Karnataka High Court
Sri. T.H. Hosamani vs State Of Karnataka on 18 November, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15821
WP No. 109449 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
R
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 109449 OF 2017 (GM-CC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. T.H. HOSAMANI
S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA HOSAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RETIRED HEAD MASTER,
RURAL HIGH SCHOOL, HAROHALLI,
KANAKAPURA DISTRICT, RAMNAGAR DISTRICT,
NOW R/AT: VINAYAKA NAGAR,
2ND CROSS, EJARI, LAKMAPURA, HAVERI,
HAVERI DISTRICT - 581 110.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR B., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. G. K. HIREGOUDAR, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
Digitally signed by
RAKESH S
HARIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER,
Location: High
Court of SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench, M.S. BUILDING,
Dharwad
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMISSIONER-
CUM CHAIRMAN,
DISTRICT CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE,
RAMNAGAR DISTRICT,
RAMNAGAR - 562 159.
4. DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER
MEMBER OF SECRETARY DISTRICT
CASTE AND INCOME VERIFICATION
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15821
WP No. 109449 of 2017
HC-KAR
COMMITTEEE, ZILLA PANCHAYAT RAMANAGAR.
5. THE TAHASILDER
BYADAGI TALUK BYADAGI - 581 106.
6. SRI.H.P.SRINIVAS
S/O PUTTANSINGATRAYYA RTI ACTIVIST,
RESIDING AROHALLY-562112,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMNAGAR DISTRICT.
7. THE SECRETARY,
AROHALLY VIDHYA SAMSTHE, AROHALLY,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMNAGAR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C. JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5;
R6 & R7 ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
RELATING TO THE ISSUE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.
JI.SA.KA.AA./RA/11/2010-11 SA.KA-3/CR-DATED 21.06.2014 PASSED
BY THE RESPONDNENT NO.4 VIDE ANNEXURE- G AND THE
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MEETING DATED 17.05.2014 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-F TOGETHER WITH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSDD BY THE RESPODENT NO.2 DATED
28.02.2017 PASSED IN APPEAL NO. CR-12/2014-15 VIDE
ANNEXURE-M AND AFTER PERUSAL SET ASIDE THE SAME AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15821
WP No. 109449 of 2017
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the
following reliefs:
"A. To call for records relating to the issue of the
impugned order bearing No. Ji.Sa.Ka.Aa./Ra/11/2010-
11 Sa.Ka-3/CR-dated 21.06.2014 passed by the
Respondent No.4 vide Annexure- G and the
Proceedings of the Meeting dated 17.05.2014 passed
by the Respondent No.3 vide Annexure-F together
with the impugned order passed by the Respondent
No.2 dated 28.02.2017 passed in Appeal No. CR-
12/2014-15 vide ANNEXURE-M and after perusal set
aside the same.
B. To pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Heard the learned Counsel Sri. Vijaykumar Bajantri
for Sri. G.K. Hiregoudar, appearing for the petitioner and learned
counsel Sri. C. Jagadish, appearing for the respondents.
3. Facts adumbrated are as follows:
The petitioner is appointed as an Assistant Teacher in
Harohalli Vidya Samste, an aided institution, against an aided
post. The petitioner is said to have secured the employment on
the strength of a caste certificate depicting him to be belonging
to Bhovi caste. The petitioner is said to have submitted the caste
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15821
HC-KAR
certificate that was in his possession, which depicted him to be
belonging to the Bhovi caste, for securing promotion to the post
of Headmaster, notified as Scheduled Caste. The petitioner was
then promoted as the Headmaster against a post reserved for
Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe and the same was approved
by the competent authority. When things stood thus, on
16.07.2007, a complaint comes to be filed by respondent No.5,
before the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell, alleging that the
petitioner had obtained a false caste certificate stating that he
belongs to Scheduled Caste-Bhovi, though he belonged to
Gangamata community. On the said complaint, the Civil Rights
Enforcement Cell suo motu institutes proceedings on the
complaint and directs investigation into the matter at the hands
of the Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Civil Rights
Enforcement Cell. The investigation is said to have been
conducted without notifying the petitioner and the result of the
investigation is the direction to the District Caste Verification
Committee to initiate proceedings towards cancellation of the
caste certificate.
4. In the interregnum, the petitioner retires on attaining
the age of superannuation and files an appeal. Based upon the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15821
HC-KAR
said report, two proceedings spring, one initiated by the District
Caste Verification Committee, in which the certificate of the
petitioner stood cancelled and the other, a crime registered in
Crime No.216 of 2014.
5. Insofar as the criminal case is concerned, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that he has been acquitted in
the said case and that the acquittal has attained finality. The
issue that now falls for consideration at the hands of this Court is
whether the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell could have entertained
the complaint and initiated suo motu investigation without the
matter being referred to by the District Caste Verification
Committee to the hands of the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell for
the purpose of conduct of investigation.
6. The learned counsel Sri. Vijaykumar Bajantri,
appearing for the petitioner, submits that the Civil Rights
Enforcement Cell did not have jurisdiction to conduct a suo motu
investigation upon a complaint, unless the Caste Verification
Committee had directed it to do so. The learned counsel submits
that since the very foundation of the case rests on the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15821
HC-KAR
investigation conducted by the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell, all
the subsequent proceedings would become a nullity in law.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri. C.Jagadish
admits the position of law and submits that as per the statute
itself, the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell does not have suo motu
powers to begin an investigation, without the matter being
referred to the District Caste Verification Committee. He further
submits that, the petitioner may have a case on technical
ground, but not on the merit of the matter. He further submits
that the caste certificate, which has now become the bone of
contention should not be used by any other family member of
the petitioner, as the caste certificate is admittedly false.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have
perused the material on record.
9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The
aforesaid issue needs to be considered and such consideration
would necessarily require noticing the relevant statute.
Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 7 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15821
HC-KAR
Appointments, Etc.,), Rules, 1992 (for short 'the Rules'), reads
as follows:
"(4) Where the Committee even after the enquiry
referred to in sub-rules(2) and (3) finds that the claim is
doubtful, and is not in a position to come to a conclusion it
shall refer the matter to the Directorate of Civil Rights
Enforcement for detailed investigation and report. On receipt
of the report from the Directorate of Civil Rights
Enforcement, the Committee shall dispose off the case on
merit, after holding such enquiry as it deems fit and after
giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard. An order
under this sub-rule shall be made within one month from the
date of receipt of the application."
Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 7 of the Rules mandates that the Civil
Rights Enforcement Cell can spring into action only upon a
reference being made by the District Caste Verification
Committee to conduct an investigation with regard to the caste
status of any person.
10. The jurisprudence is replete with the judgments
rendered by the Division Benches and of the Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court, with regard to the power of the Civil Rights
Enforcement Cell to take up suo motu investigation.
11.1. A Division Bench of this Court, in the case of THE
APPOINTING AUTHORITY / REGIONAL MANAGER, STATE
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15821
HC-KAR
BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER v. BHEEMAPPA AND
ANOTHER 1, has held as follows:
"3. The learned Single Judge has deemed it relevant to
place reliance on the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court
rendered in Civil Appeal Nos.1429-1430/2020. The learned
Single Judge has further noticed that the impugned order of
termination prima facie appears to be in gross violation of the
principles of natural justice audi alteram partem. Admittedly,
the caste certificate had reached this Court way back in the
year 2003 in W.P.No.46638/2003 which came to be disposed
of on 29.03.2011 by quashing the order dated 03.09.2003
passed by the Caste Verification committee and reserving
liberty to the Caste Verification Committee constituted in
2009 to take up the issue. The instant appellant-Bank was a
party respondent in the said writ petition. Admittedly, the
appellant-Bank has not sought for verification of the caste
certificate furnished to the employer in the year 1985. That
being the admitted facts, the moot question is whether the
Caste Verification Committee could have suo motu initiated
proceedings to cancel the caste certificate of respondent no.1
or to opine that respondent no.1 has furnished a false
certificate.
4. On perusal of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes
(Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and the
Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments,
etc.) Rules, 1992, we find that no such powers of suo
motu revision are vested in the Caste Verification
Committee and sub-section (2) of Section 4-C of the Act
stipulates the persons or entity who may seek for verification
of the Caste certificate, and hence, on that ground also, we
do not find any ground which would warrant interference with
the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly,
the writ appeal stands rejected."
(Emphasis supplied)
W.A. No. 100110 of 2020 (S-DIS), disposed on 10.11.2020.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15821
HC-KAR
11.2. Another Division Bench of this Court, in the case of
T.S. RAMACHANDRA v. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL
OF POLICE2, has held as follows:
"6. We have considered the submissions made on both
sides and have perused the record. Rule 7 of the Karnataka
SC/ST & Other BC (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Rules,
1992 which is relevant for the purpose of deciding the
controversy involved in the appeal, is reproduced below for
the facility of reference:
7. Issue of Validity Certificate. - (1) After
getting a report on a reference made under Rule 6-
A, the Caste Verification Committee and the Caste
and Income Verification Committee shall hold an
enquiry after giving opportunity to the parties
concerned.
(2) The Committee may examine school records,
birth registration certificate if any, and such other
relevant materials and may also examine any other
person who has the knowledge of the community of
the applicant:
Provided that in case of an applicant who
belongs to the Scheduled Tribes, the Committee
may also examine the anthropological and
ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of
marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of
dead bodies and such other matters.
(3) If on such enquiry the Committee finds that the
applicants claim is genuine it may issue the
certificate sought for, in Form I-A, but where the
committee finds that the applicant obtained the
Caste Certificate or Income and Caste Certificate by
making a false representation, it shall pass an order
rejecting the application indicating the reasons
therefore for such refusal. An order under the sub-
rule shall be passed within one month from the
date of receipt of the application.
W.A. No. 36 of 2021 (GM-CC), disposed on 30.08.2021.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15821
HC-KAR
(4) Where the Committee even after the enquiry
referred to in sub-rules (2) and (3) finds that the
claims is doubtful, and is not in a position to come
to a conclusion it shall refer the matter to the
Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement for detailed
investigation and report. On receipt of the report
from the Directorate of Civil rights enforcement, the
Committee shall dispose off the case on merit, after
holding such enquiry as it deems fit and after giving
the applicant an opportunity of being heard. An
order under this sub-rule shall be made within one
month from the date of receipt of the application.
(5) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Caste
Verification Committee or Caste and Income
Verification Committee may appeal to the Divisional
Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner shall
after giving an opportunity of being heard to both
the parties pass such order as he deems fit within
forty-five days from the date of filing of such
appeal.
7. A Division Bench of this Court in WA
No.100375/2017 vide judgment dated 17.08.2020, dealt with
the issue whether the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Civil
Rights Enforcement Cell, has the authority to initiate the
proceeding with regard to veracity of the caste certificate.
The aforesaid issue has been answered in paragraphs 10 and
11 as follows:
10. In Bheemappa S/o. Chandrappa Bhovi Vs.
State of Karnataka and others (W.P.No.103358/2015),
this Court has held that Caste Verification Committee is
a competent body which is provided under law to
consider the validity of the Caste Certificate.
11. In Shantamani vs. The Deputy
Superintendent of Police, (W.P.No.11704/2013), this
Court, after considering Rule 6-A and Rule 7 of the
Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other
Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.)
Rules, 1992 ('the Rules' for short) and decisions in
Ramachandra Keshav Adke and others Vs. Govind Joti
Chavare and others reported in AIR 1975 SC 915 and in
Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs. Anjum M.H.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15821
HC-KAR
Ghaswala and others reported in 2002(1) SCC 633, has
held as follows:
"7. Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid
provisions, it is evident that Caste and Income
Verification Committee shall refer the
application for issue of validity certificate to
the District Social Officer and report after
holding local enquiries. Thereafter, on getting
report on a reference made under Rule 6A of
the Rules, Caste Verification Committee shall
hold an enquiry after giving an opportunity of
hearing to the parties. From perusal of Rule
7(4) of the Rules, it is evident that if the
Committee after holding an enquiry finds
that claim is doubtful and the Committee
is not in a position to come to a
conclusion, it shall refer the matter to the
Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement
for detailed investigation and report. It is
well settled in law that when the statute
provides a manner of doing a particular
thing in a particular manner, that thing
has to be performed in that manner alone.
In this connection, reference may be made to
decisions of Supreme Court of India in
'RAMCHANDRA KESHAV ADKE AND OTHERS
vs. GOVIND JOTI CHAVARE AND OTHERS' AIR
1975 AIR 1975 SC 915 and 'COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI VS. ANJUM M.H.
GHASWALA AND OTHERS' 2002 (1) SCC 633.
8. In view of aforesaid enunciation of
law, it is evident that the enquiry in to the
caste certificate has to be made by the
Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement on
the basis of reference made by District
Caste Verification Committee as provided
under Rule 7(4) of the Rules. In the
instant case, the Civil Rights Enforcement
cell on its own has issued the notice
which is in contravention of Rule 7(4) of
the Rules, the same therefore cannot be
sustained in the eye of law. It is pertinent
to note that in the decision relied upon by the
learned counsel for the respondent in
W.P.No.14144/2008, neither Rule 6A nor Rule
7 of the Rules had been considered. Therefore,
the aforesaid decision is distinguishable."
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15821
HC-KAR
8. Thus, from the perusal of Rule 7 of the Rules, it
is evident that the Directorate of Civil Rights
Enforcement has to take steps for prosecution of
claimant who has obtained false caste certificate on
the basis of the report submitted by the District Caste
Verification Committee.
9. Thus, in the instant case, the enquiry had not
been initiated on a reference made by District Caste
Verification Committee but on the basis of a complaint
made by the complainant namely R Ravichandra. The
initiation of proceeding against the appellant is de hors
the procedure prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules. The
impugned notice is per se without jurisdiction and
therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of the law.
The appellant has superannuated from service on 31.07.2003
and after 2007, he has been treated as a general category
candidate and all retirement benefits has been settled. It is
pertinent to note that the appellant in the writ petition before
the learned Single Judge, had sought the following reliefs:
"a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any
other order or direction quashing the proceedings
initiated by R-2 Superintendent of Police CRE
Mangalore in his notice bearing
No.JaVi/17/NaHaJaNi/2014 dated 12.11.2014 Ann-E
after holding that such exercise of power by the said
authority is in violation of Article 14 of Constitution of
India.
b) Pass any other order or direction that this
Hon'ble Court deems it fit and necessary in the facts
and circumstances of the case and in the interest of
justice and equity"."
(Emphasis supplied)
11.3. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of
G. RAJANNA v. THE DISTRICT CASTE VERIFICATION
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15821
HC-KAR
COMMITTEE AND OTHERS3, while referring to both the
afore-quoted judgments of the Division Benches, has held as
follows:
"9. A Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.100375/2017 vide order dated 17.08.2020 has dealt
with the similar issue and held that the Deputy
Superintendent of Police (DCRE), has no authority to initiate
proceedings with regard to the veracity of the caste
certificate and the aforesaid issue has been answered in para
Nos.10 and 11.
10. Under similar circumstances, another Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Sri. T.S. Ramachandra
vs. Additional Director General of Police in
W.A.No.36/2021 disposed of on 30.08.2021 [T.S.
Ramachandra] has held that the enquiry conducted by the
DCVC is invalidated, as the initiation of proceedings is de hors
the procedure prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules. The relevant
paragraph No.9 of the judgment of the Division Bench reads
as under:
"9. Thus, in the instant case, the enquiry had
not been initiated on a reference made by District
Caste Verification Committee but on the basis of a
complaint made by the complainant namely R
Ravichandra. The initiation of proceeding against
the appellant is de hors the procedure prescribed
in Rule 7 of the Rules. The impugned notice is per
se without jurisdiction and therefore, cannot be
sustained in the eye of the law. The appellant has
superannuated from service on 31.07.2003 and after
2007, he has been treated as a general category
candidate and all retirement benefits has been settled.
It is pertinent to note that the appellant in the writ
petition before the learned Single Judge, had sought the
following reliefs:
"a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari
or any other order or direction quashing the
proceedings initiated by R-2 Superintendent
of Police CRE Mangalore in his notice bearing
No.JaVi/17/NaHaJaNi/2014 dated
12.11.2014 Ann-E after holding that such
3. W.P. No. 46919 of 2014 (GM-CC), disposed on 07.07.2023.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15821
HC-KAR
exercise of power by the said authority is in
violation of Article 14 of Constitution of
India.
b) Pass any other order or direction that
this Hon'ble Court deems it fit and necessary
in the facts and circumstances of the case
and in the interest of justice and equity."
11. In another decision, the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Bheemappa stated supra, which is relied
by the learned counsel for the petitioner, at paragraph Nos.3
and 4 held as under:
"3. The learned Single Judge has deemed it
relevant to place reliance on the order of the Hon'ble
Apex Court rendered in Civil Appeal Nos.1429-
1430/2020. The learned Single Judge has further noticed
that the impugned order of termination prima facie
appears to be in gross violation of the principles of
natural justice audi alteram partem. Admittedly, the
caste certificate had reached this Court way back in the
year 2003 in W.P.No.46638/2003 which came to be
disposed of on 29.03.2011 by quashing the order dated
03.09.2003 passed by the Caste Verification committee
and reserving liberty to the Caste Verification Committee
constituted in 2009 to take up the issue. The instant
appellant-Bank was a party respondent in the said writ
petition. Admittedly, the appellant-Bank has not sought
for verification of the caste certificate furnished to the
employer in the year 1985. That being the admitted
facts, the moot question is whether the Caste
Verification Committee could have suo motu initiated
proceedings to cancel the caste certificate of respondent
no.1 or to opine that respondent no.1 has furnished a
false certificate.
4. On perusal of the Karnataka Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward
Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act,
1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short)
and the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of
Appointments, etc.) Rules, 1992, we find that no
such powers of suo motu revision are vested in the
Caste Verification Committee and sub-section (2) of
Section 4-C of the Act stipulates the persons or entity
who may seek for verification of the Caste certificate,
and hence, on that ground also, we do not find any
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15821
HC-KAR
ground which would warrant interference with the order
passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ
appeal stands rejected.
All contentions of the parties are left open."
12. The proposition of law and Rule 7A of the
Rules envisages that the enquiry conducted by the
DCVC on the request of the CRE Cell is invalid and de
hors the procedure prescribed in the Rules. The
aforesaid decisions stated supra is squarely applicable
to the facts of the present case."
(Emphasis supplied)
On a coalesce of the afore-quoted judgments of the Division
Benches and of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, what would
unmistakably emerge is that, the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell
does not have the power to take up suo motu investigation into
the caste certificate of the petitioner.
12. The statute is unambiguous with regard to the power of
the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell emerging only upon a reference
being made by the District Caste Verification Committee.
Therefore, the proceedings that have now emerged from the
hands of the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell and all action in its
aftermath would become a nullity in law.
13. The very foundation for all the impugned action is the
action of the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell. If such foundation is
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15821
HC-KAR
contrary to law, the superstructure built upon such foundation
would necessarily tumble down. In the light of the elucidation of
law by the judgments rendered by the Division Benches and by
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the petition deserves to
succeed.
14. For the above said reasons the following:
ORDER
i. The petition stands allowed.
ii. The impugned Orders 21.06.2024, 17.05.2024
and 28.02.2017 all stand obliterated.
iii. The terminal benefits of the petitioner, if they
have been withheld on the strength of the
aforesaid orders, shall be released without
brooking any delay.
iv. It is made clear that the subject caste
certificate shall not be used by any family
members of the petitioner for any benefit to
claim that they belong to Scheduled Caste or
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15821
HC-KAR
Scheduled Tribe, in the peculiar facts of this
case.
v. The terminal benefits shall be released within
four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
RHR/CT-ASC
