M. V Chandrakanth vs Sangapppa & Ors.

HELD: 1.1 The Division Bench observed that from the findings given by the Single Judge, it was apparent that the Single Judge was also of the opinion that caste of the Respondent No.1 was ‘Lingayat-Ganiga’. The Single Judge, however, held that he could not claim reservation under Category II-A. The Division Bench accepted that ordinarily children belong to the caste of their father. The Division Bench, however, observed, in effect, that the Single Judge also accepted that the caste of the Respondent might be Lingayat-Ganiga but erred in arriving at the finding Lingayat-Ganiga could not be construed Hindu Ganiga. The Division Bench analysed the facts of the case but found that reservation to backward classes had not been introduced when the Respondent No.1’s father had been admitted to school in 1953. By the time the Appellant came to be admitted to school, Reservation Policy for backward classes had been introduced. This could be the reason why the caste was not entered in the school records of the Respondent No.1’s father where only ‘Lingayat’ was mentioned but in the case of the Respondent No.1 the caste was mentioned as ‘Hindu-Ganiga’. The Division Bench rightly held that, if the Respondent No.1’s father was, in fact, Ganiga, the mere fact that his caste may not have been mentioned in his school records, or elsewhere, would not mean that he would have to be treated as a non-Ganiga by caste. It appears that the finding of the Single Bench that the earlier notification in which Category II-A comprised many castes of which Ganiga was one, did not include Lingayat-Ganiga is misconceived. In the Government notification issued on 3rd March 2002, Category II-A comprised of Ganiga and other castes without referring to Lingayat Ganigas. Subsequently, on 27th January 2009, an order was issued by the Government of Karnataka to the effect that 19 sub-castes within Veerashaiva Lingayat were included in Category III-B. One of the castes so brought under Category III-B was Lingayat/Veerashaiva-Ganiga. Subsequently, however the Government issued a Notification on 28th February 2009 to the effect that the caste in Serial No.1 to 12 and 14 to 19 which were included in Category III-B as per the order/notification dated 27th January 2009 were deleted from the Category III-B and restored to the earlier position prevailing before 27th January 2009. [Paras 26, 29-31][230-D-E; 232-F-H; 233-A, E-G]

1.2 As observed by the Division Bench, the order dated 27th January 2009 shows that 19 sub-castes of Lingayat/Veerashaiva were included in Category III-B. One of the subcastes was ‘Lingayat/Veerashaiva-Ganiga’. However, by another notification issued within a month that is 28th February 2009, the caste mentioned in Serial Nos. 1 to 12 and 14 to 19 Category IIIB were deleted and the position prevailing before 27th January 2009 was restored. Lingayat/Veerashaiva-Ganiga was deleted. The intent of the order was to extend the benefit of reservation under Category II-A to the Lingayat-Ganigas also. The Division Bench found that the finding of the Single Judge that Hindu-Ganiga and Lingayat-Ganiga were two different castes was not possible to accept. A Lingayat is also a Hindu governed by the Hindu Succession Act 1956, the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956 and the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956. The caste of the Respondent No.1 was thus shown as ‘Hindu-Lingayat’ in the school registers by the Respondent No.1’s father. The Division Bench was correct in its finding that, the mere fact that the Caste Verification Committee gave a report of about 16 candidates in a few days cannot be a reason to doubt the correctness of the report. The Division Bench found that the report was made in accordance with the provisions of SC/ST and OBC Reservation Act. Furthermore, during the pendency of the Writ Petition, Respondent No.1 produced a registered document of the year 1909 where the caste of the great grandfather of the Respondent No.1 was shown as ‘Ganiger’. The said document was taken on record by the Writ Court, but there was no discussion about it in the impugned order. The document is relevant in that it proves the caste of the Respondent No.1 to be ‘Ganiga’. ‘Ganiger’ is a variant of the word ‘Ganiga’ found in north Karnataka region. Respondent No.1 had also relied upon caste certificates issued to the relatives of the Respondent No.1 showing their caste as ‘Ganiga’. [Paras 32-35][233-H; 234A-F]

1.3 The Respondent No.1 also referred to an order of this Court in Lawrence Salvador D’Souza v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.6539/2016), where this Court directed the Committee to consider the caste certificate of the niece of the Appellant in that case for making a report about his caste. In this case, the Appellant has produced a number of caste certificates of his relatives indicating their caste as ‘Hindu-Ganiga’. After perusing the documents produced, this Court held that since the caste of the forefather of the Appellant was mentioned as ‘Ganiger’, an inference may be drawn with the help of this document that the caste of the Appellant was also ‘Ganiga’. The decision of the Civil Enforcement Cell not to initiate the prosecution may have been against the directions issued by the Respondent No.2. The decision however, was justified, considering the materials on record showing the caste of the forefather and relatives of the Respondent No.1 as ‘Ganiger’ or ‘Ganiga’. Even if the Caste Certificate and the Validity Certificate are ignored, there are materials including a pre-constitution registered sale deed of the Respondent No.1’s grandfather showing his caste was ‘Ganiga’. Considering that the disputes pertaining to the case of the Respondent No.1 has been going on for years, the Division Bench rightly did not remand the matter to the Respondent No.2 for adjudication. We find absolutely no ground to interfere with the judgment. [Paras 36-38][234-G-H; 235-A-C]

Somashekha rVeerappa B.Murgod v. State of Karnataka and Another AIR 1980 Karnataka 62; Prabhushankar K.V. v. Selection Committee for Medical Colleges & others (1981) 1 Kant.L.J. 255; Lawrence Salvador D’Souza v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Civil Appeal No.6539/2016 – referred to.