High Court Karnataka High Court

Nagesh Aged About 14 Years vs Union Of India on 20 February, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Nagesh Aged About 14 Years vs Union Of India on 20 February, 2009
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
IN THE HIGH mum or KARNATAKf:*~'C: %[    _

cmcuzr BENCH AT DHAfiWA. DW ;u«"  %     A

DATE!) was THE 20*" may oF+=%Eai2uA$2»' 

BEFOI3'2'E'  %

HON'BLE MRJUSTICE":§§OH}§M:.'S'HAVl$:?L'?ANA6OUDAR

warr QM-rags)

Between :

NAGESH  """    
s/0 APPAYYA SAN:-§EVAi&'!A   . '
AGED A130:.1T':4 'KEAIQS-.,   "
000 s'I'U1:3E'm"* % '  

SINCE MENORREP I3?' _ *.

H18 NATURAL GU.:\RDIA§--&I *

VFATHEKAPPAYYA " - V
 SJO N.kGA}?§?A sawxgvxama
',AG'g::>4 ABOUT' <:;mrEAz2s

O.CCV.SE~RVE<3E~  A ' 
R19 M-AN9.wAR  

 _ TQ 85 ADIST DHA'}?.WAi). .. pmrwxonm

 V {By srifl" suéfisii P HUDEDAGA£)DE,ADV(}CA'1'E}

............_--.----um-

"  EJNIQN OFINDIA

" ~ VRE? BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPTOF' SCHOOL
EDUCATION 85 L.i'I'ERACY
M1NIS'I'}?Y OF' HUMAN



 'Cquxt  folluwmg .

-2-

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
NEW DELHI

2. 'THE DEPUTY COMMESSIONER
NAVOBAYA VEDYALAYA SAMITHI    .
HYDERABAD REGION  
SARABAR PATEL ROAD
SECUNMERABAD {AP}

3. THE PRINCIPAL  
JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDYA YVA, 
KYARAKOPPA ROAD   --  "
DHARWAD~580007.   p  RESPONDENTS

{Ey Sri. S.N.RAJENDRA, ADVQCNEE Edi? R¥'1.é;'é.e2"
AND SR: AMARESHLAW A.ssoc:AmfEAs.,%»guvomwms

This' 'A lrE.tVP't:ti_1V_:Vi£)V£z cgxmmg on for hearing this day, the

-v .

ORDER

‘me gsfi’eva?:ce of the petitioner is that the raspondenE–

” éré net making cerrecfion in the school recards of the

petifioner dapite of the judgment and decree passed in

A % ;fs;No.13»5/2003.

V”

-3 –

2. The recerds disclose fiiat fire pefitioner filed

O.S.No.136/2003 before the learned Civil Budge (Jr.Dn.),

fer dedarafion that die caste of the plaintiff as

and not ‘Hindu Madar’. The said suit came tq _

27″‘ October 2003 declaring that uieipigiimwsicaeetist

Bhangi’ and not ‘Hindu Madarfl; Censeeeenfly,

in the suit were directed te _V in the
school recerde ef the petit§ener–‘:V: s;:>_ite””cif the decree, the

correcfion is net .:nade.VA…–v–itnote that the

defendants in thesi;i:iiis.e.i;hie me had filed R.A.No.1s/zms

before the Civ%l_vCoiift._fSf.Qn’;;)’ Gokak, which alse came to be

~ V26″; J’uEy._2C)0S as is dear from Annexure-‘ 3’ to the

the petiticmer made repraentatiore.

of Pubiic Instructions, Chikodi, has also

_ di3″ecte:i sense! to correct the relevant entries in the scheei

4 reeere§”A_pursuant to the judgment of the Civil Court. In spite of

‘ …”‘V’fnfe_”i’same, ewe 3″‘ respondent has not czompiied with the decree

we

-4…

passed by the Civil Court on the gmund that the

is not a party to the civil seit.

3. It is no doubt true that the 3?’? i-emnaeerisaea

party to the civil seit. The Kernateke. vvfieputy’

Director of Public Inwuctions ands’-l§itick”‘Educationl.Ofticer were
parties to die suit. They the State.

They have ever; en order of the trial
Court and have the decree of
the Civil consequently, the 3″‘
respondeht. should not be constrained to

file onemorel against 3″‘ respondent. At the time of

I-‘i’:v”fil–ingsziit,A_ the olaintiff was not studying in 3″‘ respondent

in Kadasiddahwara Kannada Medium

_Scheoi._._ Kc;fnnti:%’;’ Under such circurrastances, the 3′” respondent

not made party to the civil suit. In View 3′ the same,

direction has to be issued to we respondents to

‘T lljzzomizly wéth the direetioes issued in the civil suit. Accordingly,

the following order is made :

The 3″‘ rapondent — Principe}, Jawahaf

vidyaiaya, Dharwad, is directed in make ivrfvfiie V

column of caste of the petitioner as ‘ B1’!3l’\}’gfd_?.,J’A.Ai’l’I».t§.’l&n

of ‘ Hindu Madar’, as expedifioz:siy–§s~possibie,_’bLi£f’:1c$i::.iéi:é”V’ti1an

axe outer iimit of one mgsnigh fram’ of this

order.

Writ