Delayed Justice Is 'Dented': Karnataka High Court Fines State Officers ₹2 Lakh For Denying Caste Certificate To Lawyer By Defying Settled Law

"Justice Delayed Is Justice Dented", said the Karnataka High Court while imposing exemplary cost of Rs 2 Lakh on the Chairman, members of District Caste and Income Verification Committee of Hassan District for refusing to issue a caste and income certificate to an assistant Public Prosecutor, despite the law being settled on this aspect. 

The court underscored that the cost will be paid to the lawyer out of their own funds and not from State's funds, observing that the imposition of such cost is to be seen as a cautionary call to those who hold public office that dereliction cloaked in ignorance shall find no refuge before court. 

As per the petitioner the officials had declined to issue a Validity certificate validating the caste and income certificate already issued, to Muthulaxi B N, on the score that her husband's income is beyond the permissible threshold of grant of such certificate after she was selected to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor and was denied appointment for around 12 months. The refusal was contrary to Apex court and High Court judgments which have held that it is only the parents' income which has to be taken into consideration and not the husband's for issuing the certificate.

Justice M Nagaprasanna in his order said:

“For 12 long months, while others from the same select list stepped into service, the petitioner languished in anxious limbo. Her legitimate aspirations swept under the weight of official indifference.”

It added “Imposition of exemplary cost has become necessary in the peculiar facts of the case, not only to recompense the petitioner, but become a cautionary call to all those who hold public office, that dereliction cloaked in ignorance shall find no refuge before this Court.”

The State Government issued a notification calling for applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the posts of Assistant Public Prosecutors. The petitioner was selected as one of the Assistant Public Prosecutors under the Category 3A in terms of the select list dated 17-01-2023.

She then submitted all the copies of documents uploaded to the 4th respondent/Taluk Caste and Income Verification Committee. However, the authority refused to issue a Validity certificate and sent a communication to the Taluk Backward Caste and Income Verification Officer directing him to visit the house of the petitioner, conduct inspection and submit a report.

The said officer, on such a visit submitted a report that the husband of the petitioner was working as Lecturer in a private College and reports that the caste and income certificate should be based upon the income of the husband. This report resulted in denial of issuance of validity certificate to the petitioner.

It was stated that the petitioner began knocking at the doors of several fora of officers bringing to the notice of all those officers that the income of the husband cannot be taken for the purpose of determination, it is only the father's income that should be taken note of. It was stated that at every fora, the petitioner brought to their notice the judgments of the Apex Court and of the high court contending that it was a settled principle of law.

Notwithstanding this, it was stated that the authorities passed an order declining to issue a validity certificate to the caste and income certificate to the petitioner as coming under Category-3A, on the score that the income of the husband of the petitioner was beyond the threshold limit for grant of such certificate. Against this the lawyer approached the high court. 

During the pendency of the petition, the court had passed interim order last year following which the State Government issued the caste and income certificate to the petitioner.

On perusing the order dated 24-04-2024 the court said “The order is indicative of the fact that the Committee has issued a Validity Certificate only for the reason that this Court has directed to.”

Following which it observed, “Therefore, the observation undoubtedly amounts to admitting ignorance of law, as settled by the Apex Court and this Court and an act of contumacious contempt for having observed so that they are issuing the Validity Certificate only because this Court has directed. This Court's direction was to act in tune with law. Since the certificate is issued, this Court is holding its hands from initiating proceedings for contempt, but would undoubtedly mulct the members of the Committee with exemplary cost.”

It took note of the petitioner's submission that all others who were selected in terms of the same select list dated 17-01-2023 were given appointments. It is only the petitioner, on an erroneous presumption, was not given appointment along with others, and it was delayed by 12 months, the court noted.

The bench said “The State, as it is known for its wont, has again repeated the same mistake. The denial of validity certificate to the petitioner – the key that would unlock the door to her lawful appointment was premised on a legal fallacy, long buried by the judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court and that of this Court, yet the State in willful ignorance or negligent defiance, clung to the misbegotten interpretation, imputing the income of the spouse to determine the backwardness of a woman, born into an eligible category. The attitude of the State cannot be countenanced.”

The court observed that the petitioner's legitimate aspirations swept under the weight of official indifference.

“The petitioner whose documents were in order and whose claim was squarely covered under settled law, is left to knock on the bureaucratic doors, until her knuckles bled with frustration and had to approach this Court.It is the stern directions issued by this Court that awakened the State from slumber and issue a Validity Certificate, which was hers by right. The appointment then followed," the court further remarked. 

The court said that it cannot permit the curtain to fall on this matter with a mere note of closure. It said that the law was clear and precedent was binding, yet the Officers with impunity, chose to act in contravention.

"The members of the Committee who authored the document of miscarriage of justice must bear the burden for their folly," it added. 

The court thus directed the respondents to pay the cost amount to the petitioner in four weeks and said the petitioner also becomes entitled to all consequential benefits, except the salary and other monetary benefits.

Case Title: Muthulaxmi B N AND State of Karnataka & Others

Counsel for petitioner: Advocate A.R Sharadamba

Counsel for respondents: HCGP Spoorthy Hegde

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 228

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.10897 OF 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order