- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:720 WP No. 103987 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO.103987 OF 2018 (GM-CC) BETWEEN: SMT. SUDHA D/O. SHIVAPPA MAKARI, NOW MARRIED AND CALLED AS SUDHA W/O. PRABHAKAR PATIL, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, APPOINTED AS ANGANAWADI FEMALE SUPERVISOR IN THE DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT, R/O: SOMANAHALLI, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI, PRESENTLY WORKING AT DAVANAGERE, AS WOMEN SUPERVISOR IN CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICE, DAVANAGERE. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAMACHANDRA V. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI F. V. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER FOR BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE DEPARTMENT/ APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR CASTE AND INCOME CERTIFICATE VERIFICATION, NO.16/D, 3RD FLOOR, DEVAAJ ARAS BHAVAN, MILLERS TANK BED AREA, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 52. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:720 WP No. 103987 of 2018 2. THE CHAIRMAN OF DISTRICT CASTE AND INCOME VERIFICATION COMMITTEE, HAVERI REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/ MEMBER SECRETARY, CASTE AND INCOME VERIFICATION COMMITTEE, HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI. 3. THE TAHASILDAR, HIREKERUR, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI. 4. THE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGLAURU. 5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, DAVANAGERE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHARADA V. MAGADUM, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.07.2016 BRG.NO.DBCM/SINDHUTVA/ CR-19/2010-11 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-L. ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.05.2018 BRG.NO.HIVAKAE/MAASHAA/CR-57/2016-17 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:720 WP No. 103987 of 2018 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: i) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 19.07.2016 brg.no.DBCM/SINDHUTVA/CR-19/2010-11 passed by the respondent no.2 vide Annexure-L. ii) Issue writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 26.05.2018 BRG.No.HIVAKAE/MAASHAA/CR-57/2016-17 passed by the Respondent No.1 Vide Annexure – M in the interest of justice and equity. iii) Pass any such other order or orders as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice and equity. 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: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:720 WP No. 103987 of 2018 “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. 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 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:720 WP No. 103987 of 2018 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 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. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:720 WP No. 103987 of 2018 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.” 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. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:720 WP No. 103987 of 2018 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 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 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:720 WP No. 103987 of 2018 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 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: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:720 WP No. 103987 of 2018 ORDER i. Petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 19.07.2016 passed by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-L & the order dated 26.05.2018 passed by the respondent No.1 vide Annexure – M stand quashed. iii. The petitioner becomes entitle for all consequential benefit that arose from the quashment of the order. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KGK/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2