M. V CHANDRAKANTH versus SANGAPPPA & ORS on 29 July 2022

222

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2022] 17 S.C.R.

A

M. V CHANDRAKANTH

v.

SANGAPPPA & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 4963 of 2022)

BJULY 29, 2022

[INDIRA BANERJEE AND J. K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]

Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Schedule Tribes and OtherBackward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 –Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Schedule Tribes and Other BackwardCClasses (Reservation of Appointment, etc.) Rules, 1992 – r.7 – SingleJudge dismissed the writ petition filed by respondent no.1 claimingthe benefit of reservation for Other Backward Classes as a memberof the ‘Ganiga’ caste – Order set aside by Division Bench –Correctness of – Held: Division Bench observed that the SingleDJudge also accepted that the caste of the Respondent might beLingayat-Ganiga but erred in arriving at the finding that Lingayat-Ganiga could not be construed Hindu Ganiga – It found that thefinding of the Single Judge that Hindu-Ganiga and Lingayat-Ganiga were two different castes was not acceptable – A Lingayatis also a Hindu – Also, materials on record show the caste of theEforefather and relatives of the Respondent No.1 as ‘Ganiger’ or‘Ganiga’ – ‘Ganiger’ is a variant of the word ‘Ganiga’ found innorth Karnataka region – Further, even if the Caste Certificate andthe Validity Certificate are ignored, there are materials including apre-constitution registered sale deed of the Respondent No.1’sFgrandfather showing his caste was ‘Ganiga’ – The document isrelevant, it proves the caste of the Respondent No.1 to be ‘Ganiga’– No ground to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of theDivision Bench.

Dismissing the appeal, the CourtG

HELD: 1.1 The Division Bench observed that from thefindings given by the Single Judge, it was apparent that the SingleJudge was also of the opinion that caste of the Respondent No.1was ‘Lingayat-Ganiga’. The Single Judge, however, held that hecould not claim reservation under Category II-A. The DivisionHBench accepted that ordinarily children belong to the caste of their father. The Division Bench, however, observed, in effect,that the Single Judge also accepted that the caste of theRespondent might be Lingayat-Ganiga but erred in arriving atthe finding Lingayat-Ganiga could not be construed Hindu Ganiga.The Division Bench analysed the facts of the case but found thatreservation to backward classes had not been introduced whenthe Respondent No.1’s father had been admitted to school in1953. By the time the Appellant came to be admitted to school,Reservation Policy for backward classes had been introduced.This could be the reason why the caste was not entered in theschool records of the Respondent No.1’s father where only‘Lingayat’ was mentioned but in the case of the Respondent No.1the caste was mentioned as ‘Hindu-Ganiga’. The Division Benchrightly held that, if the Respondent No.1’s father was, in fact,Ganiga, the mere fact that his caste may not have been mentionedin his school records, or elsewhere, would not mean that he wouldhave to be treated as a non-Ganiga by caste. It appears that thefinding of the Single Bench that the earlier notification in whichCategory II-A comprised many castes of which Ganiga was one,did not include Lingayat-Ganiga is misconceived. In theGovernment notification issued on 3rd March 2002, CategoryII-A comprised of Ganiga and other castes without referring toLingayat Ganigas. Subsequently, on 27th January 2009, an orderwas issued by the Government of Karnataka to the effect that 19sub-castes within Veerashaiva Lingayat were included in CategoryIII-B. One of the castes so brought under Category III-B wasLingayat/Veerashaiva-Ganiga. Subsequently, however theGovernment issued a Notification on 28th February 2009 to theeffect that the caste in Serial No.1 to 12 and 14 to 19 which wereincluded in Category III-B as per the order/notification dated27th January 2009 were deleted from the Category III-B andrestored to the earlier position prevailing before 27th January2009. [Paras 26, 29-31][230-D-E; 232-F-H; 233-A, E-G]

1.2 As observed by the Division Bench, the order dated27th January 2009 shows that 19 sub-castes of Lingayat/Veerashaiva were included in Category III-B. One of the sub-castes was ‘Lingayat/Veerashaiva-Ganiga’. However, by anothernotification issued within a month that is 28th February 2009, the ABC

D

EF

G

H

Acaste mentioned in Serial Nos. 1 to 12 and 14 to 19 Category III-B were deleted and the position prevailing before 27th January2009 was restored. Lingayat/Veerashaiva-Ganiga was deleted. Theintent of the order was to extend the benefit of reservation underCategory II-A to the Lingayat-Ganigas also. The Division Benchfound that the finding of the Single Judge that Hindu-Ganiga andBLingayat-Ganiga were two different castes was not possible toaccept. A Lingayat is also a Hindu governed by the HinduSuccession Act 1956, the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, the HinduMinority and Guardianship Act 1956 and the Hindu Adoption andMaintenance Act 1956. The caste of the Respondent No.1 wasCthus shown as ‘Hindu-Lingayat’ in the school registers by theRespondent No.1’s father. The Division Bench was correct in itsfinding that, the mere fact that the Caste Verification Committeegave a report of about 16 candidates in a few days cannot be areason to doubt the correctness of the report. The Division Benchfound that the report was made in accordance with the provisionsDof SC/ST and OBC Reservation Act. Furthermore, during thependency of the Writ Petition, Respondent No.1 produced aregistered document of the year 1909 where the caste of thegreat grandfather of the Respondent No.1 was shown as ‘Ganiger’.The said document was taken on record by the Writ Court, but Ethere was no discussion about it in the impugned order. Thedocument is relevant in that it proves the caste of the RespondentNo.1 to be ‘Ganiga’. ‘Ganiger’ is a variant of the word ‘Ganiga’found in north Karnataka region. Respondent No.1 had also reliedupon caste certificates issued to the relatives of the RespondentNo.1 showing their caste as ‘Ganiga’. [Paras 32-35][233-H; 234-FA-F]

1.3 The Respondent No.1 also referred to an order of thisCourt in Lawrence Salvador D’Souza v. State of Maharashtra &Ors. (Civil Appeal No.6539/2016), where this Court directed theCommittee to consider the caste certificate of the niece of theGAppellant in that case for making a report about his caste. In thiscase, the Appellant has produced a number of caste certificatesof his relatives indicating their caste as ‘Hindu-Ganiga’. Afterperusing the documents produced, this Court held that since thecaste of the forefather of the Appellant was mentioned asH‘Ganiger’, an inference may be drawn with the help of this document that the caste of the Appellant was also ‘Ganiga’. Thedecision of the Civil Enforcement Cell not to initiate theprosecution may have been against the directions issued by theRespondent No.2. The decision however, was justified,considering the materials on record showing the caste of theforefather and relatives of the Respondent No.1 as ‘Ganiger’ or‘Ganiga’. Even if the Caste Certificate and the Validity Certificateare ignored, there are materials including a pre-constitutionregistered sale deed of the Respondent No.1’s grandfathershowing his caste was ‘Ganiga’. Considering that the disputespertaining to the case of the Respondent No.1 has been going onfor years, the Division Bench rightly did not remand the matterto the Respondent No.2 for adjudication. We find absolutely noground to interfere with the judgment. [Paras 36-38][234-G-H;235-A-C]

Somashekha rVeerappa B.Murgod v. State of Karnatakaand Another AIR 1980 Karnataka 62;Prabhushankar K.V. v. Selection Committee for Medical Colleges &others(1981) 1 Kant.L.J. 255; Lawrence SalvadorD’Souza v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Civil Appeal No.6539/2016 – referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.4963of 2022.

From the Judgment and Order dated 31.03.2021 of the High Courtof Karnataka at Dharwad Bench in W.A. No.100388 of 2017 (GM-CC).

Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv., Shailesh Madiyal, Ms. Neha Jain, Ms.Surabhi Guleria, Advs. for the Appellant.

C. A. Sundaram, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Advs., H. ChandraSekhar, Ms. Rekha Chandrasekhar, Ram Sankar, Advs. for theRespondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by INDIRA BANERJEE, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is against a judgment and final order dated 31[st]March 2021 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A(Dharwad Bench), allowing Writ Appeal No.100388 of 2017(GM-CC)filed by the Respondent No.1 and setting aside an order dated 13[th] June2017 passed by the Single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No.1449 of2006 (GM-CC) filed by the Respondent No.1 claiming the benefit ofreservation for Other Backward Classes as a member of the ‘Ganiga’

caste.B

3. By a Government Orderbeing G.O. No. SWD 150 BCA 94dated 17[th] September 1994, the Government of Karnataka formulated aReservation Policy, for ‘Scheduled Castes’, ‘Scheduled Tribes’ and ‘OtherBackward Classes’ for admission to professional courses for the year1994-95, which is hereinafter referred to as the “Reservation Policy”.As per the Reservation Policy the percentage of reservation was asfollows:- C

4. By a Government Order being G.O.No.SWD 251 BCA 94 dated31[st] January 1995, the Reservation Policy was made applicable toemployment under the State.

5. In 1999, the Appellant as well as the Respondent No.1 appliedfor Group A and Group B posts of GazettedProbationary Officers claimingthe benefit of reservation under Category II-A of the Reservation Policy.

F

6. While the Appellant claimed reservation under Category II-Aas a ‘Kuruba’ by caste, the Respondent No.1 claimed Reservation as a‘Hindu Ganiga’ by caste.

G

7. On or about 31[st] December 1999, a certificate was issued tothe Respondent No.1 from the office of the Tehsildar, Bagalkot certifyingthat the Respondent No.1 belonged to the Ganigasub-caste. TheRespondent No.1 applied for the Group A and Group B posts of GazettedProbationary Officer, on the strength of the aforesaid certificate.H

8. On or about 30[th] March 2002, the Government of Karnatakaissued an order in terms whereof the Lingayat Ganigawas excludedfrom the benefit of reservation to the ‘Ganiga’ sub-caste under CategoryII-A, and placed under Category III-B.

9. On or about 7[th] October 2005, the Karnataka Public ServiceCommission (KPSC) published the provisional list of candidates selectedfor the Group A and Group B posts of Probationary Officers. Afterpublication of the provisional list on 7[th] October 2005, KPSC sent thecaste certificate of the Respondent No.1 to the Respondent No.3 forverification. On 21[st] October 2005, the Respondent No.3 issued acertificate validating the caste certificate submitted by the RespondentNo.1.

10. KPSC notified the final list of selected candidates on 29[th]November 2005. The Appellant was selected for the post of DeputySuperintendent of Police and the Respondent No.1 was selected for thepost of Assistant Commissioner (Junior Grade Scale). Both the Appellantand the Respondent No.1 were selected under the Reserved CategoryII-A of the Reservation Policy. The Respondent No.1 secured 1152 marksand was placed at Sl. No. 15 in the category of posts of AssistantCommissioner,whereas the Appellant secured 1151 marks and was placedat 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 theRespondent No.1’s father belonged to the ‘Lingayat’ caste whereas theRespondent No.1 had claimed the benefit of reservation under CategoryII-A of the Reservation Policy claiming that he belonged to the ‘Ganiga’caste. The Appellant contends that the ‘Lingayat’ caste including thesub-castes thereof fall under Category III-B with 5% reservation whereasHindu Ganiga falls under Category II-A with 15% reservation.

12. The Appellant filed an appeal under Section 4D of theKarnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other BackwardClasses (Reservation ofAppointments, etc.) Act, 1990, hereinafterreferred to as “SC/ST and OBC Reservation Act”before the RespondentNo.2 challenging the Caste Validity Certificate issued to the RespondentNo.1 by the Respondent No.3. In the said appeal, the Appellant enclosedthe school extract of Government Higher Primary School, Honnihala,Bagalokote wherein the caste of the Respondent No.1’s father wasrecorded as ‘Hindu Lingayat’.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

A13. The Appellant alleges that Respondent No.3 issued the ValidityCertificate dated 21[st] October 2005 in undue haste, with scant regard tothe procedure laid down in Rule 7 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes,Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (ReservationofAppointment, etc.) Rules 1992, hereinafter referred to as “KarnatakaSC/ST and OBC Reservation Rules “.B

14. By an interim order dated 5[th] December 2005, the RespondentNo.2 stayed the Validity Certificate issued to the Respondent No.1 untilfurther orders. Thereafter, the Respondent No.2 called for the recordsfrom the Respondent No.1. Notices were also issued to the Head Mastersof the concerned schools for production of original school admissionCregisters pertaining to the Respondent No.1 and his father.

15. After hearing the parties and perusing the records, theRespondent No.2 passed an order dated 23[rd]January 2006, concludingthat the Respondent No.1 belonged to the ‘Hindu Lingayat’ caste as hewould inherit the caste of his father. Relying on the school register of theDRespondent No.1’s father of the year 1953, his High School records andthe Service Register of DCC Bank where he (the Respondent No.1’sfather) had worked as Supervisor, the Respondent No.2 cancelled theValidity Certificate. The Respondent No. 2 inferred that the entries inthe school records of the Respondent No.1 had been made in the yearE1982, with a view to obtain the benefit of reservation.

16. Being aggrieved, the Respondent No.1 filed the aforesaid writpetition being Writ Petition No.1449 of 2006 (GM-CC) in the KarnatakaHigh Court at Dharwad on or about 27[th] January 2006 and obtained aninterim order of status quo. The Appellant filed a Counter AffidavitFenclosing extract of the school records of the Respondent No.1’s fathershowing that he belonged to the Hindu Lingayat caste.

17. On or about 1[st]February 2006, the Government issuedappointment orders of the selected candidates. The Appellant wasappointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police under II-A Category. On13[th] February 2006, the Respondent No.2 directed the Civil RightsEnforcement Cell to initiate prosecution against the Respondent No.1under Rule 7A of the Karnataka SC/ST and OBC Reservation Rulesfor having obtained false certificate under Category II-A.

G

18. On or about 21[st] June 2006, the Civil Rights EnforcementCell, after conducting an enquiry into the caste of the Respondent No.1, H

submitted a report to the effect that the Respondent No.1 belonged tothe ‘Ganiga’ caste, and therefore no prosecution could be initiated againsthim.

19. On 11[th] July 2007, the Respondent No. 1 was appointed to thepost of Assistant Commissioner. According to the Appellant, theappointment was in violation of the status quo order granted by the HighCourt in Writ Petition No.1449 of 2006. The Respondent No.2 filed acounter statement to the Writ Petition in the High Court of Karnataka.

20. On or about 27[th] January 2009, the Government of Karnatakaissued an order,whereby 19 sub-castes within the ‘Veerashaiva Lingayat’caste were included in Category III-B of the Reservation Policy. Thesub-castes included ‘Ganiga’ sub caste of the ‘Veerashaiva Lingayat’caste. As against 15% reserved for Category II-A, only 5% of the postswere reserved for Category III-B.

21. By an order dated 28[th] February 2009, the Government ofKarnataka reverted the position of reservation of some of the sub-castesof the Veerashaiva Lingayat caste except ‘Lingayath/Veerashaiva-VeerashaivaPanchamashali’ in Serial No.13 to the position existing priorto the order dated 27[th] January 2009. The sub-castes included the ‘Ganiga’sub-caste of the Veerashaiva Lingayat caste. The ‘Lingayat’ castecontinued to remain in Category III-B.

22. On 4[th] July 2013, the Appellant was promoted to the post ofSuperintendent of Police (Non-IPS) based on Seniority-cum-Merit. On24[th] March 2017, the Appellant was appointed to the KarnatakaAdministrative Service (Junior Scale) with effect from 1[st] February 2006by creation of supernumerary post by the State Government. The StateGovernment had placed the matter before the Cabinet and the Cabinettook the decision to appoint the Appellant with retrospective effect witheffect from 1[st] February 2006 with all consequential benefits in the cadreof Karnataka Administrative Service (Junior Scale). The Appellant joinedservice in the cadre of Karnataka Administrative Service (Junior Scale)on 30[th] March 2017.

23. By an order dated 13[th] June 2017, the Writ Petition filed bythe Respondent No.1 was dismissed by the Single Judge. The SingleJudge came to the conclusion that the Respondent No.1 belonged to theHindu Lingayat caste as his father’s school records reveal that his fatherwas a Lingayat or Lingavantha. The Single Bench found that the caste AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A‘Ganiga’ was to be found both in Category II-A and III-B. There was alot of difference in the two entries. There was reservation of 15% forpersons in Category II-A but 5% for persons in Category III-B. TheSingle Bench was of the view that the caste ‘Ganiga’ in Category II-Awas not equivalent to Lingayat Ganiga sub-caste of Lingayat.

B24. Being aggrieved, the Respondent No.1 impugned the order ofdismissal by filing Writ Appeal No. 100388 of 2017 in the Division Benchof the High Court.

25. By the impugned judgment and order dated 31[st] March 2021,the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court (Dharwad Bench) allowedCthe Writ Appeal filed by the Respondent No.1, set aside the order of theSingle Judge passed in Writ Petition No.1149 of 2006 and quashed theorder of Respondent No.2. In the meanwhile, on 20[th] September 2019,the Appellant was promoted to the Senior Scale in the KarnatakaAdministrative Service.

D26. The Division Bench observed that from the findings given bythe Single Judge, it was apparent that the Single Judge was also of theopinion that caste of the Respondent No.1 was ‘Lingayat-Ganiga’. TheSingle Judge, however, held that he could not claim reservation underCategory II-A. The Division Bench accepted that ordinarily childrenbelong to the caste of their father. The Division Bench, however, observed,Ein effect, that the Single Judge also accepted that the caste of theRespondent might be Lingayat-Ganiga but erred in arriving at the findingLingayat-Ganigacould not be construed Hindu Ganiga.

27. The Division Bench referred to the judgments of KarnatakaHigh Court in Somashekhar Veerappa B. Murgod v. State ofFKarnataka and Another[1]and Prabhushankar K. V. v. SelectionCommittee for Medical Colleges & others[2]. In SomashekharVeerappa B. Murgod (supra), the Single Bench held:- “6. The evidence recorded and the conclusion reached bythe Commission, in particular the underlined portions, clearlyGdisclose that in the State there is a community which is called‘KuruhinaSetty’. The hereditary avocation of this communityis ‘neyge’(weaving). At some point of time in the past some ofthe Kuruhina Settys adopted Veerashaiva or Lingayat faith.

1 AIR 1980 Karnataka 62

H2 (1981) 1 Kant.L.J. 255

Among KuruhinaSettys, there are both vegetarians and non-vegetarians and those who have adopted Lingayat faith arevegetarians. From the finding recorded by the Commission, itis clear that all persons belonging to KuruhinaSetty communityare considered as backward irrespective of the fact that someof them are Lingayats and others are not. The petitioner hasclaimed that he is a KuruhinaSetty, though he is a Lingayat.He had also produced certificate issued by the Tahasildar inwhich it is specifically stated that the petitioner belongs toKuruhinaSetty Community. The only reason given by theSelection Committee for rejecting the claim of the petitioneris that in the transfer certificate produced by the petitioner,the community of the petitioner is given as Lingayat. Even thepetitioner does not dispute that he is a Lingayat. The fact thathe is a Lingayat does not mean that he does not belong toKuruhinaSetty community. As pointed out by the commission,among persons belonging to KuruhinaSetty community somehave become Lingayats, but all of them are considered andidentified as belonging to backward community. Therefore, aKuruhinaSetty who has become a Lingayat is not disentitledto the benefit of reservation. In this behalf it is necessary toset out the relevant portion in the appendix-1 to GovernmentOrder No. ED 44 TGL 77, Bangalore, dated 18[th] May, 1977,which sets out all the communities falling under the categoryof Neygi who are considered as Backward Community. Therelevant portion reads:

“(i) BACKWARD COMMUNITIES

XXX XXXXXXXXX

10. Neygi :Kuruhinasetti, Bilimagga, Thogata, Seniga,Jamkhana, Ayiri, Avir, Sale, Padmasale, Saale,Kaikolan, Neikar, Jadar, Jandra, Swakulasale.”

***

9. In the result, I hold that every person who belongs toKuruhinaSetty community whether a Lingayat or not belongsto Backward community for the purpose of the GovernmentOrder, and can claim the benefit of special provisions subjectto the income test prescribed in the Government Order and, ABC

D

E

F

G

H

A

therefore, the Selection Committee erred in rejecting the claimof the petitioner for selection to 1[st] Year M.B.B.S. Course asagainst seats reserved for Backward Communities.”

28. In Prabhushankar v. Selection Committee for MedicalColleges (supra), a Single Bench of Karnataka High Court held:- B

“6. In my view there is nothing unnatural in the conduct ofthe petitioner or his parents in not indicating that thepetitioner apart from being a Lingayat also belonged toGaniga Community, as no one knew at that stage that specialprovisions would be made in their favour and omission to doso does not preclude the petitioner from claiming the benefitof reservation if in truth the petitioner belongs to Ganigacommunity as indicated in the certificate issued by theTahsildar who is the competent authority to issue the necessarycertificate.

C

C

D7. In the face of the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, it wasnot open for the Selection Committee to reject the claim of thepetitioner on the mere ground that in the transfer certificatethe community of the petitioner was shown as Lingayat as thepossibility of a Lingayat being a Ganiga could not be excluded.Therefore in the absence of any other material evidenceEbefore the Selection Committee on the basis of which it couldhave come to the conclusion that the positioner did not belongto Ganiga Community, the application could not have beenrejected.Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to thereconsideration of his case.”

D

F

29. The Division Bench analysed the facts of the case but foundthat reservation to backward classes had not been introduced when theRespondent No.1’s father had been admitted to school in 1953. By thetimethe Appellant came to be admitted to school, Reservation Policy forbackward classes had been introduced. This could be the reason whyGthe caste was not entered in the school records of the Respondent No.1’sfather where only ‘Lingayat’ was mentioned but in the case of theRespondent No.1 the caste was mentioned as ‘Hindu-Ganiga’

30. The Division Bench rightly held that, if the Respondent No.1’sfather was, in fact,Ganiga, the mere fact that his castemay not havebeen mentioned in his school records, or elsewhere, would not meanH

that he would have to be treated as a non-Ganiga by caste. The DivisionBench referred to a report of the Karnataka Backward ClassesCommission constituted under the Chairmanship of L.J. Havanur and inparticular Paragraph 11 thereof which reads:- “11. Veerashaivas (Lingayats) claim to belong to a religionof their own, though legally they are considered as a Hindudenomination. It originated by uniting certain caste-blocks,and has grown by adding new ones which did not accept theprinciple of status or rank ascribed by birth. The unit ofendogamy amongst veerashaivas in principle, is theirdenominational community, but in the process of expandingitself into a still larger community, it has allowed, perhaps,the new entrants to retain their autonomy and identity. Thatappears to be the reason why we find separate religious headsand monasteries of each section widespread in the State. Thecases of those caste-units who have not yet been whollyassimilated into, or are half-way to, the Veerashaiva communitybut who could be readily identified and whose populationcould be ascertained have been considered separately. Suchcases include the Ganigas (oil pressers), the Kumbaras(potters), the Kshowrikas (barbers), the Agasas (washermen),some Neygis (weavers), etc.”

31. It appears that the finding of the Single Bench that the earliernotification in which Category II-A comprised many castes ofwhichGaniga was one, did not include Lingayat-Ganiga is misconceived.In the Government notification issued on 3[rd] March 2002, Category II-Acomprised of Ganiga and other castes without referring to LingayatGanigas. Subsequently, on 27[th]January 2009, an order was issued by theGovernment of Karnataka to the effect that 19 sub-castes withinVeerashaiva Lingayat were included in Category III-B. One of the castesso brought under Category III-B was Lingayat/Veerashaiva-Ganiga.Subsequently, however the Government issued a Notification on 28[th]February 2009 to the effect that the caste in Serial No.1 to 12 and 14 to19 which were included in Category III-B as per the order/notificationdated 27[th] January 2009 were deleted from the Category III-B andrestored to the earlier position prevailing before 27[th] January 2009.

32. As observed by the Division Bench, the order dated 27[th] January2009 shows that 19 sub-castes of Lingayat/Veerashaiva were included A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ain Category III-B. One of the sub-castes was ‘Lingayat/Veerashaiva-Ganiga’. However, by another notification issued within a month that is28[th] February 2009, the caste mentioned in Serial Nos. 1 to 12 and 14 to19 Category III-B were deleted and the position prevailing before 27[th]January 2009 was restored. Lingayat/Veerashaiva-Ganigawas deleted.The intent of the order was to extend the benefit of reservation underBCategory II-A to the Lingayat-Ganigas also.

33. The Division Bench found that the finding of the Single Judgethat Hindu-Ganiga and Lingayat-Ganigawere two different castes wasnot possible to accept. A Lingayat is also a Hindu governed by the HinduSuccession Act 1956, the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, the Hindu MinorityCand Guardianship Act 1956 and the Hindu Adoption and MaintenanceAct 1956. The caste of the Respondent No.1 was thus shown as ‘Hindu-Lingayat’ in the school registers by the Respondent No.1’s father.

34. The Division Bench was correct in its finding that, the merefact that the Caste Verification Committee gave a report of about 16Dcandidates in a few days cannot be a reason to doubt the correctness ofthe report. The Division Bench found that the report was made inaccordance with the provisions of SC/ST and OBC Reservation Act.

35. Furthermore, during the pendency of the Writ Petition,Respondent No.1 produced a registered document of the year 1909 whereEthe caste of the great grandfather of the Respondent No.1 was shownas ‘Ganiger’. The said document was taken on record by the Writ Court,but there was no discussion about it in the impugned order. The documentis relevant in that it proves the caste of the Respondent No.1 to be‘Ganiga’. ‘Ganiger’ is a variant of the word ‘Ganiga’ found in northFKarnataka region. Respondent No.1 had also relied upon castecertificates issued to the relatives of the Respondent No.1 showing theircaste as ‘Ganiga’.

36. The Respondent No.1 also referred to an order of this Courtin Lawrence Salvador D’Souza v. State of Maharashtra &Ors. (CivilGAppeal No.6539/2016), where this Court directed the Committee toconsider the caste certificate of the niece of the Appellant in that casefor making a report about his caste. In this case, the Appellant hasproduced a number of caste certificates of his relatives indicating theircaste as ‘Hindu-Ganiga’. After perusing the documents produced, thisCourt held that since the caste of the forefather of the Appellant wasH

M. V. CHANDRAKANTH v. SANGAPPPA & ORS.[INDIRA BANERJEE, J. ]

mentioned as ‘Ganiger’, an inference may be drawn with the help ofAthis document that the caste of the Appellant was also ‘Ganiga’.

37. The decision of the Civil Enforcement Cell not to initiate theprosecution may have been against the directions issued by theRespondent No.2. The decision however, was justified, considering thematerials on record showing the caste of the forefather and relatives ofthe Respondent No.1 as ‘Ganiger’ or ‘Ganiga’. Even if the CasteCertificate and the ValidityCertificate are ignored, there arematerialsincluding a pre-constitution registered sale deed of theRespondent No.1’s grandfather showinghis caste was ‘Ganiga’.

B

38. In our considered opinion, the well reasoned judgment andorder of the Division Bench does not call for interference. Consideringthat the disputes pertaining to the case of the Respondent No.1 has beengoing on for years, the Division Bench rightly did not remand the matterto the Respondent No.2 for adjudication. We find absolutely no groundto interfere with the judgment. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

C

D

Divya Pandey and Amarendra Kumar(Assisted by : Pragya Samal, LCRA)

Appeal dismissed.

E

F

G

H