dated
01.04.2019, same was challenged in W.P.No.202022/2019
wherein, there was a direction for reconsideration.
Eventually, on 23.08.2019 Tahsildar had passed an order
to issue Caste Certificate that the petitioner belongs to
'Beda Jangama' and subsequently, Caste Certificate was
issued dated 27.08.2019.
18. It is necessary to notice that the Revision
Petition bearing No. REV/Appeal/R(MISC)-04/2017-18 was
filed by Ravindra Swamy before the Deputy Commissioner
wherein, the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated
23.03.2018 dismissed the revision petition upholding the
order of the Assistant Commissioner affirming the
endorsement dated 20.05.2016 of the Tahsildar rejecting
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
issuance of Caste Certificate. The order in the Revision
Petition dated 23.03.2018 was in subsistence and was set
aside only by the order of the learned Single Judge dated
29.08.2019 in W.P. No. 200829/2019. If that were to be
so, there could not have been a second set of proceedings
without the earlier set of proceedings being set aside,
whereby, the Deputy Commissioner in revision proceedings
had rejected the case of the petitioner Ravindra Swamy.
Even as per the order in W.P.No.200829/2019, the
proceedings in Revision Petition viz., REV/Appeal/R(MISC)-
04/2017-18 dated 23.03.2018 was set aside with a
direction to Tahsildar to reconsider the claim of the
petitioner.
19. It must be noticed that as on such date, the
order of Deputy Commissioner in Revision Appeal dated
23.03.2018 had attained finality was undisturbed and
accordingly, no Caste Certificate could have been issued
on 23.08.2019 as the rejection of application dated
26.04.2016 was a subsisting order. In fact, though W.P.
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
No. 200829/2019 was filed challenging the order dated
23.08.2018, the same was set aside only by order dated
29.08.2019 while the Caste Certificate on the second
application was directed to be issued on 23.08.2019 which
was impermissible as on such date.
20. The order in W.P. No. 200829/2019 had
remitted the matter to the Tahsildar but proceedings of the
Tahsildar which led to rejection of the application was
never re-visited in the context of the proceedings by the
revenue officials. Instead, the second application by
Ravindra Swamy dated 05.04.2018 has had its own
trajectory of litigation culminating in order passed in W.P.
No. 201181/2023.
21. Such reconsideration ought to have been in the
context of the petitioner's initial application for Caste
Certificate dated 26.04.2016 and the proceedings of the
local enquiry as regards such application. The attempt of
the petitioner to make multiple applications for issuance of
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
Caste Certificate and initiate proceedings for fresh enquiry
and exploit difference in local inspection reports so as to
find an opportunity to obtain a direction for issuance of
Caste Certificate, smacks of abuse of process.
22. The proceedings of the Tahsildar pursuant to
the order passed in W.P. No.202022/2019, could not have
proceeded only in the context of the fresh application of
the petitioner, issuance of Caste Certificate on 05.04.2018
and the enquiry proceedings relating to such application
while ignoring the enquiry proceedings relating to his
earlier application dated 26.04.2016. It necessary to note
Tahsildar's order CR-26/2018-19 does not refer to the
earlier enquiry proceedings relating to the earlier
application made in the year 2016. In fact, in the earlier
proceedings of the Tahsildar and Panchanama dated
07.05.2016 and 05.08.2016 contains adverse findings
against the petitioner including that he belonged to Hindu
Lingayat Caste. Accordingly, the order of the Tahsildar
dated 23.08.2019 ignoring the earlier enquiry proceedings
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
is even otherwise legally defective as being passed without
taking note of relevant documents.
23. On 23.10.2019, the KSDSS addressed a
representation to the Assistant Commissioner requesting
for taking of appropriate action as regards the issuance of
Caste Certificate dated 27.08.2019 to the petitioner under
the category of 'Beda Jangama'.
24. The Assistant Commissioner having taken note
of the complaint had resorted to a summary enquiry and
concluded that it could not go into the complaint in detail
at this stage, while however being of the opinion that
prima facie the Caste Certificate had been issued without
following the due procedure. The report in that regard was
then made to the Deputy Commissioner on 30.11.2019.
25. Accordingly, it could be stated, that the
Assistant Commissioner had merely prepared a report on
the basis of the complaint and had forwarded it to the
Deputy Commissioner for necessary action. The Deputy
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
Commissioner taking note of the said report had then
resorted to a proceeding in Caste Scrutiny/CR-23/2019-
20.
26. Clearly, the order of the Deputy Commissioner
itself made it clear that the proceedings were sought to be
initiated under Section 4-F of the Act. Hence, it could be
observed that the Deputy Commissioner had taken note of
the report of the Assistant Commissioner and while
registering a case in the form of revision proceedings had
exercised suo motu power to examine records relating to
order passed by the Tahsildar in issuing a Caste Certificate
of 'Beda Jangama' Caste.
27. The Deputy Commissioner has initiated
proceedings by issuance of notice on 18.12.2019 vide case
No.CasteScrutiny/23/2019-20. The notice issued to the
Ravindra Swamy and others clearly had specified that
proceedings were initiated under Section 4-F of the Act.
The said proceedings eventually culminated in order being
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
passed by the Deputy Commissioner in No.Caste
Scrutiny/23/2019-20, whereby, the order of Tahsildar
dated 23.08.2019 had been set aside and the Certificate
issued on 27.08.2019 was set aside vide order dated
03.04.2023.
28. It is necessary to notice that, once the Deputy
Commissioner issued notice on the basis of the complaint
of the KSDSS, the petitioner-Ravindra Swamy had sought
to assail the validity of the proceedings initially by filing
W.P.No.200002/2020. The petition was filed challenging
the notice dated 18.12.2019 issued by the Deputy
Commissioner on the basis of the complaint made. The
entirety of the proceedings were quashed as non est on
the basis of various grounds vide order dated 25.02.2022.
As against such order, W.A.No.200065/2022 came to be
filed, which was disposed off as per the order dated
13.01.2023.
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
29. The Division Bench in W.A.No.200065/2022 has
upheld the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner
exercised under Section 4-F of the Act, while specifically
recording that there was no positive direction by orders in
W.P. Nos.201303-201304/2018 and W.P. Nos.
202022/2019, to issue Caste Certificate (see para 21 and
24). Eventually, the order of the learned Single Judge was
set aside with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
30. It is relevant to notice that in W.A. No.
200065/2022 the disposal of W.P. No. 200829/2019 was
never revealed leading to a finding in para-15 that the
order of Deputy Commissioner in revision petition dated
23.03.2018 had attained finality.
31. It can be stated that by virtue of the order
passed in W.A. No. 200065/2022, all jurisdictional issues
stood concluded and this order of the Division Bench was
eventually taken up before the Apex Court in Special
Leave Appeal (Civil) No. 4672/2023 which came to be
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
dismissed as withdrawn leaving all contentions open with
an observation that the concerned Authority would
consider the show cause notice on its merits and in
accordance with law. Subsequently, the Review Petition on
W.A. No.200065/2022 was also rejected recording a
finding that the proceedings were mala fide and further
costs of Rs.25,000/- came to be imposed.
32. Multiple rounds of litigation at various stages
has created a muddle of proceedings and petitioner
appears making attempts to take advantage of such
multiple proceedings by relying on stray observations
made.
33. The Deputy Commissioner as per the order
dated 03.04.2023 while setting aside the order of the
Tahsildar dated 23.08.2019 as well as the Caste Certificate
dated 27.08.2019, has passed a detailed order and
findings of the said order are as follows:-
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
a. The report of the Revenue Inspector and
Village Accountant in the form of a
Panchanama is not prepared in an
independent and dispassionate manner.
b. In the records of Senior Primary School of
the petitioner (Ravindra Swamy) for the year
1981-1982, it is found that the Caste of the
petitioner is declared as 'Lingayat'.
c. The joint Panchanama dated 05.08.2016
conducted by the Revenue Inspector and
Deputy Director, Social Welfare Department
observes that the petitioner belongs to the
category of "Veerashaiva Lingayat". The
Tahsildar, District Backward Classes Welfare
Officer jointly have submitted a report in
which it is pointed out that the petitioner
belongs to Veerashaiva Lingayat Caste.
d. Petitioner has not sought for issuance of
Caste Certificate as 'Beda Jangama' till the
age of 37 years and if 'Caste is by birth', such
belated application gives rise to doubts.
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
e. In the election to the Town Municipal Council
in the year 2006, he has declared in the
nomination form as 'Hindu Lingayat'.
f. The Deputy Commissioner concludes that the
Tahsildar had wrongly interpreted the court
orders and proceeded to grant the Certificate
as 'Beda Jangama'.
34. It is necessary to note that the Deputy
Commissioner has recorded findings on the following
questions as well:
a. Whether the Panchanama by the Village
Accountant and Revenue Inspector are legal?
It was opined that none of the Panchas to the
Panchanama of 10.04.2018 belong to the Beda
Jangama. The Panchanamas prepared are not
prepared dispassionately and independently and
the same is defective and not prepared as per
the Rules nor are they prepared scientifically.
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
b. Whether the complainant has locus to file
complaint as regards Caste Certificate issued
to Ravindra Swamy?
It is observed that in terms of Section 4-F of the Act,
an application can be made against the Caste
Certificate issued by the Tahsildar or against the
order of the Assistant Commissioner.
c. Whether the Deputy Commissioner has the
power to entertain a revision petition under
Section 4-F of the Act?
In terms of the observation in W.A.No.
200065/2022 at paras-28, 29 and 30 it is held
that the Deputy Commissioner has power to
entertain the Revision Petition.
d. Whether the Deputy Commissioner has the
power to revise the order of the Tahsildar?
It is opined that in terms of Section 4-F of the Act,
the Deputy Commissioner has power to examine
the records relating to any decision taken or order
passed by the Tahsildar under Section 4-A of the
Act.
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
e. Can the power conferred on the Deputy
Commissioner under Section 4-F of the Act be
delegated to District Caste Verification
Committee?
It is opined that the power of the District Caste
Verification Committee is traceable to Section 4-C
of the Act, while the power to revise an order is
traceable to Section 4 of the Act and accordingly,
power conferred on the Deputy Commissioner
cannot be entrusted to the District Caste
Verification Committee.
f. Whether the report of the Civil Rights Enforcement
Directorate can be accepted?
It is observed that the report dated 06.08.2022 of
the Superintendent of Police, Directorate of Civil
Rights Enforcement prepared by the Additional
General of Police is an internal communication of
the office.
35. Against the order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner 03.04.2023, W.P. No. 201181/2023 has
been filed by Sri. Ravindra Swamy which has been
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
disposed off by order dated 11.10.2023. The essential
findings on the basis of which the order of the Deputy
Commissioner came to be set aside are as follows:-
a. The Deputy Commissioner ought not to have
gone beyond the material on record and has not
considered the material placed by the
petitioner;
b. In exercise of the revision powers there could be
no re-adjudication;
c. If the KSDSS was aggrieved by the grant of
Caste Certificate, the remedy was to have filed
an appeal under Section 4-B of the Act.
d. If the Deputy Commissioner was not in
agreement with the order of the Tahsildar,
matter ought to have been relegated to the
Caste Verification Committee under Section 4-
C(1) of the Act.
e. The observations made in W.P. No. 202022/2019
have not been taken note of.
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
f. Reliance by the learned Government Advocate
appearing for the respondent State on the order
passed in E.P.03/1991 would not be of any
assistance, as order passed in Election Petition
is one in personam.
36. In light of the above, it is necessary to consider
the questions raised by this Court in its interim order
dated 08.07.2024 before adverting to the other points that
call for adjudication which is extracted supra at para-10.
37. The questions that were raised are considered
as follows:-
[A] What are the powers of the Deputy
Commissioner under Section 4-F of the
Karnataka SC/ST and other BC
(Reservation of Appointments, ect.) Act,
1990 to reverse a Caste Certificate
granted by the Tahsildar under Section
4-A of the Act of 1990?
38. The relevant provision of Section 4-F of the Act
reads as follows:
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
"4F. Revision by Deputy Commissioner.-
(1)The Deputy Commissioner may at any time
either suo motu or on an application made to
him with in the prescribed period, call for and
examine the records relating to any decision
made or order passed by the Tahasildar under
section 4A or the Assistant Commissioner
under section 4B, for the purposes of
satisfying himself as to the legality, propriety
of such decision or order and if, in any case, it
appears to the Deputy Commissioner that any
such decision or order shall be modified,
annulled, revised or remitted for
reconsideration, he may pass orders within
thirty days accordingly;
Provided that the Deputy Commissioner
shall not pass any order prejudicial to any
person unless such person is given an
opportunity of being heard.
(2)The Deputy Commissioner may, stay
the execution of any such decision or order
pending the exercise of his powers under sub-
section (1) in respect thereof."
39. Clearly, the Deputy Commissioner has power
either suo motu or on an application made to examine the
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
records relating to decisions or order passed by the
Tahsildar.
40. It is to be seen that the Deputy Commissioner
has taken note of the report of the Assistant Commissioner
dated 30.11.2019 while initiating the revision proceedings.
41. The complaint was given to the Assistant
Commissioner by the KSDSS which has been gone into by
the Assistant Commissioner who has forwarded a report to
the Deputy Commissioner. The said report no doubt is
detailed, but the Assistant Commissioner was of the view
that he could not interfere with the order passed to issue
Caste Certificate, though has opined that there has been
procedural violation as regards obtaining of reports by
Officials of the Social Welfare Department and reports of
the local inspection and enquiry.
42. It is clear that the Assistant Commissioner has
not embarked on the complaint of the KSDSS as an appeal
but forwarded a report to the Deputy Commissioner.
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
43. Such report is based on the stand of the
Authorities such as Village Accountant, Revenue Inspector
and Tahsildar. It could be stated that such report is an
internal exercise relating to the procedure followed by the
authorities referred to above. The Deputy Commissioner
has taken note of it and initiated the revision proceedings
which could fall into the category 'suo motu' exercise of
power.
44. The contention that the petitioner Ravindra
Swamy ought to have been heard when such report was
prepared by the Assistant Commissioner is to be rejected.
The report based on the procedure followed in issuing the
Caste Certificate by the Tahsildar is in the nature of an
internal communication to the Deputy Commissioner by
the Assistant Commissioner, such exercise cannot be
transformed into a quasi judicial exercise and at best is an
administrative report. It was always within the discretion
of the Deputy Commissioner to proceeded further or to
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
drop such proceedings. When the report given is open for
the Deputy Commissioner to take recourse to any of the
two courses of action referred above and when action is
taken to proceed on the report, it would fall within the
category of suo motu action by the Deputy Commissioner.
It cannot be stated that petitioner is required to be heard
even when such communication/report was given to the
Deputy Commissioner.
45. Needless to state that the petitioner Ravindra
Swamy has been given an opportunity once revision
proceedings have been formally registered. Accordingly,
contention of violation of principles of natural justice which
is sought to be pressed as regards the report prepared by
the Assistant Commissioner which is in the nature of a
report on the administrative side to the Deputy
Commissioner, requires to be rejected. It is also to be
noticed that the statutory scheme does not mandate an
opportunity of hearing while initiating suo motu action.
Once suo motu action is initiated and Revision Petition is
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
registered, the statute mandates an opportunity of being
heard as regards which stage there is no grievance of the
petitioner.
46. The powers of the Deputy Commissioner under
Section 4-F of the Act would extend to modifying,
annulling, revising or remitting for reconsideration, while
examining the records relating to an order passed by the
Tahsildar. Though the description of power conferred upon
the Deputy Commissioner is referred to as power of
revision, description of power conferred under the heading
of the provision does not by itself circumscribe the
substantive power conferred under the body of the
Section. The power conferred under Section 4-F of the Act
is wide and can be invoked to modify, annul, revise or
remit for reconsideration.
47. It is also necessary at this juncture to deal with
the finding of the learned Single Judge in W.P.
No.201181/2023 who has opined that once the Deputy
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
Commissioner finds that the Certificate granted under
Section 4-A of the Act suffers from an infirmity, then it
would be the duty of the Deputy Commissioner to remand
the matter back to the Tahsildar to conduct an enquiry
afresh after providing opportunity to the parties. The
powers of revision are wide enough and confer discretion
as regards to its exercise as pointed out above and need
not necessarily be exercised by remitting the matter for
fresh consideration which is only one of the avenues
available for exercise of revisional power by the Deputy
Commissioner.
48. It is the further finding by the learned Single
Judge that the Revisional Authority ought not to have itself
adjudicated regarding the correctness of the Caste
Certificate and ought to have relegated the parties to the
Caste Verification Committee in terms of Section 4-C(1) of
the Act.
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
Such finding recorded by the learned Single Judge
culminating in the direction that the Caste Verification
Committee, Bidar, is required to take final decision is also
erroneous, as it does not fit within the scheme of the
statutory provisions.
49. In the present case, the application produced at
Annexure-'J' is an application for issuance of Caste
Certificate for election purpose. Section 4-C (2) of the Act
contemplates issuance of Validity Certificate by the
Verification Committee in the context of obtaining a
Certificate relating to admission to a course of study or in
the case of appointment. The Karnataka Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes And Other Backward Classes
(Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Rules, 1992 (for short
'the Rules') provides for issuance of validity certificate
where appointment is concerned.
50. In the present case, the petitioner Ravindra
Swamy had submitted 'Application for Caste Certificate for
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
Election Purpose' as per Annexure-'J'. The Certificate
sought to be obtained relates to other than for education
or employment and accordingly, there could not have been
any direction to the Deputy Commissioner to relegate the
parties to Verification Committee under Section 4-C of the
Act.
51. It is to be noticed that the procedure prescribed
under Section 4-F of the Act as regards revision
proceedings are independent of procedure prescribed
under Section 4-C of the Act for obtaining of Validity
Certificate.
52. Section 4-C of the Act provides for obtaining of
Validity Certificate or verification of Caste Certificate or
income and Caste Certificate under section 4-C (2) of the
Act by: (i) any person who has obtained a Caste
Certificate; (ii) appointing authority; (iii) any authority
making admission to a course of study in the university or
any Educational Institution.
- 47 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
53. The right to obtain a Validity Certificate is at the
instance of persons; a person who has obtained a
Certificate; the Appointing Authority or an Authority
making an admission to a course of study in the University
or an Educational Institution. Section 4-C of the Act
providing for such right cannot curtail the power of
revision by an Authority under Section 4-F of the Act.
Accordingly, the procedure under Section 4-C of the Act
could not act as a restriction of power conferred on the
Deputy Commissioner to revise order of the Tahsildar.
54. Thus, it was erroneous to direct the Revisional
Authority to have relegated the parties to obtain the
Validity Certificate under Section 4-C of the Act.
[B] Whether the Deputy Commissioner has
the power to reverse a Caste Certificate
issued and declare that the person does not
belong to Schedule Caste or is it incumbent
upon him to direct the thasildar to conduct
- 48 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
further enquiry based on the criteria fixed
by him? (to check)
55. It is the express power conferred under Section
4-F of the Act on the Deputy Commissioner who is vested
with the power to modify, annul, revise or remit for
reconsideration of an order passed by the Tahsildar under
section 4-A of the Act. Section 4-A provides for issuance of
Caste and Income and Caste Certificate while, Section 4-F
of the Act confers power to annul a Caste Certificate as
also revise or modify an order passed by the Tahsildar. As
already discussed supra, powers available under section 4-
F provides for various courses of action and there is no
mandate that matter was required to be relegated for
further enquiry to the Tahsildar.
[C] Whether the Deputy Commissioner is
obliged to obtain report of the District Caste
Verification Committee before considering a
revision petition under section 4-F of the
- 49 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
Act of 1990 or whether enquiry conducted
by him itself would be sufficient?
56. As discussed supra at para -52, the scope of
Section 4-C of the Act relating to Verification Committee
specifically provides under Section 4-C(2) of the Act as to
who can obtain the validity certificate. It is only a person
who has obtained a Caste Certificate or their appointing
authority or authority making admission to a course of
study in the University or Educational Institutions, who can
make an application for issuance of validity certificate.
57. The power of revision under Section 4-F of the
Act operates in a different sphere and cannot be curtailed
by right to obtain a Validity Certificate under Section 4-C
of the Act which operates in a different context (see
discussion supra at para 53).
58. The other points that call for adjudication are as
follows:
- 50 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
[D] Applicability of Karnataka SC/ST and
Other BC (Reservation of appointments,
Etc.) Act, 1990 and The Karnataka
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes And
Other Backward Classes (Reservation of
Appointments, Etc.) Rules, 1992 Rules in
the Present Factual Context.
59. The applicability of the Rules to the Caste
Certificate obtained by the petitioner Ravindra Swamy had
been raised in an intermediary round of litigation in W.A.
No. 200065/2022, the contention regarding inapplicability
has been rejected. At the time of oral arguments as well
the question of applicability of the Act and Rule is no more
pressed as an issue for adjudication.
[E] Whether a Jangama belonging to
Veerashaiva Lingayat could claim benefits
of Beda Jangama ?
60. Learned counsel Sir. C. Jagadish appearing for
State would contend that the Court apart from examining
the validity of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, may
- 51 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
also address the question as to whether a Jangam
belonging to Veerashaiva Lingayat could claim to be a
Beda Jangama in light of the law laid down by the Apex
Court in Prabhudev Mallikarjunaiah v. Ramachandra
Veerappa3. It is submitted that an answer to such a
question would put the entire controversy at rest.
61. Accordingly, the broader question that requires
consideration is as to whether a person belonging to the
'Jangama' subsect of Veerashaiva Lingayat could claim to
be a 'Beda Jangama'.
62. The repeated attempts of the petitioner
Ravindra Swamy resulting in multiple litigations, requires
to be put a quietus to, especially in light of the order
passed by the Apex Court in Prabhudev Mallikarjunaiah
v. Ramachandra Veerappa4.
63. The 'Beda Jangama' is notified to be in terms of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders
(1996) 4 SCC 431
(1996) 4 SCC 431
- 52 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
(Amendment) Act, 1976, under Item 19 in relation to the
State of Karnataka, Beda Jangama or Budaga Jangama are
declared as Scheduled Castes. There are Jangamas in
Lingayats and it is a frequent allegation that Jangamas
who are a part of the Lingayat Sect claim certificates of
Beda Jangama who are Scheduled Castes. It is in such
context that the KSDSS has made complaint asserting that
present factual matrix presents a typical case of a
Jangama who is a part of Veerashaiva Lingayat claiming to
be a Beda Jangama.
64. The allegation of abuse and misuse by the
Veerashaiva Lingayats who are upper caste Hindus, of the
benefits of reservation made available to Beda Jangamas
who are considered to be of lowly caste is encapsulated in
the complaint by KSDSS dated 23.10.2019 as follows:
"ಈ ೕಲ ಂಡ ಷಯ ೆ ಸಂಬಂ ದಂ ೆ, ಾಗ ೕಕರಣದ ರು ಾ ೆ
ನಲು!ದ ತಳ$ಮಟ'ದ ಸಮು(ಾಯಗಳ )ೕಸ*ಾ ಯು ನ+ ,ೋಗು .ದು/,
ೕರ0ೈವ-3ಂ ಾಯತ 'ಸಮು(ಾಯಗ ೆ 3ಂಗ4ೕ5ೆ 6ೕಡುವರು. ಗು7
ಗುಂ8ಾರುಗಳ39 ಪ; ೆ ಪ<ನ=ಾ ರ >ಾಡುವ<ದು, ಲಗ? ,ಾಗೂ ಶುಭ
- 53 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
ಾಯBಗಳನು? CೇರವDಸುವರು, PÉîªÀÅ (sic) ಜನರು ಪ; ಾDಗFಾ!ದು/,
ಮಠದ39 (ಾ=ೋಹ ನ8ೆಸುವರು, ಸದDಯವD ೆ ದIಣವನು? (sic) 6ೕ7
ಸದD ಅವರ Kಾದಗ ೆ ನಮ=ಾ Dಸು ಾ.Lೆ. 3ಂ ಾಯತ =ಾ>ಾಜದ (sic)
ಧಮB ಗುರುಗFಾ!ರು ಾ.Lೆ, ಪಂNಾಗ (sic) Cೋಡುವರು. Oಾವ<(ೇ ಶುಭ
ಾಯBದ 4Cಾಂಕ PೇಳಪQ'ಯನು? ೆ ೆದು ,ೇಳR ಾ.Lೆ. ಸದD
ಜCಾಂಗದವರು ಸಸS,ಾDOಾ!ದು/, ಇವರು >ಾಂಸ,ಾDOಾ!ರುವ<4ಲ9.
ಇವD ೆ ಗುರು, ಜಂಗಮ, =ಾU)ಗFೆಂದು ಕLೆಯು ಾ.Lೆ. ಇವರು ಮೂಲ
ಪD+ಷ'ಗಳ (ಅಸVಶBರ) (sic) ಹಕು Wತು. ೊಳ$ಲು ವSವ Xತ ಷಡSಂತರ
ನ8ೆಸು .ದು/, ಪD+ಷ' ಾ ಪQ'ಯ39 ಬರುವ 101 ಾ ಗಳ39 Yೇಡ
ಜಂಗಮ/ ಬುಡಗ ಜಂಗಮರ ಪದವನು? ದೂರುಪZೕಗ
ದೂ (sic) ಪ7 ೊಂಡು
ಅಹBರಲ9ದ (ಸVಶB) ಜCಾಂಗದವLಾದ ಗುರು, =ಾU), ಜಂಗಮರು ಪD+ಷ'
ಾ ಜCಾಂಗದ )ೕಸ*ಾ ಯನು? ಕಬ ಸಲು ಪ[ಯ ?ಸು .ರುವ<ದನು?
ೕದರ ದ3ತ ಸಂಘಟCೆಗಳR Lೊಧ (sic) ವSಕ.ಪ7ಸುತ.Pೆ."
Admittedly, the petitioner Ravindra Swamy is a
Veerashaiva Lingayat as is evidenced from the following:-
a) The education records pertaining to Shri
Swamy Kallayya who is the father of petitioner -
Ravindra Swamy states as follows:
- 54 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
i) In the Transfer Certificate of B.Sc.
dated 18.02.1974, at point no.12
"Whether he belongs to Scheduled/
Backward/ Scheduled Tribes", is scored
out. [Annexure A11 of
W.A.No.200053/2024 in Compilation of
Documents];
ii) In the Transfer Certificate of P.U.C.
Science dated 17.06.1970, at point no.12
"Whether he belongs to Scheduled/
Backward/ Scheduled Tribes", is scored
out. [Annexure A18 of
W.A.No.200053/2024 in Compilation of
Documents]
b) The education records pertaining to Swamy
Shivanand and Brahmananda who are the
brothers of petitioner - Ravindra Swamy states as
follows:
i) The Registration Cum Admission
Form and Register of Admission,
marks the Caste as 'Lingayats' Swamy
(Beda Jangam) [Annexure A21 & A22
- 55 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
of W.A.No.200053/2024 in
Compilation of Documents]
ii) Admission Abstract at column
No.9, religion and caste is shown as
'Lingayat' [Annexure A27 of
W.A.No.200053/2024 in Compilation
of Documents]
c) The education records pertaining to
Ms.Umamaheshwari, who is the sister of
petitioner - Ravindra Swamy states as follows:-
(i) The Admission Extract shows that
the name in Column No.3 is
Umamaheshwari and father's name is
shown as Kallayya Swami and at
Column No.6 of the Religion and Caste
is shown as 'Lingayat' [Annexure-'A42'
of W.A.No.200053/2024 in
Compilation of Documents].
- 56 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
(ii) In the Register of Admission, it is
shown as 'Lingayat' [Annexure-'A43'
of W.A.No.200053/2024 in
Compilation of Documents].
d) The education records of petitioner -
Ravindra Swamy states as follows:
i) Admission abstract at column No.9,
religion and caste is shown as 'Lingayat'
[Annexure 'A41' of W.A.No.200053/2024
in Compilation of Documents].
ii) In the application for admission to
dated 09.06.1989, at point no.12
"Scheduled/ Tribes?" is scored out (--).
[Annexure A36 of W.A.No.200053/2024 in
Compilation of Documents]
iii) Registration cum Admission Form at
point 7 is entered as 'Lingayat' [Annexure
A37 of W.A.No.200053/2024 in
Compilation of Documents]
- 57 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
iv) In the Transfer Certificate of
Karnataka High School, Bidar, at point
no.9 "Whether he belongs to Scheduled/
Backward/ Scheduled Tribes", is scored
out (--). [Annexure A39 of
W.A.No.200053/2024 in Compilation of
Documents]
v) In the Register of Admission, the
name of the petitioner Ravindra Swamy is
at Admission No.245 and the in the
religion column it is entered as Lingayat.
[Annexure A40 of W.A.No.200053/2024 in
Compilation of Documents]
65. The documents which do find entry of caste as
Beda Jangama exclusively as regards the petitioner
Ravindra Swamy are subsequent in point of time as
compared to the documents referred to above.
66. The question would then arise whether the
petitioner Ravindra Swamy who belongs to Lingayat could
seek benefit of reservation by obtaining certificate of Beda
- 58 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
Jangama caste. In E.P. No. 03/1991 disposed off on
27.10.1994 between Prabhudev Malikarjunaiah and
Ramachandra Veerappa and Another, the rejection of
nomination form on the ground that the candidate belongs
to Jangama caste of Veerashaiva Community and
accordingly, his reliance on a Caste Certificate indicating
him to be a Beda Jangama was called in question.
67. Upon pleadings having been filed in the context
of the contentions raised in the Caste Certificate 'Issue
No.5' came to be framed which reads as follows:
"5. Whether the Certificate as to the caste of the
petitioner as belonging to Scheduled Caste
produced before the Election Officer could have
been acted upon as valid?"
68. While considering issue No.4 and 5, the Court
has encapsulated the controversy as follows:-
"The main controversy is with regard to the question
as to whether petitioner belongs to beda jangama
caste or he is a Lingayat Jangama".
- 59 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
During the course of the trial, in order to throw light
on the controversy, Sri. K. S. Singh the then consultant to
Government of India, Department of Culture and
Anthropology was examined as R.W.4, he has commented
on extract of a report Ex.R-21(b) which reads as follows:
"There are nomadic Budaga or Beda Jangamas in
Karnataka, especially in Bidar, Gulbarga, Raichur and
Bellary Districts, which border Andhra Pradesh on the
Northern side. They are entirely different from the
Jangama Sub-group of the Lingayats, numerically
dominant community in Karnataka. They are notified
as Beda Jangam and Budga Jangam in Karnataka.
According to the 1981 census, their population is
3035. Although Telugu is their mother tongue, they
are also well versed in Kannada. Traditionally, they
officiate as priests for some of the Holeya and Madiga
communities. In addition, they are religious
medicants and soothsayers and some of them are
engaged as wage labourers. According to the 1981
census, 31.16 per cent of them are returned as
workers (48.10 per cent males and 21.59 per cent
females). Out of them, 32.52 per cent are returned as
cultivators, 30.27 per cent as agricultural labourers
and 5.81 per cent as engaged in live stock, forestry,
etc; 5.15 per cent of the workers are engaged in
- 60 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
mining and quarrying and the remaining 26.25 per
cent are engaged in various other services. Their
literacy rate is 27.61 per cent. The male and female
literacy rates are 37.27 per cent and 17.54 per cent,
respectively (1981 census).
..... R.W.4 has published 50 books and 300 papers on
many subjects including anthropology and has given
international awards for his work. R.W.4 has stated
that he entirely stands by what is stated in Ex.R-21
(b). In his cross-examination, he has stated that
because Government of India notification mentions
Beda Jangam and Gudga Jangam as Scheduled Caste
and also because his Scholars have reported that
Lingayat Jangamas are different, he says that he
agrees with Para 5 of Ex.R2, the Government Circular
to the effect that Jangam which is a sub-caste of
Lingayat Community is not a caste declared as
Scheduled Caste."
69. Further, the Court has made the following
observations which are of relevance are as follows:
".... The evidence of R.Ws.4 and 5 coupled with
Ex.R-21(d) would indicate that Jangama sub-group
of Lingayat community which is a dominant
community in this State is quite different from
Beda and Budga Jangam which is declared as
Scheduled Caste. It would appear that there has
- 61 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
been an attempt by people belonging to Jangam
sub-group of Lingayath to claim themselves as
Beda Jangam and to seek the benefit reserved for
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. It is for
that reason, the government has issued a Circular
cautioning the prescribed officers which issuing
Caste Certificates. At any rate, petitioner in this
case has not adduced any evidence to show that
the traditions and customs followed by his family
are the same as those of Beda Jangamas except
stating that P.W.2 does religious begging, that too
on some special occasion, no other evidence
regarding the traditions and customs which are
followed by them is placed on record.
The caste which is notified to be a scheduled caste
is Beda Jangam/ Budaga Jangam. In order to
establish that he belongs to scheduled caste, the
petitioner has to positively establish that he
belongs to Beda jangam caste as claimed by him.
In Bhaiya Lal -vs- Harikishan Singh and Ors. (AIR
1965 SC 1557) it has been held that, in order to
determine whether particular caste is a scheduled
caste, one has to look at the published notification
issued by President in that behalf, that a plea that
though the appellant is not a Chamar as such, he
can claim the same status by reason of the fact
that he belongs to Dohar caste which is a sub-sect
- 62 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
of the Chamar caste, cannot be accepted and that
an enquiry of that kind would not be permissible.
... In the present case the material not only shows
that the petitioner and his relatives described
themselves as Lingayaths but they also have
described their sub-sects as Jangams. Jangam is a
sub-sect of Lingayath. If the petitioner has
established that he actually belong to Beda Jangam
caste and has only adopted Veerashaiva faith then
the above decision might have been of help to
him."
The above observations would indicate that
scheduled castes and scheduled tribes are not
themselves any castes and that various castes and
groups come in that category. But the castes which
come within the group of scheduled caste are those
which are found to be the lowliest and which are
notified by the President. As already pointed out
Jangam caste to which petitioner appears to belong
cannot be considered to be the lowliest and the
'Beda Jangam' included in the list of scheduled
castes cannot refer to them. At any rate for the
purpose of this petition it is not sufficient for the
petitioner to establish that he belongs to Jangam
caste and that Jangamas and Beda Jangamas are
same. This Court cannot try to find out whether
Jangam caste is equivalent to Beda Jangam caste
- 63 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
and on that ground hold that the petitioner belongs
to Scheduled Caste. On the material on record it
cannot be said that the petitioner has established
positively that he belongs to Beda Jangam Caste...
70. In the "Mysore A Gazetteer Complied For
Government by B. Lewis Rice Vol I, Mysore in General",
which materials were filed in Court by the counsel, the
Lingayita is defined as follows:-
"Lingayita.- The priestly orders among these are
the A'radhya (11,618), Gurusthala (12,129),
Jangam (38,215) and Vir S'aiva (956). The
A'radhya are a sect of Lingayit Brahmanas. They
assume the janivara or sacred thread, but call it
s'ivadara. The Gurusthala are a class of Jangama
who take the place of gurus in performing certain
domestic ceremonies for which the gurus do not
attend. The Jangama are priests chiefly of the
Panchama Banajiga and Devanga. They are divided
into Charanti and Virakta, the former being under a
vow of celibacy. The Jangama derive their name
especially from the portable or jangama linga worn
on the person (which indeed is characteristic of all
Lingayits) as distinguished from the sthavira or
fixed linga of the temples, and also perhaps from
- 64 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
their being itinerant. In addition to the linga they
wear a necklace of beads called rudraksha, and
smear their whole bodies with the ashes of cow-
dung. A jangam will not permit himself to be
touched by any person who does not wear the
linga. They wander about and subsist on charity,
and their children generally adopt the same
profession."
(emphasis supplied)
71. In 'People of India National Series Volume II -
the Scheduled Castes' by K.S.Singh5, appendix I provides
for "A restudy of the Beda Jangam", which material was
filed in Court by the counsel, the portion of extractions
which are of relevance are as follows:
"Following a complaint that the Jangama, the
uppercrust of the Lingayat, had passed
themselves off as Beda Jangam in order to corner
the benefits of the scheduled castes, a fresh study
was conducted of the Beda Jangam.
Anthropological Survey of India - Oxford University Press
- 65 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
In karnataka the nomadic Budaga or Beda
Jagam are presently living in the districts of Bidar,
Gulbarga, Raichur and Bellary, and their
population, according to the 1981 census, is
3035. Traditionally officiating priests for some of
the Holeya and Madiga communities, they are
religious mendicants, soothsayers, and wage
labourers as well. Their literacy rate is 27.61 per
cent (1981 census). The Beda Jangam are
entirely different from the Jangam group of
Lingayat, a numerically dominant community in
Karnataka.
The population of the Beda/ Budaga Jangam
which was 16 during the 1961 census, sharply
increased to 455 by 1971 and to 27,994 in 1981.
These sudden increases between 1971 and 1981
are not consistent with the natural population
growth pattern in those districts. Also, between
1971 and 1981, area restrictions were removed
as far as this community was concerned.
The Beda Jangam as well as the Mala Jangam
categories have been heavily infiltrated by the
Jangam of the Veerashaiva/ Lingayat group. The
stigma of untouchability does not attach to these
Jangam as it does to the Beda Jangam/ Mala
Jangam. The Jangam are also vegetarian. They
- 66 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
treat some communities as untouchables, thus
perpetuating caste divisions. Yet the irony is that
some of them pass themselves off as Beda
Jangam in order to avail the benefits of protective
discrimination given to the scheduled castes.
These Jangam even claim that the Kannada word
Beda affixed to their community name Jangam,
means to beg, and that seeking alms is their age-
old practice. This goes against the traditional
meaning in the Kannada language of the root
word beda which means hunter, and which also
means not needed."
(emphasis supplied)
72. It is necessary to note that K.S.Singh whose
publication is referred to above was examined in
E.P.No.3/1991 (supra).
73. From the above, it is clear that the Jangamas of
the 'Veerasahiva Lingayat' belong to the priestly class and
are essentially vegetarian in diet whereas the 'Beda
Jangama' are lower in the hierarchy of Castes and are
treated as untouchables.
- 67 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
74. It is in such context that the claims of
Jangamas who belong to the Lingayat caste to be Beda
Jangamas who belong to Scheduled Caste requires close
scrutiny.
75. A 'Jangama Lingayat' cannot be construed to be
a 'Beda Jangama'. This also flows from the dictum of the
Apex Court that Courts cannot give any declaration that
the status of Scheduled Castes could be extended to
synonymous names of castes found in the precedential
notifications issued under Article 341 of the Constitution of
India. The observation of the Apex Court while affirming
the order passed in E.P. No. 03/1991 (supra) in Para 3 and
4 in the case of Prabhudev Mallikarjunaiah v.
Ramachandra Veerappa6, is of relevance and is
extracted below:
3. It is seen that under Article 341(1) of the
Constitution, the Presidential Notification is
conclusive subject to the amendment under
(1996) 4 SCC 431
- 68 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
clause (2) of Article 341. In 1976, Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) Act had
been made. Admittedly, under Item 19, in
relation to the State of Karnataka, Beda
Jangamma or Budaga Jangamma are declared as
Scheduled Castes. As a fact, the finding recorded
by the High Court is that the appellant belongs to
Veerashiva Lingayath community and he is a
Jangamma. The question, therefore, is: whether
Veerashiva Lingayath would be considered to be a
Scheduled Caste (Beda Jangamma) within the
notification issued by the President? It is settled
law that the courts cannot give any declaration
that the status with synonymous names of castes
claimed by the party is conformable to the names
specified in the Presidential Notification issued
under Article 341 of the Constitution.
4. The finding recorded by the High Court
after exhaustive consideration of evidence
including the judgment of the civil court on which
strong reliance was placed, is that the appellant is
a Veerashiva Lingayath Jangamma and that,
therefore, he cannot be considered to be a Beda
Jangamma or Budaga Jangamma. It is true that
the appellant has placed reliance on the Census
Report prepared by the Census Department of the
- 69 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
State of Karnataka and also the notification issued
by the Legislative Department. That evidence also
was considered and for valid and diverse reasons,
with which we agree, the same was rightly
rejected."
76. Accordingly, it is clear that even taking note of
the position of law that the Court cannot widen the
interpretation of the notification of castes detailed as
scheduled castes, there could be no stretching of the
caste 'Beda Jangama' or 'Budaga Jangama' to include the
Jangama belonging to veerashaiva lingayat community.
77. Thus, once material on record would indicate
that the petitioner Ravindra Swamy to be a 'Lingayat', the
question of him claiming the benefit of 'Beda Jangama'
does not arise. Mere grant of 'Beda Jangama' Certificate to
a member of the family would not permit issuance of
certificate to other claimant if they are not entitled as they
belong to 'Veerashaiva Lingayat' Community.
- 70 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3496-DB
HC-KAR
78. Accordingly, the following
ORDER:
i) W.A.No.200053/2024 is allowed and
consequently, the order dated 11.10.2023
passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.201181/2023 is set aside;
ii) W.A.No.200162/2024 is allowed ;
iii) W.A.CROB No.200001/2024 is dismissed
in light of setting aside of the order of
learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.201181/2023.
Sd/-
(S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
VGR/VP
