- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:139 WP No. 102708 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 102708 OF 2018 (SCST) BETWEEN: SMT. GEETHA NAGAPPA GONDA D/O. NAGAPPA GONDA, AGED ABOUT: 32 YEARS, R/AT: KANAMADLU BELKE, BHATKAL-581320, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R.NAGENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DIRECTOR SCHEDULED TRIBE WELFARE AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, 1ST FLOOR, LOTUS TOWERS, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560007. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT, KARWAR-581301. 3. SRI. NARAYANA V. SHIRURA DEPUTY SECRETARY, MISALATHI RAKSHAN VEDIKE KARNATAKA, VENAKATA NILAYA, HINDU COLONY, BHATKAL-581320, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.01.19 11:10:56 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:139 WP No. 102708 of 2018 DATED 22.02.2018 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.CR-6/2014-15 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AS PER ANNEXURE-"A" AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the order dated 22.02.2018 passed by the Director, Scheduled Tribe, Welfare and Appellate Authority (respondent No.1) in Appeal No.CR.6/2014-15, whereby the Castes Validity Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was set aside. Brief facts : 2. The petitioner claims to belong to the ‘Gonda’ community, recognized as a Scheduled Tribe, and was issued a Caste Certificate after due enquiry by the competent Tahasildar. The District Caste Verification Committee, upon verification of the records and materials, issued a Caste Validity Certificate dated 18.01.2013, signed by the Chairman, i.e., the Deputy Commissioner, in accordance with Form 1-A prescribed under the Rules. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:139 WP No. 102708 of 2018 3. Respondent No.3 preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority challenging the Validity Certificate. The Appellate Authority, by the impugned order dated 22.02.2018, allowed the appeal only on the ground that the order of the District Caste Verification Committee was not signed by all the members of the committee, without adjudicating the caste claim on merits and without considering the petitioners objections. Aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court. Petitioner’s contention: 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Rule 4 read with Form 1-A of the Karnataka Schedule Castes, Schedule Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, ETC.) Rules, 1992 (“Rules, 1992” for short) does not mandate signature of all committee members on the Caste Validity Certificate and the chairman's signature is sufficient. It is urged that the resolution of the committee was signed by all members, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:139 WP No. 102708 of 2018 evidencing due application of mind. The Appellate Authority committed a jurisdictional error by interfering on a non existent procedural requirement. It is submitted that respondent No.3 belonging to a Scheduled Caste, has no locus-standi to challenge the Scheduled Tribe Validity Certificate and thus the impugned order is passed without examining merits, genealogy or documentary evidence. Contentions of Respondent Nos.1 & 2-State : 5. The respondents justify the order of the Appellate Authority on the premise that Rule 4 requires constitution and participation of all members and absence of signatures render the order defective. It is contended that the procedural compliance is mandatory. A noncompliance vitiates the certificate. 6. Though respondent No.3 is served, he has chosen to remain absent. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:139 WP No. 102708 of 2018 7. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, the point that arises for consideration is: Whether the appellate authority was justified in setting aside the caste validity certificate solely on the ground of absence of signature of all committee members? Findings and reasons : 8. On perusal of the records and the impugned order, it is evident that the Appellate Authority has confined itself only to a technical aspect, namely the absence of signatures of all the committee members, and has not adjudicated the caste status of the petitioner on merits. Rule 4 of the Rules, 1992 reads thus: “4. Caste Verification Committee:- (1) There shall be a committee called the Caste Verification Committee for each district to verify the caste certificate issued in respect of the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The committee shall consist of the following members namely:- (1) The Deputy Commissioner of the District who shall be the Chairman; (2) The Deputy Secretary (Administration) of the Zilla Panchayat; - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:139 WP No. 102708 of 2018 (3) The Tahsildar of Taluk; (4) The District Social Welfare Officer who shall be the Member Secretary. Provided that the State Government may constitute an additional Caste Verification Committee for any district to verify the Caste Certificate issued in respect of the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes which shall consist of the following members, namely. (i) An officer not below the rank of Special Deputy Commissioner appointed by the State Government. Chairman (ii) The Assistant Commissioner of the Sub-Division Member (iii) The Tahsildar of the Taluk Member (iv) The District of Social Welfare Officer Member” 9. Rule 4 when read with Form 1-A, indicates that the Chairman of the Committee is authorized to sign the Validity Certificate. The Rules, 1992 do not expressly mandate that every member must sign the Certificate particularly when the resolution of the Committee reflects collective decision making. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:139 WP No. 102708 of 2018 10. Further the impugned order does not consider the petitioner's specific objections regarding the locus- standi of the appellant, which goes to the root of the maintainability of the appeal. Failure to examine this preliminary issue renders the impugned order unsustainable. The Appellate Authority, being a Quasi- Judicial Body was required to examine the entire matter holistically including the caste claim, documentary evidence and locus-standi. Having failed to do so, the impugned order is vitiated by non application of mind and procedural impropriety. Thus the following: ORDER (i) The repetition is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned order dated 22.02.2018 passed by the Director, Scheduled Tribe, Welfare and Appellate Authority (respondent No.1) in Appeal No.CR.6/2014-15 is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the Director, Scheduled Tribe, Welfare and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:139 WP No. 102708 of 2018 Appellate Authority (respondent No.1) for fresh consideration on merits, including the issue of locus-standi of the appellant (respondent No.3) and to decide the matter in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA EM Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65