- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:415 WP No. 28556 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 28556 OF 2012 (GM-CC) BETWEEN: SMT. G.O. REKHA W/O SRI TEJASVI AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS W/AS PROBATIONARY OFFICER IN JUNIOR MANAGEMENT GRADE SCALE-I SYNDICATE BANK, STJ CAMPUS, CHIKMANGALUR TOWN CHIKMANGALORE-577101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P N NANJA REDDY, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CHITRADURGA-577501. 3. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION CHITRADURGA. 4. THE TASHILDAR CHITRADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANITHA N., AGA) Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:415 WP No. 28556 of 2012 THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.07.2012 ISSUED BY THE R4 VIDE ANNX-N AND THE OPERATION OF THE OFFICE LETTER DATED 28.07.2012 VIDE ANNX-P AS THE SAME ARE ILLEGAL ARBITRARY AND IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF LAW AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT ORAL ORDER Petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the report of the Tahsildar dated 25.07.2012 whereunder the Backward Classes Caste Certificate issued to the petitioner dated 17.02.2009 is cancelled and subsequent endorsement of the Tahsildar dated 28.07.2012 with regard to cancellation of petitioner’s caste certificate. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.P.N.Nanja Reddy for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:415 WP No. 28556 of 2012 Smt.N.Anitha for respondents. Perused the writ petition papers. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner in obtaining the OBC certificate as at Annexure-D dated 17.02.2009. Further, he submits that while obtaining Annexure-D, Other Backward Classes Certificate for the purpose of employment in the Central Government i.e., respondent-Bank, the petitioner has not suppressed the caste and she by disclosing the caste i.e., Veerashaiva Lingayath, the petitioner has obtained the caste certificate. Further, learned counsel would submit that in fact, the petitioner belongs to Other Backward Classes for the purpose of employment in the State Government. For the purpose of employment in the Central Government, the caste of Veerashaiva Lingayath is not classified as backward classes. But, the caste of Veerashaiva Lingayath is classified as Other Backward Classes for the purpose of employment in State Government. The petitioner without - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:415 WP No. 28556 of 2012 any other intention, applied for Other Backward Classes Certificate for the purpose of employment in the Central Government and obtained the same. When there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner belongs to Veerashaiva Lingayath, the Tahsildar ought not to have cancelled the caste certificate. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition. 4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate Smt.N.Anitha would support the report of the Tahsildar and justifies the cancellation of caste certificate. Learned Additional Government Advocate would further submit that the caste certificate obtained by the petitioner was for the purpose of Central Government and for the said purpose, Veerashaiva Lingayath would not fall under Other Backward Classes. Thus, she prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:415 WP No. 28556 of 2012 of the view that the petitioner would not be entitled for any relief and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. A perusal of the caste certificate would indicate that the Tahsildar issued Backward Classes Certificate as at Annexure-D dated 17.02.2009, which was obtained by the petitioner, was forwarded to the Tahsildar for verification by the Bank. On verification and enquiry, the fourth respondent – Tahsildar by report dated 21.10.2011 cancelled the backward classes certificate issued to the petitioner on the ground that the ‘Veerashaiva Lingayath’ would not fall under Other Backward Classes for the purpose of employment in the Central Government. The said report was the subject matter of W.P.No.43188/2011. This Court remanded the matter to the Tahsildar for the purpose of affording an opportunity to the petitioner. After affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the Tahsildar submitted fresh report as at Annexure-N dated 25.07.2012. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:415 WP No. 28556 of 2012 7. A perusal of the report would indicate that initially OBC certificate as at Annexure-D dated 17.02.2009 was issued on the application submitted by the petitioner. In the application of the petitioner, she had stated that her caste as ‘Veerashaiva Lingayath’ and she obtained Other Backward Classes Certificate for the purpose of employment in the Central Government based on her caste as Veerashaiva Lingayath. The petitioner being a post graduate cannot say that she was not aware of the fact that Veerashaiva Lingayath caste would not fall under ‘Other Backward Classes’ for the purpose of employment in the Central Government. Having knowledge of the same, the petitioner could not have applied for OBC Certificate for employment in Central Government. The petitioner was provided with opportunity before cancelling the caste certificate by the Tahsildar. Admittedly, the caste certificate is not issued under the Karnataka SC/ST and Other BC (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.,) Act, 1990. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:415 WP No. 28556 of 2012 8. The Tahsildar had issued the OBC certificate, exercising his inherent power and after enquiry has withdrawn the Other Backward Classes Certificate dated 17.02.2009, which would not require any interference. Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0