Central Govt Employee's Caste Certificate Issued By State Govt Is To Be Verified By District Caste Verification Committee: Karnataka HC

A single judge, Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while dismissing the review petition filed by Sangappa M Bagewadi, challenging the order dated January 11, 2024, contending that matter could not be referred to the DCVC, or no direction could have been issued to the DCVC to initiate proceedings against the petitioner.

"What is also not to be lost sight of is that these caste certificates are not issued by any Central Government officer, but by a State Government officer like the Tahasildar and it is for the State Government to establish a proper system for issuance of caste certificates and verification of caste certificates thereof, which has been sought to be done by the State of Karnataka in terms of the Rules 1992. Of course, in view of the numerous litigations, which come up before this Court even those Rules need to be made robust. Especially by implementing the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case. In that view of the matter, I answer point No.2 by holding that, even if a person is a Central Government employee, the caste certificate having been issued by the Tahasildar-State Government, it is the DCVC, which will be the rightful authority to verify the caste certificate of such a Central Government Employee or proposed Central Government Employee," the court said.

The petitioner primarily submitted that he is an employee of South Western Railways, which is a Central Government undertaking and as such, no enquiry could be initiated against him under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation Of Appointment, etc.) Rules, 1992.

In terms of sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation Of Appointment, etc.) Act, 1990, would not be applicable to a Central Government undertaking. Reliance was also placed on circulars issued by the Central Government indicating that it is the District Magistrate, who can verify the caste certificate.

The respondents opposed the petition submitting that the caste certificate not having been issued by any Central Government Officer, but having been issued by the Tahasildar, it is only the State machinery, which can look into the same. The petitioner cannot claim that it is only the District Magistrate, who is required to conduct the verification.

Finally it was contended that verification of caste is a very serious issue, which would require anthropological moorings and ethnological kinship to be verified. These aspects cannot be appropriately and adequately done by a District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner, that is the reason why a DCVC has been constituted, which is a committee that has the necessary specialists to peruse through the same and pass necessary orders in terms of the Act and Rules.

Referring to Supreme Court judgments in Dayaram vs Sudhir Batham and Others, (2012) and Kumari Madhuri Patila and Anr. vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development And Ors, (1995) the court held, “Even if a caste certificate has been issued by a Tahasildar prior to the coming into the force of the Rules of 1992, it is the DCVC, who can verify the caste certificate in terms of the Rules of 1992 by following the due procedure. Thus, I answer point No.1 by holding that even if a caste certificate has been issued by a Tahasildar prior to the coming into the force of the Rules of 1992, it is the DCVC, who can verify the caste certificate in terms of the Rules of 1992 by following the due procedure”.

Findings:

The court rejected the petitioner's contention that he being a central government employee the DCVC cannot verify the certificate and the court refused to accept the contention that the Central Government Circulars which stated that it is the District Magistrate, District Collector and the Deputy Commissioner of the District who would verify the caste certificate, were binding.

The court said, “A perusal of the circulars would indicate that it is only with the Co-operation of the State Government that the serious matter of bogus, false, forged community certificates could be tackled. Thus, the recommendation made in the circulars by the Government of India is not a direction, which would apply to a State where there is a system which has been established for verification of a caste certificate.”

Following which it held “DCVC established under the Rules of 1992 being a comprehensive system of verification of caste certificates, the question of the circulars overriding those Rules and the verification insofar as Central Government employees are concerned to be done only by the Deputy Commissioner, cannot be accepted.”

Further, it said “The verification of the caste certificate being done in order to ascertain if the caste certificate is valid and genuine, the petitioner in my considered opinion ought not to have any fear, if his caste certificate is genuine irrespective of who the complainant is.”

Observing that “In terms of clause III of subsection (3) of Section 2 of the Act, which would indicate that Government company owned by both the State and Central Government is covered and in terms of clause V of subsection (3) of Section 2 of the Act, a statutory body or corporation established by or under a Central Act owned or controlled by the State Government would indicate that the said Act and Rules would apply even to the railways.”

The bench said “I am of the considered opinion that the order dated 11.01.2020 passed in WP No.109307 of 2016 does not suffer from any legal infirmity requiring review of said order in terms of Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908.”

The bench held “I am of the considered opinion that the Act of 1990 and Rules of 1992, would equally apply to the railways as indicated above.”

Accordingly it dismissed the petition.

Appearance: Advocate Vijaykumar for Petitioner

Advocate C Jadeesh for R1-R4.

Advocate Anuradha Deshpande FOR R5.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 62

Case Title: Sangappa M Bagewadi AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: REVIEW PETITION NO. 100100 OF 2024 (-) IN WRIT PETITION NO.109307 OF 2016.

Click Here To Read/Download The Order