IN THE HIGH comm cm KARNATAKA AT BAp;'<éAi;Q}é§ET' ~
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAYQFf~1AR.CH' 2ékj3 ""T _' ,
BEFORE % _
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTJQE BoP;§,j§r::5.A&%V
WRIT mrmou NO. 25§75;2go5((GMgCo)VAk
MAHADE'.'A .
s/0 NIJAPPA J51; NNAVAR _ _ V_
AGEDABOUT%4'}Y;;?':%*.P:S'-- "
NOW DEPUTY mREcToR..op" I ..
FACTGRIES', _BELGAU}€fl'}I4'.'E$E0l'§
N0 171'§!._r.)AT'T'A s:msAnA'I3u::;n11s:G
GLUE33c'fJAD',*1-"iE3L%UP¢.€-6*}. " PET.--IQNER
:1, 1-»..:.'A«'.3»
11-5 :1 IV" 1-1-,'-pr-n
uzsy asr1::S
AND; : »
A 1 ?R§NG1PAL"S§EU'R'ETARY
_ DEPT 'Cr? SOC:iAL WELFARE
" J. M 3u1_LD;Nc:, BANGALORE
DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULED TRIBES
. WELFIKRE AND PLP'P'fl'}LLi\'T"I§3 t'\U"i"ri(TvRi'i"I'
, BANGALORE, 2 FLOOR
KRIS}-II B}-IAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE
BANGALORE
3 DEPUTY C'-OMMISIONER AND CI-IARIMAN
DISTRICP CASFE VF)!"-'.iB_"iC3PCTi(f3'i\i
COMMITTEE. BIJAPUR
4 THE TAHSILDAR
1
4':
BASAVANA BAGEWADI
TALUK B' -'M''"* "A BAGEWADI
l.I.h.nI1'l|.au.|
BIJAPUR ...;9EsPO;9O9niT9 9' 9'
(By S-ri: C JAGADISH, ADV. FOR R1 4 *
':':'':''i: H M l'v';'Ai'-IJ'-JN.-'%.'i'!--I, HCG9. FOR E. "E0 4}
5'
'i'I-HS wan' PETITEQN :9 9:999 ; .
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF' END! WITH A; .
QUAE-"EH ORDERS ,--'r?r'~LSSE'.{}**'*§'fP--. PJ9€V=L !N._-,A.PFEA'- ND
GDP/BCM/A P-4-2001-9009 Da'*L'I'E_D 9*-29.712005 PASSED E? 'R9
APPELLATE £'\U"i"'riOt'%i'i":' '";'HEREB'?,V :.CG?3F'1RI%§!NG_ THE ORDER.
PASSED BY THE R3 DEPUTY' c0MMISsIOI§ER_'_~OF BIJAPUR IN
N0.'2.57$--2000-EGG-1 DATEE':-21.9.2000 VI WHEREBY
WHO HAS co}99z12rgzED£;THE.,OIeOER'_--VvxOE:~ANx4O PASSED BY
THE R4 TAHA%3ILDFxR.1N rv19O;'OR4:4;*--1991; 1999-93 DATED
18.3.1993
SET ‘mpg;-._g.._V ‘ »
This ongfor hearing, this day, the
Courtimacle. VfO1iOwi::14g*~:_VV’ _ –
5 — -The 19étiiiO1n91* is béfore this Court seelcjxig for issue Of
‘ ‘~ ., g 5a§i’cxertioraH14iVViid’tV1uaah the Orders dated 29.7.2005 and
are at Annextwea-L and G respectively.
” have heard Sn’ S.S.KOti, learned 9 counsel
V ‘A for the pefitzioncr and Sri C..Jagadial1, learned I:
“‘..VOOui1scl for the 1~csponclent.Noa-. 1 to 4.
as $3.’.—._
3. Having heard the respective learned ~
perused the writ papem. –
4. The case of the petitioner t1i§itA~iie ia a
-…eid.e11t: of Chimmalagi vfl1age,””~Besavafi:a 13a*g’§’Av.}ra:;¢:.:.V,f1*:=.iu1¢, »
Bijapur Diet.-‘let. .A.-.1_y_1t_1i;1g to__ ‘1:»_etiti.¢j»1’ie1j_hevf%.~:a11d his
paxents as Wei’: as h’-s i’e:iz=.t.is?ee .3911′ or ‘Ambiga’
caste as ge11era1’iy’ Tue w.L*.ir.1n-__.r
has also the said iTv”i’ii’:5. It
is in that he belong to ST
categegy __’I’o;khri Kali’. He has aocoldingly
secured’ =t1:1:e» issued by the Taheiklar on
1Eg,f_l;i’3_81 _’o;n” tliatbasi-3, employment has also been
‘A «seen. Lie petitioner.
Wilen 111i’ w’*a me meifien, t…e is said to ‘
have vieéued a show cause no”e* cla’-rd 2.4.1992 and t..e
Cell, Belgaum has also initiated proceedings. ‘\Fv’h'”1
such notice was issued, the petitiener was befole this Court
in W.P.No.7670]1993. This Court had by its older dated
1 —
?:
22.3.1993 stayed the furt]1er proceedings in
1 any event, despite the petition K1′
1:. said to have passed the ¢me:o1s.3.t19§3;tj 1
Sauyequent thezeto, the matte1f_v4ha.=_zs been by the 2 1″
st” ‘v’e”‘Lt’1″”t?’.on ae”~t1_1c Appellate
6. Apart other eonteiifionatzraieeci by the _ Q.
being ‘e_’ntit1ec1 to the
caste “belongs to the caste, the ‘
petitioner». ptlmst a1sej–.u§ge;i” the plinciples of natural
-_i_oe the order has been passed without” ‘
and despite the pendency of the
petitioti ‘before this Cour’ b*i11g-‘oroufit. to .115 n..’ti.–e= _-_v’_n ._
x the sub”seque11t notice is meeivcti by the’pefifiofiEf :~.iflei’ “*-e? T-
t,.V”pIoeeedings was concluded by the Deputy Gonlmieaioner. in
any event, the ultimate contention raised by the petitionereis
that the caste certificate being issued on 15.1.1981 and.-“the
I
3;
SC] ST] OBC (Reselvation and Appointments) ‘
having come into three only on» K x
Velification Committee as well as;°;tl1e_A
eeI.-_d have exercised the juliecliiatgion enly 1’11 the r L’
caste eertitleate issue’. _eI….§.ter_}.1t:__,A”‘1;.._tt.1a”..tVl:1e eaiflgvdatef. In the
ixlstant case, the maid fact have exemieed
the ju1i:9;die1:ioI1,_:’It;1ore m- dmiien
Iendereq by ..11er;.et;1ie.7s36/2001. It is
coxateeded v_ * the Sqcial Welfare
Depee:;eeetAitee11<1.1;fee' e' notification dated 30.5.2007
stating ltthextzt tlie 'V Committee and the
Apyeflate Alltiiflfitjl we111cl not have jurisdiction in respect of
V eeee 1e-eeecl prior to 11.11.1993. 11. is the
i
.ieS:1i1fig. wl1icl'1 1:-.*.r1–fir? 1:-…v.. t_,… juxieclieiion.
. The learned counsel fer the Iespexident-3 t".'1'11"._-11¢
to justify the order passed by the C.'-aete Veriiieetion
U fcommittee as well as the Appellate Authority, on the aspect
of the decision xendered by the Division Bench of-this Court,
1
13
was not able to contend that, in the present oeee, *
Caste Verification Committee and: the »ei1the_1it§{
could have exercised jurisdiction departlnp o i
has issued the nofifiealioni ._v’i’!owever,V on imelitsv… weer . L’
‘Ni!-fllt-51-!£i–€’l–1. my the leanied the izeepfiomzidents that
the petitinner do-es. Pioi;–.V:t;eldh+hg;,:.p’.._, ‘4 Tribe as
claimed by teed eannot be
sustained i it
__ Theéigh: counsel on either side have
attemptetiéto to the validity or otherwise of ‘
t11e;c>21ste eeltiiieate evhieh would disclose the petitioner as
” .heioi1§ii1g the tiewheduled Tribe, since the–very question
V some at this junctuze.
9. Having said so, the question is as._ to vtrhether the I
Caste Vexifieaiion Committee the appellate authority
1
J!
‘r.
had the jurisdiction in respect of the caste certificate
prior to 11.11.1993 ‘P In the presexnctiee, itjis
that the Caste certificate issued in hf is. 3
dated 15.1.1931. A Divisiciii-..:ViHe11chA’i:f__»iI£; WA” ”
Ne.?53f-42901 ha… Lpheld.
‘Single Judge of t1’T’s Cmirt 1.-.r}i’1’1″‘ifig’
:.’il’1″”€ 3!.-‘c1r.IIfi . ……..w..Lu…
Committee a11¢j:*ti__1e itotfid not have
ju1’isdictio1:1_…i11. ” eeesteét issued prior to
1 1.1 1 .1993. ‘ xa11t11o111y! which would
have the .1 i;»:v.y»_i’i.,.~r.a;;1s1i¢’ier the same. I Though the
Tahsflde1=._ had the notice, the pmoeedinge
were Witholtt and the same also -merged in-the
” hetbxebhete Verification and as such
we ‘1’ a.;eiL.e.fr»,whe 1:. he i-..e.1i._g s.=-.I.1t11_-:.r1’ity \.I_i.n:nu1t_l have to
foiipw due jzfimiess ii the ‘*I”u-:.’.=1′-.6″.-.-_’f”.’1″‘s m»… w
AAi1;i11ataea11aea11.
10. Though the leamed counsel for the petitioner
attempted to state that the benefit. of the not:i__ficatieI1_ dated
I
A
“r.
Iurnwua {’11 ‘IA ‘
5-I’-I
1 1.03.2002 would be available to the ])EflZ’li’:iOIlE3I’-,~_4″E§]’11(‘$.f;’,:V ‘
already come to the conclusion thatthg ” K
Committee and the Appellate afithoiity winlltl ‘1;r;it
jurisclicfion, the oltlers i1npt1gi11 éd. i11 thifi
sustained :1_d. t11_e.1t.:.c;:__e the _q__ufe’:at_:i’ua1; as’ ‘t-9__wl1_éEtl1er the
th” “fi’fifi””fififi 111.13 ‘>n}32’M=v “16 be a miln,,1_
!
Hh
be efit .,…….. -.._~_ _
to the petit1’o11e1’*–5tc. t;:;:+_cx–r:–é;4-;~:-a*.i+n a-.:1;.r if tI.,u.3
issuing aufl1.d1ityf(ihpwsés in itlifiziticiztititiil afiesh and no i
this stagg. {:’–
4…’!
171. £11 t11ai7;vi_é\az__T ‘c.ifgthe %mat’tcr, the ouieffi dam-u
29.7.2OO5L'”:’-1*-1Vc 1 ilnpugned in this petition cannot
J ‘ __ be’:L__é”us;tajncc1 aJ1d’t}1s”same are accordingly quashed. Hence
aspects of the matter open. the petition
.s* é 11§is of with no order as to costs.
Sdl-
6
Akcfbma udg ‘«