Karnataka High Court
Smt. Manjula Harobidi vs The Deputy Commissioner on 31 October, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14761
WP No. 105860 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 105860 OF 2022 (GM-CC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. MANJULA HAROBIDI
D/O. BASANAGOUDA HAROBIDI,
OCC. LIBRARIAN FIRST GRADE COLLEGE,
NARAGUND, R/O: SHIVAGIRI,
DHARWAD - 580 002.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. SUNITHA P. KALASOOR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
THE CHAIRMAN OF DISTRICT CASE AND INCOME
VERIFICATION COMMITTEE, DHARWAD,
DHARWAD DISTRICT.
Digitally signed
by RAKESH S 2. THE MEMBER SECRETARY,
HARIHAR
DISTRICT CASTE AND INCOME VERIFICATION
Location: High
Court of COMMITTEE, DHARWAD, DHARWAD DISTRICT - 01.
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad 3. THE TAHASILDAR DHARWAD,
DHARWAD DISTRICT - 580 001.
4. THE COMMISSIONER,
COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, BENGALURU - 72.
5. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT FIRST GRADE COLLEGE,
NARAGUND, NARGUND TALUK,
GADAG DISTRICT - 582 207.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
R5 - SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14761
WP No. 105860 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 30/11/2022, BEARING NO. HIMVAKAEDHA.
SINDHUTVA. ONLINE. CR-37. 2010-11, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, AND
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16/08/2010 BEARING
NO.JATI.VAHI.SINDHUTVA/164/10-11 PASSED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ORDER DATED 09/09/2010
BEARING NO.BCM.SINDHUTVA.CR.37.2010-11/889 PASSED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-H BASED ON ANNEXURE-G. ISSUE
WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE CASTE VALIDATION
CERTIFICATE HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONER BELONGS TO
CATEGORY 2A, EVEN IF THE PETITIONER'S SCHOOL LEAVING
CERTIFICATE DISCLOSES THAT SHE BELONGS TO LINGAYAT
COMMUNITY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the
following prayer:
A. Quash the impugned order dated 30/11/2022,
bearing no. HimVaKaEDha:Sindhutva:Online:CR-
37. 2010-11, vide Annexure-A, and impugned order
dated 16/08/2010 bearing no.Jati. Vahi.
Sindhutva/164/10-11 passed by the 3rd Respondent
vide Annexure-G and order dated 09/09/2010
bearing no.BCM. Sindhutva. CR.37. 2010-11/889
passed by the 1st respondent vide Annexure-H
based on Annexure-G.
B. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the Respondents to issue caste
validation certificate holding that the petitioner
belongs to category 2A, even if the petitioner's
school leaving certificate discloses that she belongs
to Lingayat Community, in the interest of justice
and equity.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14761
HC-KAR
C. Grant scuh other relief as this Hon'ble court deems
fit in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the parties in unison
would submit that, the issue in the lis stands answered by this
Court in W.P. No.100961 of 2025, disposed on 18th February
2025. This Court held as follows:
"1. Learned counsel appearing for the parties in
unison would submit that, the issue in the lis stands
answered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in
W.P.No.116190/2019 connected with
W.P.No.100571/2024, disposed of on 20th January
2025. The Coordinate Bench held as follows:
"2. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the issue in the lis stands
covered on its fours to the judgment rendered by
the Apex Court in the case of M.V.Chandrakanth
Vs.Sangappa and Others reported in 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 934.
3. The Apex Court while considering
identical issue has held as follows:
"9. On or about 7th October 2005, the
Karnataka Public Service Commission
(KPSC) published the provisional list of
candidates selected for the Group A and
Group B posts of Probationary Officers.
After publication of the provisional list on
7 th October 2005, KPSC sent the caste
certificate of the Respondent No.1 to the
Respondent No.3 for verification. On 21st
October 2005, the Respondent No.3
issued a certificate validating the caste
certificate submitted by the Respondent
No.1.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14761
HC-KAR
10. KPSC notified the final list of
selected candidates on 29 th November
2005. The Appellant was selected for the
post of Deputy Superintendent of Police
and the Respondent No.1 was selected for
the post of Assistant Commissioner
(Junior Grade Scale). Both the Appellant
and the Respondent No.1 were selected
under the Reserved Category II-A of the
Reservation Policy. The Respondent No.1
secured 1152 marks and was placed at Sl.
No. 15 in the category of posts of
Assistant Commissioner, whereas the
Appellant secured 1151 marks and was
placed at Sl. No.6 in the category of posts
of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
11. The Appellant claims that in 2005,
he came to know that the Respondent
No.1's father belonged to the 'Lingayat'
caste whereas the Respondent No.1 had
claimed the benefit of reservation under
Category II-A of the Reservation Policy
claiming that he belonged to the 'Ganiga'
caste. The Appellant contends that the
'Lingayat' caste including the sub-castes
thereof fall under Category III-B with 5%
reservation whereas Hindu Ganiga falls
under Category II-A with 15%
reservation.
12. The Appellant filed an appeal
under Section 4D of the Karnataka
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
Other Backward Classes (Reservation of
Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990, hereinafter
referred to as "SC/ST and OBC
Reservation Act" before the Respondent
No.2 challenging the Caste Validity
Certificate issued to the Respondent No.1
by the Respondent No.3. In the said
appeal, the Appellant enclosed the school
extract of Government Higher Primary
School, Honnihala, Bagalokote wherein
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14761
HC-KAR
the caste of the Respondent No.1's father
was recorded as 'Hindu Lingayat'.
13. The Appellant alleges that
Respondent No.3 issued the Validity
Certificate dated 21st October 2005 in
undue haste, with scant regard to the
procedure laid down in Rule 7 of the
Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes and Other Backward
Classes (Reservation of Appointment,
etc.) Rules 1992, hereinafter referred to
as "Karnataka SC/ST and OBC Reservation
Rules ".
14. By an interim order dated 5th
December 2005, the Respondent No.2
stayed the Validity Certificate issued to
the Respondent No.1 until further orders.
Thereafter, the Respondent No.2 called for
the records from the Respondent No.1.
Notices were also issued to the Head
Masters of the concerned schools for
production of original school admission
registers pertaining to the Respondent
No.1 and his father.
15. After hearing the parties and
perusing the records, the Respondent
No.2 passed an order dated 23 rd January
2006, concluding that the Respondent
No.1 belonged to the 'Hindu Lingayat'
caste as he would inherit the caste of his
father. Relying on the school register of
the Respondent No.1's father of the year
1953, his High School records and the
Service Register of DCC Bank where he
(the Respondent No.1's father) had
worked as Supervisor, the Respondent
No.2 cancelled the Validity Certificate. The
Respondent No. 2 inferred that the entries
in the school records of the Respondent
No.1 had been made in the year 1982,
with a view to obtain the benefit of
reservation."
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14761
HC-KAR
4. The learned counsel would further
submit that following the aforesaid judgment of the
Apex Court, a Division Bench of this Court closed
several proceedings in terms of its order dated
12.10.2023. The order passed in Writ Appeal
No.100557/2023 reads as follows:
"4. A perusal of the material on record
will indicate that the complainants-writ
petitioners belong to 'Hindu Sadar'
community which comes under Category
II-A. The request of the respective
complainants-writ petitioners for issuance
of caste validation certificates having been
refused by the Appellant-State, the
complainants-writ petitioners approached
this Court in the instant petitions which
were allowed by this court by vide
impugned orders which are assailed in the
writ appeals.
5. A perusal of the impugned order
passed by the learned Single Judge will
indicate that reliance is placed by the
learned Single Judge on a judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M.V.
Chandrakanth Vs. Sangappa & Others,
Civil Appeal No.4963/2022, whereby
the Hon'ble Apex Court had directed
issuance of caste validation certificates in
favour of similarly/identically situated
persons. So also, in W.P. No.100175/2023,
a learned Single Judge of this Court
allowed the petition vide final order dated
25.01.2023 and directed issuance of caste
validation certificate in favour of the said
writ petitioners. The State preferred an
appeal against the said order of the
learned Single Judge and the same was
affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court
in W.A. No.100381/2023 dated
12.09.2023. Under these circumstances,
having regard to the earlier judgments of
this Court and the Apex Court referred to
supra and other judgments of this Court,
we are of the considered opinion that the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14761
HC-KAR
learned Single Judge was justified in
passing the impugned order allowing the
writ petitions and consequently, we do not
find any illegality or infirmity in the order
passed by the learned Single Judge
warranting interference by this Court in the
present appeals. Accordingly, we do not
find any merit in the appeals and the same
are hereby dismissed.
6. Insofar as the contempt proceedings
are concerned, the learned Additional
Government Advocate submits that the
caste validation certificates would be
issued in favour of the respective
complainants-writ petitioners and the same
would also be
intimated/informed/forwarded to the
Appointing Authority within a period of five
weeks from today. Submission is placed on
record.
7. The appellants-State, who are also
arrayed as accused in the contempt
proceedings are hereby directed to issue
the caste validation certificates and also
forward/intimate the same to the
Appointing authority and the complainant-
writ petitioners within a period of five
weeks so as to enable the complainants-
writ petitioners to obtain appointment to
the respective posts.
8. Under these circumstances, the
contempt proceedings are also hereby
closed reserving liberty in favour of the
complainants-writ petitioners to seek
reopening of the contempt proceedings
and/or file fresh contempt proceedings, if
the occasion so arises."
5. The learned AGA Sri.Sharad A. Magdum
would however seek to distinguish those orders
passed by the Apex Court or that of the Division
Bench on the score that the declaration of synonyms
could not have been made. The submission is only
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14761
HC-KAR
to be rejected in the light of the fact that the Apex
Court so considered and the Division Bench so
followed the judgment of the Apex Court.
6. In that light, petition deserves to
succeed. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
i. Petitions are allowed.
ii. The impugned order in
W.P.No.116190/2019 dated 19.07.2016
passed by the 2nd respondent produced at
Annexure-E and the order dated 26.05.2018
passed by the 3rd respondent produced at
Annexure-U1 and the impugned order in
W.P.No.100571/2024 dated 16.02.2018
produced at Annexure-D, stand quashed.
iii. The petitioner becomes entitled for all
consequential benefit that arose from the
quashment of the order."
2. The learned AGA Sri. Sharad V. Magadum
would not dispute the position of law as laid down by the
Coordinate Bench in the aforesaid judgment.
3. In the light of the aforesaid submission,
which is in unison, the petition deserve to succeed.
4. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the
following:
ORDER
i. Petition allowed.
ii. The impugned order dated 17.01.2025 vide
Annexures-H, H1 and H2 passed by
respondent No.6; order dated 22.01.2025
vide Annexures-J, J1 and J2 passed by
respondent No.4; and order dated 23.01.2025
vide Annexure-K and K1 passed by
respondent No.7 are stand quashed.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14761
HC-KAR
iii. The petitioners become entitled for all
consequential benefits that would flow from
the quashment of the order to be complied,
within a period of three months from the date
of receipt of a copy of the order."
3. In the light of the issue standing covered by the
judgment passed by this Court (supra), on all its fours and on
the same reasons, the subject petition also stands disposed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
VNP/CT-ASC
