- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50056 WP No. 15693 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.15693 OF 2017 (GM-CC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. PADMAVATHI W/O SANJEEV KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT LAKKAVALLI VILLAGE, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577128. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT, CHIKKAMAGALUR-577101. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TARIKERE SUB DIVISION, TARIKERE TALUK, TARIKERE-577228 CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT. Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50056 WP No. 15693 of 2017 4. THE TAHASILDAR TARIKERE , TARIKERE TALUK, TARIKERE-577228 CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT. 5. SMT.B.H.SUJATHA W/O L N RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC:HOUSE WIFE, R/AT LAKKAVALLI VILLAGE, LAKKAVALLI HOBLI-577128 TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. K.N. DAYALU, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CASTE APPEAL NO.1/2016/17 PENDING BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AS ILLEGAL AND ONE WITHOUT JURISDICTION VIDE ANNEXURE-E; 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 E.S.INDIRESH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50056 WP No. 15693 of 2017 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent-State and Sri. K.N. Dayalu, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the proceedings in Appeal No. 1 of 2016-17 pending consideration before Respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner, as per Annexure-E, on the ground that the petitioner has been declared by Respondent No. 4-Thasildar as belonging to the Agamudi caste, and the caste certificate issued by the competent authority was specifically for the purpose of contesting elections and not for employment or admission to educational institutions. Accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Sri. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the Caste Certificate at Annexure-A, contended that Respondent No.4 has certified that the petitioner belonged to the Agamudi caste. Based on this Caste Certificate, the petitioner contested for the member Taluk Board election and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50056 WP No. 15693 of 2017 was elected. The Caste Certificate issued by the competent authority was only for the purpose of contesting elections to local bodies and not for employment or educational admission. Thus, he sought interference of this Court. 4. Per contra, Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State submitted that the petitioner is required to exhaust the alternative remedy under Section 4(d) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment, etc.) Act, 1990, and accordingly sought dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Sri. K.N. Dayalu, learned counsel for Respondent No. 5, also sought dismissal of the writ petition. 6. In light of the submissions made, and on careful consideration of the writ petition, it is seen that Respondent No. 4 issued the Caste Certificate at Annexure-A identifying the petitioner as belonging to the Agamudi caste. The petitioner thereafter contested the local body elections. The Caste Certificate issued by Respondent No. 4 was questioned before - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50056 WP No. 15693 of 2017 Respondent No. 3 by the rival candidate in the election. Respondent No.3, by order dated 22.07.2016 (Annexure-C), remanded the matter to Respondent No.4. Even after such remand, Respondent No.4 confirmed the caste of the petitioner by order dated 08.08.2016 (Annexure-D), subject to the proceedings in O.S. No. 253 of 2016. 7. It is also noted that the proceedings before Respondent No. 4 were challenged before Respondents No. 2 and 3, and these proceedings are impugned in the present writ petition. A careful examination of the petition indicates that the petitioner sought issuance of a caste certificate solely for the purpose of contesting elections and not for educational admission or employment. 8. In this regard, this Court, in the case of Chikkanna v. District Social Welfare Officer, in W.P. No. 13173 of 2008 (decided on 23.01.2009), at paragraph 14, held as follows: “The said Act and Rules are enacted for the purpose of issuing caste certificate or validity certificate only in the event of the said certificate being made use of for appointment or for getting an admission to a course in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50056 WP No. 15693 of 2017 an educational institution. In the instant case, the petitioner has not made use of the caste certificate either for appointment in the State or Central Government or for admission in educational institution. He has made use of this certificate to support his contention that he belongs to scheduled tribe at the time of filing nomination papers to a reserved constituency. Therefore such cases are not covered under this Act. In that view of the matter, the impugned notice issued is one without jurisdiction. Hence, I pass the following order: The writ petition is allowed. The impugned notice is hereby quashed.” 9. The said aspect was further considered by this Court in W.P. No. 3019 of 2002, wherein it was held that the object of the aforementioned Act is to provide for reservation of appointments and admissions to educational institutions for members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes in the State Civil Services, Public Sector Establishments, and Educational Institutions. 10. In view of the above, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the proceedings before Respondent No. 3 in Appeal No. 1 of 2016- - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50056 WP No. 15693 of 2017 17 are without jurisdiction, in light of the orders passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1