Karnataka High Court
Shravana Kumar D Nayak vs The Director And Appellate Authority … on 28 February, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 R
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 200867 OF 2024 (GM-CC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SHRAVANA KUMAR D. NAYAK,
S/O. DEVENDRAPPA,
AGE: 30 YEARS, R/O. STATE SC/ST PREVENTION OF
BOGUS CASTE CERTIFICATE COMMITTEE (REGD.)
JAI SANTHOSHIMA COMPLEX ROAD,
NEW JEWARGI ROAD, KALABURAGI-585102.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH GINNI &
SRI. ASHOKKUMAR L.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DIRECTOR AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
SCHEDULED TRIBE WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
NO.34, 1ST FLOOR, LOTUS TOWER,
RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.
2. SMT. MEENAKSHI W/O. LAKSHMAN,
AGE: 30 YEARS,
R/O. DHANAGARA GALLI, TALUK: CHINCHOLI,
DIST: KALABURAGI.
3. THE CHAIRMAN,
DISTRICT LEVEL CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE,
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KALABURAGI,
DIST: KALABURGI.
4. MEMBER SECRETARY,
DISTRICT CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE,
KALABURAGI, KALABURGI DISTRICT
AND JOINT DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER,
KALABURGI, DISTRICT: KALABURGI.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
5. THE MEMBER SECRETARY,
DISTRICT CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE,
KALABURGI DISTRICT, KALABURAGI AND
THE DEPUTY SECRETARY (ADM.),
ZILLA PANCHAYAT, KALABURAGI DISTRICT,
KALABURGI.
6. THE MEMBER,
DISTRICT CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE,
KALABURGI DISTRICT, KALABURGI AND TAHSILDAR,
CHINCHOLI TALUKA,
KALABURGI DISTRICT-585307.
7. LAXMI D/O. LAXMANA,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. NEAR SHARAN NAGAR, RAMA MOHALLA,
SHAHABAD, DISTRICT KALABURAGI-585228.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C. JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3 & R4-R6;
SRI. ARUNKUMAR AMAR GUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2;
SRI. MAHESH PATIL &
SRI. TULASIRAM K. JOGI, ADVOCATE FOR R7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING
THE ORDER DATED 27.2.2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1
IN NO. Pa Va Ka E/AppealCR-01/2022-23 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE
M, AND DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND
ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING
BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 21.11.2024, THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
Table of Contents
A. Background ............................................................5
B. Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner ......................7
C. Submissions on Behalf of Respondent No. 2 .............. 16
D. Submissions on Behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 3-6. 40
E. Submissions on Behalf of Respondent No. 7 .............. 45
F. Points for Consideration.......................................... 47
G. Answer to Point No. 1: Whether the Petitioner herein is an
aggrieved party and has the locus standi to maintain the
instant petition? .......................................................... 48
H. Answer to Point No. 2: When Schedule Tribe certificates
are issued to the parents of Respondent No. 2, her certificate
as that belonging to the Schedule Tribe category cannot be
questioned? ................................................................ 63
I. Answer to Point No. 3: Is a Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe
certificate conclusive and presumed to be valid?.............. 73
J. Answer to Point No. 4: On whom does the burden of proof
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
lie, is it on the person asserting that he/she belongs to the
Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe category to prove that he/she
belongs to that category or does it lie on the person alleging
that he/she does not belong to that category to prove that
fact? 79
K. Answer to Point No. 5: Whether this Court can adjudicate
on matters relating to the validity of caste as a fact-finding
forum vis-à-vis the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of
Appointment Etc.) Act, 1990? ..................................... 101
L. Answer to Point No. 6: Whether the Impugned Order dated
27.02.2024 suffers from any legal infirmity requiring
interference at the hands of this Court?........................ 110
M. Answer to Point No. 7: What Order? ........................ 117
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
ORDER
A. Background
1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari, quashing the order dated 27.02.2024
passed by the Respondent No.1 in No. Pa Va Ka
E/Appeal/CR-01/2022-23 produced at Annexure: M
and dismiss the appeal filed by the Respondent
No.2;
ii) Grant such other relief as this Hon’ble Court deems
fit in the facts and circumstances of the case,
including an order as to costs, in the interest of
justice and equity.
2. The Petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Tribe
community – ‘Bedar’ which is classified as a
Scheduled Tribe under Article 342 of the Constitution
of India in the State of Karnataka.
3. Upon submitting an application, Respondent No. 2
was selected and appointed to the post of ‘Assistant
Accounts Officer’ at the ‘Gulbarga Electricity Supply
Company Ltd.’ (in short: ‘GESCOM’) under the
Schedule Tribe category.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
4. In pursuance of relevant provisions and rules under
the ‘Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes
and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of
Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990, (hereinafter referred
to as ‘Act of 1990’), Respondent No. 2 had to
produce a caste certificate and upon furnishing the
same, the appointing authority referred this to
Respondent No. 3 – District Caste Verification
Committee (in short: ‘DCVC’) to verify the caste
certificate of Respondent No. 2 and to issue a validity
certificate to that effect.
5. Thereafter, upon enquiry, Respondent Nos. 3-6
rejected the caste certificate of Respondent No.2 vide
order dated 27.09.2021 holding that Respondent
No.2 actually belongs to the ‘Kuruba’ community
which is classified as a Backward Category under II-A
reservation and not the ‘Gond’/Gonda community as
claimed by Respondent No.2, against which
Respondent No.2 preferred an appeal before the
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
Respondent No.1-appellate authority and the same
came to be numbered as Appeal No. CR 1/2002-23.
Notices having been issued, the Petitioner herein
filed an impleading application in the said appeal
contending that the father and paternal uncle of
Respondent No. 2 belong to the Kuruba community
amongst other contentions, Respondent No.1
authority allowed the impleading application.
6. On hearing all concerned parties to the appeal,
Respondent No.1 authority passed an order dated
27.02.2024 holding that Respondent No. 2 belonged
to the ‘Gond’ community, hence, the caste certificate
issued was valid and consequently allowed the
appeal.
7. It is impugning this order of Respondent No.1 dated
27.02.2024, in PaVaKaE/Appeal/CR-01 2022-23, that
the Petitioner is before this court.
B. Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
8. Smt. Hema Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the Petitioner, would submit that;
8.1. Not only is the impugned order not a speaking
one but no finding has been adjudged as
regards the documents submitted by the
Petitioner marked as annexures – D, E and F in
the writ petition wherein her contention is that
the caste certificate of the paternal uncle of
Respondent No.2, one Shri. Shyam Rao s/o
Manikappa, his wife Smt. Nagamma and his
daughter Kum. Bhuvaneshwari state that they
belong to the ‘Kuruba’ community which is
classified under II-A category issued by the
Tahsildhar, Chincholi Taluk vide certificate dated
03.08.2017 as per the order of the state
government issued under Articles 15(4) & 16(4)
of the Indian Constitution, when such is the
case, the father, brother and sister of
Respondent No.2 as also Respondent No.2
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
cannot claim to belong to the ‘Gond’
community.
8.2. Respondent No.2 in collusion with revenue
officials based on entries in school records has
managed to obtain a false caste certificate
fraudulently as against the procedure
contemplated under rule 3A of the Karnataka
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other
Backward Classes (Reservation of
Appointments, etc.) Rules, 1992 (hereinafter
for brevity referred to as “Rules of 1992”)
and by this very act has committed a grave
fraud on the Indian Constitution and the society
as a whole.
8.3. Respondent No. 1 authority without
appreciating the material on record has passed
an unreasoned, arbitrary and capricious order
that wholly violates the rights guaranteed under
article 14 and 342 of the Constitution.
– 10 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
8.4. Sub-section (5) to Section 4-A of the Act of
1990 vests the burden of proof on Respondent
No.2 to establish that both her grand-father
and father belong to the Gond community as
caste transfers from the father and to this
effect, Respondent No. 2 has not placed any
supporting documents before the DCVC or the
Respondent No.1 authority.
8.5. She further contends that merely enjoying the
benefits guaranteed under reservation would
not amount to conclusive proof of caste/social
status and in this regard she places reliance on
a judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Director of Tribal Welfare, Govt. of A.P. vs
Laveti Giri & Anr.1, more particularly para no.
4 thereof, which has been reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
“4. It is contended by Shri Prabhakar, learned counsel
1
(1995) 4 SCC 32
– 11 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
for the appellants that the High Court was not right in
relying on the documents produced by the respondent
without any proof. The father did not appear to explain the
circumstances under which he had the status of Scheduled
Tribe. The certificate from Tehsildar of the nativity criteria
is discernible from the brochure of the University.
University is required to call upon the candidate to produce
the required social status certificate, when a candidate’s
claim is founded upon such a social status. Relevant rules
or orders issued by the Government in Social Welfare
Department prescribed the procedure in that behalf. The
High Court wrongly caused the burden of proof on the
Department when it squarely rested upon the candidate to
prove his caste/tribe according to the procedure prescribed
under the rules. It is the duty of the certificate-issuing
authority to satisfy himself after due verification whether
the candidate belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe, satisfies the criteria prescribed by the Government.
Though the father managed to gain social status as Tribe
falsely and wrongfully, and unconstitutionally is in
enjoyment of the benefit of employment as a tribe, it is
not conclusive. It is not uncommon to corner such benefits
because of connivance of officers and it is a known fact
that the tribe of such officers has grown over years
because the social crimes committed by them is either
ignored by the superiors of their class or because they
have a protective umbrella from their higher-ups. The
learned Single Judge has rightly taken the relevant factors
into consideration to dismiss the writ petition. Shri Y.
Prabhakar Rao, the learned counsel for the respondent
vehemently contended that the view of the Division Bench
of the High Court is quite legal and justifiable on the facts.
The candidate does not know from which officer he has to
obtain the social status certificate. The brochure indicates
that the certificate from a Tehsildar is sufficient. It does
not show that the Tehsildar of the nativity was required to
issue the certificate. The father of the respondent being
already in enjoyment of the status as Kondakapu in
government service, it is an important conclusive material
to decide the issue. The Director, therefore, was not
correct in rejecting the social status. The Single Judge had
committed an error in relying upon the report of the
Director. Having given our anxious consideration, we are
of the view that the Division Bench has succumbed to the
– 12 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
fraud played by the respondent and his father to secure
false social status as Kondakapu while they are Kapus by
caste, a forward caste in Andhra Pradesh.”
8.6. By relying on Laveti Giri‘s case, her
submission is that the burden of proof squarely
rests upon Respondent No.2 to prove her
caste/tribe according to the procedure
prescribed under the rules. It is the duty of the
certificate-issuing authority to satisfy himself
after due verification whether the candidate
belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe,
in accordance with the criteria prescribed by
the Government. Even if the father of
Respondent No.2 managed to gain social status
as Tribe falsely and wrongfully, and
unconstitutionally is in enjoyment of the benefit
of employment as a tribe, it is not conclusive.
Thus, Respondent no.2 cannot take shelter
under the same in a case of a challenge to the
validity of her caste certificate.
– 13 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
8.7. She relies on the judgement of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patila and
Ors. Vs Addl. Commissioner, Tribal
Development and Ors.2, more particularly
para no. 5 thereof, which has been reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
“5. The Committee as well as the Additional
Commissioner relied upon a report of expert committee
which had gone into the sociology, anthropology and
ethnology of the Scheduled Tribes including ‘Mahadeo Koli’
which formed the basis for the pro forma questionnaire
prepared by the Government and as given to and
answered by the father of the appellants. On the basis of
the information furnished by the father of the appellants
and the anthropological and ethnological findings in that
behalf, the Additional Commissioner, in our view rightly,
held that an argument of social mobility and modernisation
often alluringly put forth to obviate the need to pass the
affinity test is only a convenient plea to get over the crux
of the question. Despite the cultural advancement, the
genetic traits pass on from generation to generation and
no one could escape or forget or get them over. The tribal
customs are peculiar to each tribe or tribal communities
and are still being maintained and preserved. Their cultural
advancement to some extent may have modernised and
progressed but they would not be oblivious to or ignorant
of their customary and cultural past to establish their
affinity to the membership of a particular tribe. The
Mahadeo Koli, a Scheduled Tribe declared in the
Presidential Notification, 1950, itself is a tribe and is not a
sub-caste. It is a hill tribe, may be like ‘Koya’ in Andhra
Pradesh. Kolis, a backward class, are fishermen by caste
and profession and reside mostly in Maharashtra coastal2
C.A. 5854/1994 | 1994 INSC 348
– 14 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024area. Kolis have different sub-castes. Mahadeo Kolis reside
in hill regions, agriculture, agricultural labour and
gathering of minor forest produce and sale thereof is their
avocation. Therefore, the cancellation of the social
certificate issued by the Executive Magistrates concerned
by the Scrutiny Committee was legal.”
8.8. By relying on Madhuri Patila‘s case she
submits that the customary practices and
beliefs of the members of the Scheduled Tribe
pass on from one generation to the other so
strongly that it may almost be regarded as a
genetic pass on. Respondent No.2 is required to
sociologically, anthropologically and
ethnologically establish that she belongs to the
Gond Community. Respondent No.2 not having
shown or established primary practices of the
Gond community, does not satisfy the test of
affinity.
8.9. She places reliance on the judgement of this
Court in Vageesh B.M. vs Deputy
– 15 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
Commissioner3, more particularly para no. 11
thereof, which has been reproduced hereunder
for easy reference:
“11. Insofar as the judgment of the Division
Bench in the case of R.S. MAHADEV (supra) is
concerned, the said judgment would also be
inapplicable to the facts of the case, as the Division
Bench was considering a case where the complainant
was a busybody and not a person aggrieved. The facts
therein were that the person who had secured caste
certificate did not belong to Scheduled Caste by birth,
but by marriage to a Scheduled Caste she was given
the caste certificate. The question was a person
belonging to other community could be given a caste
certificate on marriage. That was challenged by the
complainant four years after the retirement of the
beneficiary. The Division Bench clearly holds that the
complaint therein had no locus to challenge the caste
certificate issued to the beneficiary therein. Therefore,
both the judgments relied on by the learned senior
counsel for the petitioner – one in the case of MS. M.N.
KALAVATHI and the other in the case of AYAAUBKHAN
NOORKHAN PATHAN, would become inapplicable to the
facts of the case, qua the solitary submission i.e., the
locus of the complainant.”
8.10. By relying on Vageesh‘s case, she submits that
the locus of the petitioner stands strengthened,
as being a member of the scheduled tribe
community himself, he cannot be said to hold
no locus to question the validity of a caste
certificate issued to another alleged scheduled
3
WP No. 8087/2023 | 2023:KHC:16255
– 16 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
tribe member which is obtained by fraud
jeopardizing the rights and interests of other
genuine scheduled tribe members.
8.11. Thus, the Petitioner prays for this Petition to be
allowed.
C. Submissions on Behalf of Respondent No. 2
9. Shri. Arunkumar Amargundappa, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2 would
submit that;
9.1. The Petitioner herein being a third-party and
not an aggrieved person, holds no locus to
challenge the caste certificate of Respondent
No. 2, and merely being a member of the
Scheduled Tribe community would not ipso-
facto vest with him a right to challenge a caste
certificate issued to others. The Petitioner
neither being the employer nor a person
interested in the post granted to Respondent
– 17 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
No. 2 or a complainant before the caste
verification committee is therefore not a
necessary or aggrieved party to this matter and
in this regard he relies upon a decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Ayaaubkhan Pathan vs
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.4, more
particularly para no.45 thereof, which has been
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
“45. The Scrutiny Committee in ordinary
circumstances examined the matter and after investigation
through its Vigilance Cell and considering all the
documentary evidence on record and after being satisfied,
granted the caste verification certificate in 2000. Section
114 Illustration (e) of the Evidence Act provided for the
court to pronounce that the decision taken by the Scrutiny
Committee has been done in regular course and the caste
certificate has been issued after due verification. Very
strong material/evidence is required to rebut the
presumption. In fact, Respondent 5 has no legal peg for a
justifiable claim to hang upon. Once Respondent 5, for the
reasons best known to him, had challenged caste
certificate under the garb of acting as a public-spirited
person espousing the cause of legitimate persons who had
been deprived of their right of being considered for
appointment, Respondent 5 must have acted seriously and
brought the material before the Scrutiny Committee to
show that the earlier decision was improbable or factually
incorrect. Such a view stands fortified by a catena of
decisions rendered by this Court where it has been held
that presumption is based on legal maxim omnia rite esse4
(2013) 4 SCC 465
– 18 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
acta praesumuntur i.e. all acts are presumed to have
rightly and regularly been done. Such a presumption can
be rebutted by adducing appropriate evidence. Mere
statement made in the written statement/petition is not
enough to rebut the presumption. The onus of rebuttal lies
upon the person who alleges that the act had not been
regularly performed or the procedure required under the
law had not been followed. [Vide Gopal Narain v. State of
U.P. [AIR 1964 SC 370] , Narayan Govind Gavate v. State
of Maharashtra [(1977) 1 SCC 133 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 49 :
AIR 1977 SC 183] , Karewwa v. Hussensab Khansaheb
Wajantri [(2002) 10 SCC 315 : AIR 2002 SC 504] , Engg.
Kamgar Union v. Electro Steels Castings Ltd. [(2004) 6
SCC 36 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 782] , Mohd. Shahabuddin v.
State of Bihar [(2010) 4 SCC 653 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri)
904] , Punjab SEB v. Ashwani Kumar [(2010) 7 SCC 569 :
(2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 147] , M. Chandra v. M. Thangamuthu
[(2010) 9 SCC 712 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 907 : AIR 2011
SC 146] and R. Ramachandran Nair v. State of Kerala
(Vigilance Deptt.) [(2011) 4 SCC 395 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri)
251 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 691] .”
9.2. By relying on Ayaaubkhan‘s case, he submits
that in cases of a caste certificate having been
issued, all acts are presumed to be rightly and
regularly done, with the allegation against its
validity being made by the Petitioner, it is upon
him to adduce strong material evidence to
rebut such a presumption by law, nothing of the
kind having been done, the claim of the
petitioner not being established, the burden
– 19 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
cannot be imposed on Respondent No.2 after a
caste certificate has been issued to Respondent
No.2.
9.3. He relies on the decision of the Division Bench
of this Court in R.S. Mahadev vs B.R.
Gopamma5, more particularly para no. 27
thereof, which has been reproduced hereunder
for easy reference:
The appellant herein has not made out a case as to
how he was aggrieved by issuance of a caste
certificate in favor of respondent No.1. He was not a
person who had applied to the post off Kannada
teacher in the aided institution, to which Respondent
No.1 was appointed he has not been denied any
benefit on account of issuance of the caste certificate
in favor of Respondent No.1, which he had claimed.
Therefore, the appellant had no right to file a
complaint against respondent No.1 herein and he had
no locus standi to do so.
9.4. He relies on the decision of the Division Bench
of this Court in R.S. Mahadev vs B.R.
Gopamma6, more particularly para no. 27
thereof, which has been reproduced hereunder
5
WA No. 1242/2019
6
WA No. 1242/2019
– 20 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
for easy reference:
The appellant herein has not made out a case as to
how he was aggrieved by issuance of a caste
certificate in favor of respondent No.1. He was not a
person who had applied to the post off Kannada
teacher in the aided institution, to which Respondent
No.1 was appointed he has not been denied any
benefit on account of issuance of the caste certificate
in favor of Respondent No.1, which he had claimed.
Therefore, the apellant had no right to file a complaint
against respondent No.1 herein and he had no locus
standi to do so.
9.5. By relying on R.S. Mahadev’s case, he submits
that a person not being an aspirant to the same
post in an institution, would then be without
locus. The petitioner not being in competition
as an aspirant to the post assigned to
Respondent No. 2 would not have any locus.
9.6. He relies on the decision of the Division Bench
of this Court in Dr. M. David vs Department
of Higher Education, Govt. of Karnataka7,
more particularly para no. 23 thereof, which
has been reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
7
WA No. 100234/2021
– 21 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024“23. For the purpose of being aggrieved, the
petitioner is required to demonstrate that in the event
he had succeeded, he would be entitled to be
appointed.”
9.7. By relying on Dr. M. David‘s case, he submits
that in the scenario the Petitioner succeeds in
the instant petition, he would still not be
entitled to the post held by the petitioner, since
he has not applied for it, therefore, Petitioner
does not have any locus.
9.8. He then submits, that although this instant
petition seeks to invoke the supervisory
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article
227 of the Indian Constitution, it is settled law
that a High Court cannot act as an appellate
body to re-appreciate evidence under its
supervisory jurisdiction and may only interfere
with the decisions of a fact-finding authority
when its findings have been found to be
perverse and contrary to law.
– 22 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
9.9. It is submitted that the line of descendants of
Respondent No.2 can be traced back to one late
Shri. Bhimmanna @ Bhimsha r/o Niranawadi,
Humnabad Tq., Bidar Dist., Karnataka and was
recognized to be a member of the ‘Gond’
community and inculcated similar traditions
through his lifetime. The late Shri. Bhimanna
had two sons namely Shri. Manikappa and Shri.
Adeppa, Mr. Manikappa for reasons of livelihood
moved to Chincholi Tq. of Kalaburagi Dist. and
had 3 children (1 daughter and 2 sons) namely,
Eramma(paternal aunt of Respondent No. 2),
Laxman (father of Respondent No. 2) and
Shamrao (paternal uncle of Respondent No. 2).
Ms. Eramma is a holder of a valid caste
certificate stating her to be of Gond caste and
enjoying the benefits thereof. Mr. Laxman and
his wife Kamalabai, parents of Respondent No.
2 are also holders of a valid caste certificate
stating them to be of the Gond caste with the
– 23 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
same reflecting in the school records of
Respondent No. 2. The mother of Respondent
No. 2 was also elected as a member of a ST
reserved ward of the Chincholli Town Panchayat
on the strength of her caste certificate, thus all
of the above clearly shows that all the
immediate family members of Respondent No.
2 belong to the Gond community.
9.10. Respondent No. 2 has been availing benefits
under the ST reservation for the past 35 years
while there exist no complaints or disputes
whatsoever as regards the caste certificates
issued to Respondent No. 2’s father, mother,
brother, sister, and paternal aunt and hence
Respondent No. 1 authority upheld the validity
of Respondent No. 2’s caste certificate.
9.11. The burden of proof upon Respondent No. 2 to
prove her caste stands discharged on issuance
of such certificate, the onus of proof lies upon a
– 24 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
person that alleges that an act was not
performed dutifully as per the procedure
prescribed, more so when the caste of a child is
inherited from the father, any of claims of rights
to dispute one’s caste based on the caste of the
paternal uncle shall ipso-facto stand disentitled.
For all of time, the society at large having
treated both Respondent No. 2 and her family
as members of the Gond tribe, the burden of
proof heavily lies upon the person disputing
their social category status, in this case the
Petitioner.
9.12. He thereafter contends that the Respondent
DCVC without giving a fair opportunity of fully
hearing out Respondent No. 2 has held against
her plainly based on a report submitted by the
ADGP of the CRE Cell without considering her
school records, traditions, rituals and customs
followed and hence the Respondent No.1-
– 25 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
appellate authority has rightfully set-aside the
order of the DCVC dated 27.09.2021, thus not
requiring any interference at the hands of this
Hon’ble Court.
9.13. It has been common practice in the district of
Kalaburagi and other parts of the state where
both the ‘Kuruba’ and ‘Gond’ castes have been
regarded synonymously with each other and
the same can be construed from a letter written
by the Secretary, Social Welfare Department,
Govt. of Karnataka to the Secretary of the
Social Welfare Department to the Govt. of India
wherein it is requested for the ‘Kuruba’
community to be included in the Scheduled
Tribe list as it is synonymous with the Gond
community. It can also be fairly assumed that
due to the humiliation and atrocities concerned
with ST persons, the paternal uncle may have
opted to be under the Kuruba caste and not the
– 26 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
ST Gond caste while also the fact remains that
there exists no statement or explanation as to
why Mr. Shamrao did not obtain a ST caste
certificate.
9.14. Insofar as the non-entry of the caste category
of Respondent No.2 in her school records, it is
upon the school authorities to record the right
category based on the declaration of caste
made by the parents, especially in light of the
rustic and illiterate nature of the parents of
Respondent No. 2. As long as the caste has
been mentioned, non-mentioning of the
category under which that caste falls is not a
material defect that goes to the root of this
matter and cannot be held to be conclusive
proof to decide upon the caste status of a
person.
9.15. He relies upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in State of Bihar & Ors. Vs Sumit
– 27 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
Anand8, more particularly para nos.3, 4 and 6
thereof, which has been reproduced hereunder
for easy reference:
“3. Having completed his education, Sumit Anand
again applied for the certificate in question, which was
denied by the District Magistrate as he was of the
opinion that the respondent did not belong to ST. The
respondent thereafter filed another writ petition being
CWJC No. 439 of 2001, which was accepted by the
Single Judge holding that the respondent was entitled
to grant of certificate in view of the fact that his
father, grandfather, mother and maternal uncle all
belonged to the “Gond” community and had been
issued certificates to that effect.
4. Aggrieved against the order of the Single Judge, the
State of Bihar filed the letters patent appeal being LPA
No. 695 of 2002, which came up for hearing before the
Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench,
after taking into account the earlier certificates
granted in favour of the respondent’s father,
grandfather, mother as well as the maternal uncle
upheld the order of the Single Judge and observed that
the respondent was entitled to the grant of the caste
certificate and dismissed the appeal by the impugned
order.
6. We have perused the findings recorded by the
Division Bench as well as the Single Judge of the High
Court. In view of the fact that the respondent’s father,
grandfather, mother and maternal uncle had all been
granted the certificate certifying that they belong to
the “Gond” community, we see no reason to come to a
conclusion other than the one arrived at by the High
Court to the effect that the respondent was entitled to
issuance of the caste certificate.”
9.16. By relying on Sumit Anand‘s case, his
submission is that any cloud on the caste of a
8
(2005) 12 SCC 248
– 28 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
person can be cleared by looking in to the
immediate family members of that person and
in this case the father, mother, paternal aunt
and siblings all being bearers of a valid caste
certificate certifying them to be members of the
Gond tribe, one can clearly deduce from the
same the valid claims of Respondent No. 2 as
regards her caste status.
9.17. He places reliance on the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in K.P. Manu vs
Chairman, Scrutiny Committee for
Verification of Community Certificate9,
more particularly para no. 39 thereof, which
has been reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
“39. At this juncture, certain findings recorded by
the Scrutiny Committee require to be reproduced:
“The Committee examined the aspect whether the
aforementioned decisions can have any application to
the claimant’s conversion to Hinduism in 1984. The
Committee noted that neither the claimant nor his9
C.A. No. 7065/2008
– 29 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024parents was born as Hindu and later converted to
Christianity from Hinduism. In fact they are born as
Christians. Hence there is no element of re-conversion
in the claimant’s case. Hence the question of reviving
caste status as Pulayan (SC) on the ground that some
of his ancestors were having Pulayan (SC) status does
not arise. The claimant traces SC (Pulayan) status
from generations back despite the fact that his
ancestors in the descending generation, consistently
opted to renounce Pulayan caste status and Hindu
religious status by converting to Christianity.
Ordinarily one gets his/her caste on the basis of
his/her parents. In other words, one shall be, on birth
deemed to be belonging to the caste of his/her
parents. In the facts and circumstances of the
claimant’s case, the claimant and his parents were
devoid of any caste identity right from their birth. It is
significant to note that ten years after his conversion
to Hinduism, the claimant has contracted marriage
with a Christian lady, as per Special Marriage Act.
Hence, the Committee found that the claimant’s case
does not come under the ambit of aforementioned
verdicts.” The said report has been given the stamp of
approval by the High Court. In the impugned order,
the Division Bench, after referring to the report, has
held thus: “The paternal as well as maternal grand-
father of the appellant belonged to Christian
community and professed Christian faith. Patents of
the appellant were born as Christians and they
continued to profess Christianity. The appellant also
was born as a Christian. Annexure-I Certificate shows
that in the SSLC book he is shown as a person
belonging to Christian religion. As rightly found by the
respondent there is no caste by name ‘Pulaya convert’.
Neither the state government nor the revenue officials
have the power to effect any alteration in the caste
name contrary to the Presidential Order issued under
the authority of the Constitution of India. Appellant
cannot claim the caste status of Pulayan merely on the
ground that he embraced Hinduism at the age of 24.
His claim that he should be treated as one belonging
to scheduled caste community has been rightly
rejected by the respondent after considering all
relevant facts and the law on the subject. Neither the
appellant nor his parents had enjoyed the caste status
of Pulayan. Hence by embracing Hinduism at the age
of 24, the appellant who was born to Christian parents
and professed Christian faith is not entitled to claim
that he is Hindu-Pulaya.”
– 30 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
9.18. By relying on K.P. Manu‘s case, he submits
that a person is deemed to belong to a
particular caste by his/her birth itself,
Respondent No. 2 having been born into the
Gond community and all her blood relatives
holding valid certificates of the same are bona-
fide members of the Gond Tribal community.
9.19. He relies on a decision of this Court in Ananya
R. Shetty vs The Dean, NIT Suratkal10,
more particularly para no. 7 thereof, which has
been reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
“7. What is evident from the impugned order
passed by the Deputy Commissioner is that there is no
doubt that the petitioner’s father is recorded to be
from Nadava community, in his school records. It is
evident that the petitioner’s father’s sisters (both elder
and younger), their children have claimed their caste
as Nadava. The only aberration is that the petitioner’s
father’s brother claimed that he belonged to Bunt
community. Moreover, the neighbours of the ancestral
home of the petitioner have clearly stated that the
petitioner’s family is recognized by both names viz.,
Bunts and Nadava. What is more important is that
when the Deputy Commissioner found from the report
submitted by the Tahsildar that the caste status of the
petitioner’s father, his siblings (except his brother) and
their children was recorded as ‘Nadava’, there is no
palpable reason furnished by the Deputy10
WP No. 14514/2021
– 31 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024Commissioner, not to accept the claim of the
petitioner. As mentioned earlier, except the
petitioner’s father’s brother who had claimed the caste
status of ‘Bunt’, all other relatives of the petitioner
have claimed the status of ‘Nadava’. No information is
forthcoming as to whether such claim by the other
relatives, including that of the petitioner’s father was
at any point of time withdrawn or cancelled.
9.20. By relying on Ananya Shetty’s case, he
submits that, while all the immediate family
members of Respondent No. 2 are holders of a
Gond caste certificate, the fact that it never
stood withdrawn or cancelled at any point in
time, that alone should act as conclusive proof
of Respondent No. 2’s caste status, merely
because there is an aberration in some of the
other family members claiming to be other than
the schedule tribe would not make the
Respondent No.2 not belong to Schedule Tribe.
9.21. He further relies on a decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Arvind Kumar Jaiswal (D) Thr.
LR. vs Devendra Prasad Jaiswal Varun11,
more particularly para no. 2 thereof, which has
11
– 32 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024been reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
“2. An order of remand prolongs and delays the
litigation and hence, should not be passed unless the
appellate court finds that a re-trial is required, or the
evidence on record is not sufficient to dispose of the
matter for reasons like lack of adequate opportunity of
leading evidence to a party, where there had been no
real trial of the dispute or there is no complete or
effectual adjudication of the proceedings, and the
party complaining has suffered material prejudice on
that account. Where evidence has already been
adduced and a decision can be rendered on
appreciation of such evidence, an order of remand
should not be passed remitting the matter to the lower
court, even if the lower court has omitted to frame
issue(s) and/or has failed to determine any question of
fact, which, in the opinion of the appellate court, is
essential. The first appellate court, if required, can also
direct the trial court to record evidence and finding on
a particular aspect/issue in terms of Rule 25 to Order
XLI, which then can be taken on record for deciding
the case by the appellate court.”
9.22. By relying on Arvind Kumar Jaiswal’s case,
he submits that there being sufficient material
to show that Respondent No. 2 is of the Gond
community by birth, any case of remand to
reappreciate evidence would only lead to an
unnecessary delay in arriving at justice. If at all
there is a need for a fresh issue to be
adjudicated upon, evidence in that regard may
be recorded by the Trial Court in terms of Order
– 33 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
XLI Rule 25 of the CPC and submitted to the
appellate court for rendering its decision.
9.23. He places reliance on a decision of the full
bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Punith Rai
vs Dinesh Chaudhary12, more particularly
para nos. 30 and 31 thereof, which have been
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
“30. In Caste and the Law in India by Justice S.B.
Wad at p.30 under the heading “Sociological
Implications”, it is stated:
“Traditionally, a person belongs to a caste in
which he is born. The caste of the parents determines
his caste but in case of reconversion a person has the
liberty to renounce his casteless status and voluntarily
accept his original caste. His caste status at birth is
not immutable. Change of religion does not
necessarily mean loss of caste. If the original caste
does not positively disapprove, the acceptance of the
caste can be presumed. Such acceptance can also be
presumed if he is elected by a majority to a reserved
seat. Although it appears that some dent is made in
the classical concept of caste, it may be noticed that
the principle that caste is created by birth is not
dethroned. There is also a judicial recognition of caste
autonomy including the right to outcaste a person.”
31. If he is considered to be a member of the
Scheduled Caste, he has to be accepted by the
community.”
9.24. By relying on Punith Rai‘s case, his submission
is that the caste of a person is determined at
12
2003 INSC 400
– 34 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
birth and despite not having any evidence to
that effect, a mere acceptance by the members
of the caste is enough to arrive at a strong
presumption. Respondent No. 2’s mother
having been elected as a member of the
Chincholi Town Panchayat under the ST
reservation category is convincing and
substantial enough proof of the acceptance of
the caste of Respondent No. 2 by the society at
large.
9.25. He then places reliance on the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Mah. Adiwasi Thakur
Jamat Swarakshan Samiti vs The State of
Maharashtra & Ors.13, more particularly para
no. 27 thereof, which has been reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
“27. Before we go into the decisions in the cases
of Vijakumar and Anand, we need to deal with an
argument made by one of the interveners that the
Scrutiny Committee is not a quasi-judicial authority.
13
CA No. 2772/2022
– 35 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024The said submission is based on a decision of
coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Dayaram.
In paragraph 35, the decision in the case of Dayaram
holds thus:
“35. The Scrutiny Committee is not an
adjudicating authority like a court or tribunal, but
an administrative body which verifies the facts,
investigates into a specific claim (of caste status)
and ascertains whether the caste/tribal status
claimed is correct or not. Like any other decisions
of administrative authorities, the orders of the
Scrutiny Committee are also open to challenge in
proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Permitting civil suits with provisions for appeals
and further appeals would defeat the very
scheme and will encourage the very evils which
this Court wanted to eradicate. As this Court
found that a large number of seats or posts
reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes were being taken away by bogus
candidates claiming to belong to Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes, this Court directed
the constitution of such Scrutiny Committees, to
provide an expeditious, effective and efficacious
remedy, in the absence of any statute or a legal
framework for proper verification of false claims
regarding SCs/STs status. This entire scheme in
Madhuri Patil [(1994) 6 SCC 241 : 1994 SCC
(L&S) 1349 : (1994) 28 ATC 259] will only
continue till the legislature concerned makes an
appropriate legislation in regard to verification of
claims for caste status as SC/ST and issue of
caste certificates, or in regard to verification of
caste certificates already obtained by candidates
who seek the benefit of reservation, relying upon
such caste certificates.”
(emphasis added)
9.26. By relying on the Mah. Adiwasi Thakur
Jamat‘s case, his submission is that the caste
verification authority was specially constituted
to effectively and expeditiously remedy false
– 36 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
claims of caste status in the absence of a
statutory body, upon the enactment of a special
legislation for the issuance and verification of
caste certificates and the procedure prescribed,
such decisions are summary in nature, and
leaves very little room for interference at the
hands of writ courts.
9.27. He relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble
Andhra Pradesh Court in State of Andhra
Pradesh vs T. Varahalu14, more particularly
para no. 29 thereof, which has been reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
“29. Lastly, this Court notices that the claim of the
1st respondent was brushed aside on the ground that
he has not filed any valid documentary proof like the
Birth and Death Register. It is a fact that the burden of
proof is on the 1st respondent but the ground reality
cannot be lost sight of. The illiteracy and poverty in
rural India cannot be totally lost sight of. Access to
Government offices and furnishing of correct
information is not possible even today. It is for this
reason only that the Rules provide that the Birth
Registration Certificate “if any” furnished by the
person should be considered. The rules clearly
stipulated that the Committee should examine the
anthropological, ethnological traits, rituals, customs14
WA No. 760/2021
– 37 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024etc., to determine the claim of scheduled tribes. Any
person who has knowledge of the community can also
be examined. The expert’s opinion can also be
obtained as per Rule 7 from members of the Scrutiny
Committee belonging to the Social Welfare and Tribal
Welfare Department. Persons, who have knowledge of
the social status of the applicant also may be
examined.”
9.28. By relying on T. Varahalu‘s case, he submits
that the illiteracy and poverty of the depressed
classes ought to be taken account of and the
state or any authority cannot set-aside the
caste status of a person on the absence of
relevant documents such as the birth
certificate, etc. It is pertinent to examine the
sociological aspect of rituals, customs and traits
to determine the claims of scheduled tribe
persons, Respondent No. 2 in this case cannot
be burdened to prove her caste status by way
of merely holding necessary documents to that
effect.
9.29. He further relies on the decision of the Hon’ble
Bombay High Court in Monali Suresh Deore
– 38 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors.15, more
particularly para no. 10 thereof, which has been
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
“10. These observations of the Scrutiny
Committee have not been considered for their
correctness or otherwise while passing this order as it
is not necessary in view of the fact that there is
already in existence a conclusive evidence of validity
certificates issued to blood relatives of the petitioner
from her paternal side, which have not been issued as
a result of some fraud or suppression of facts or
misrepresentation of material facts on the part of
those certificate holders. In the result, we are inclined
to allow the petition and it is allowed accordingly.”
9.30. By relying on Monali Suresh Deore’s case, he
submits that issuance of caste validity
certificates to blood relatives of a person
amounts to conclusive proof of caste and does
not require any further scrutiny, this being the
case the fact that the blood relatives of
Respondent No. 2 are all holders of valid and
unchallenged caste certificates stating them to
be of the Gond tribe is alone enough to dismiss
this instant petition.
15
WP No. 1125/2007
– 39 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
9.31. He lastly relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in J. Chitra vs District Collector
& Chairman State Level Vigilance
Committee, T.N & Ors.16, more particularly
para no. 8 thereof, which has been reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
“8. Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued
to the parents/guardian also in case candidate is minor
to appear before the Committee with all evidence in
his or their support of the claim for the social status
certificates.”
9.32. By placing reliance on J. Chitra’s case, his
submission is that notice to appear for
investigation also applies to the parents of the
candidate and in this case the same not being
done is a violation of the rules of notice.
9.33. The learned Counsel for Respondent No.2
submits that with abundant material on record
supporting the case of Respondent No. 2 that
she is a member of the Gond community and is
rightfully entitled to benefits under the ST
16
CA No. 5160/2010
– 40 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
category, there being no illegality or legal
infirmity in the order of the Respondent No.1-
apellate authority which also happens to be the
last fact-finding authority in matters of caste
verification, this petition is liable to be
dismissed requiring no interference at the
hands of this Hon’ble Court.
D. Submissions on Behalf of Respondent Nos. 1
and 3-6
10. Shri. C. Jagadish, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of Respondents 1 & 3-6, adopts the
arguments advanced by the Petitioner and would
further submit that;
10.1. The caste certificates of the relatives of the
father relied upon by Respondent No. 2 to
validate her caste before the appellate authority
were not subject matter of verification before
the DCVC and therefore cannot be held to be a
valid caste certificate issued in their favour, and
– 41 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
hence does not amount to conclusive proof of
the same.
10.2. He places reliance on the decision of the
Division bench of this Hon’ble Court in Uttar
Kannada Zilla Moger Sangha and Nar. Vs
State of Karnataka and Ors.17, more
particularly para no. 5 thereof, which has been
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
“5. It is well settled law that a certificate of caste
issued by the Competent Authority is always subject to
scrutiny by the verification committee. Therefore we
find nothing wrong about the second part of the
circular dated 4th November 2019.”
10.3. By relying on Uttar Kannada Zilla’s case, his
submission is that a caste certificate issued can
always be a subject matter of scrutiny and
verification, in the instant case no such
verification having been made of the certificates
of the blood relatives of Respondent No. 2 upon
whose certificates she has relied upon before
17
WP Nos. 54716-54177/2018
– 42 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
the verification authority, those certificates
issued without looking into the documents as
regards the caste of the paternal uncle of
Respondent No.2 i.e. Mr. Shamrao, is thus, not
conclusive evidence of the caste of Respondent
No.2.
10.4. As regards the locus of the Petitioner to
maintain this instant petition, he submits that
the fact that the Petitioner is a member of the
Scheduled Tribe community notified under
Article 342 of the Indian Constitution along with
being the President of the ‘Prevention of Bogus
Caste Certificate Committee (R)’ and in light of
the law laid down in Vageesh B.M.‘s case
(supra), the petitioner has locus and the instant
petition is maintainable before this Court.
10.5. He relies on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in State of Maharashtra and Ors. vs
Ravi Prakash Babulalsingh Parmar and
– 43 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
Anr.18, more particularly para no. 23 thereof,
which has been reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
“23. The makers of the Constitution laid emphasis
on equality amongst citizens. The Constitution of India
provides for protective discrimination and reservation
so as to enable the disadvantaged group to come on
the same platform as that of the forward community.
If and when a person takes an undue advantage of the
said beneficent provision of the Constitution by
obtaining the benefits of reservation and other benefits
provided under the Presidential Order although he is
not entitled thereto, he not only plays a fraud on the
society but in effect and substance plays a fraud on
the Constitution. When, therefore, a certificate is
granted to a person who is not otherwise entitled
thereto, it is entirely incorrect to contend that the
State shall be helpless spectator in the matter.”
10.6. By relying on Babulalsingh‘s case, he submits
that the state cannot take the role of a helpless
spectator when a person takes undue
advantage of the benefits provided by the
constitution to the oppressed classes/castes,
more so when such an act amounts to a fraud
played on the society and the Constitution
itself. Respondent No.2 by obtaining a caste
certificate fraudulently and being a beneficiary
18
(2007) 1 SCC 80
– 44 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
of its benefits thereof, has thus played fraud on
the society and the Constitution as a whole.
10.7. In light of the arguments advanced, the
precedents relied upon and in the interest of
justice the learned counsel submits that this
Court allow the instant petition.
10.8. He further requests to remand this matter to
the DCVC along with a direction to refer it to
the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement
(DCRE) as per sub-rule (4) of Rule 7 of the
Rules to the Act, specifically casting a
responsibility upon the officials of the DCRE to
personally verify and examine the facts as
regards the caste of Respondent No. 2 , her
parents and her relatives keeping before them
all relevant documents such as school records,
birth registration etc. A report to this effect be
prepared and submitted to the DCVC, which
would thereafter following due process and
– 45 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
affording opportunities to all parties pass
appropriate orders within 30 days from the date
of receipt of a copy of the report from the
DCRE.
E. Submissions on Behalf of Respondent No. 7
11. Shri. Mahesh Patil, learned counsel appearing on
behalf on Respondent No. 7, would submit that;
11.1. Upon the caste verification committee holding
that Respondent No. 2 herein was not of the
Gond caste, subsequently Respondent No. 7
who happened to be the next meritorious
candidate in line for appointment, was selected
by an order dated 17.10.2019.
11.2. Challenging the selection of Respondent No. 7,
Respondent No.2 filed a writ petition before this
Hon’ble Court in W.P. No. 205023/2019, which
came to be disposed holding that nothing
survives for consideration, however,
– 46 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
Respondent No. 2 would be entitled for
appointment only upon the production of a valid
caste certificate.
11.3. Respondent No. 7 being the next in line, her
caste certificate underwent and withstood the
test of validation, following which a validation
certificate came to be issued in her favour.
11.4. Apart from the above stated facts, the learned
counsels for Respondent No. 7 adopt and
support the submissions and contentions of the
Petitioner in the instant petition.
12. Heard Smt. Hema Kulkarni, learned counsel
appearing for the Petitioner, Shri. Arunkumar
Amargundappa, learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No. 2, Shri. C. Jagadish, learned counsel
appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 & 3-6, Shri. Mahesh
Patil learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.
7, perused papers.
– 47 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
F. Points for Consideration
13. Upon hearing all the concerned parties and perusing
the relevant material on record, the points that
would arise for the consideration of this Court are:
1. Whether the Petitioner herein is an
aggrieved party and has the locus standi to
maintain the instant petition?
2. When Schedule Tribe Certificates are
issued to the parents of Respondent No.2,
can her certificate as that belonging to the
Schedule Tribe Category be questioned?
3. Is a Schedule Caste/tribe certificate
conclusive and presumed to be valid?
4. On whom does the burden of proof lie, is it
on the person asserting that he/she
belongs to the Schedule Caste/Schedule
Tribe category to prove that he/she
belongs to that category or does it lie on
the person alleging that he/she does not
– 48 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
belong to that category to prove that fact?
5. Whether this Court can adjudicate on
matters relating to the validity of caste as a
fact-finding forum vis-à-vis the Karnataka
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
Other Backward Classes (Reservation of
Appointment Etc.) Act, 1990?
6. Whether the impugned order dated
27.02.2024 suffers from any legal infirmity
requiring interference at the hands of this
Court?
7. What Order?
14. I answer the above points as under:
15. Answer to Point No. 1: Whether the Petitioner
herein is an aggrieved party and has the locus
standi to maintain the instant petition?
15.1. The Petitioner asserts his locus on the ground
that he is a member of the ‘Bedar’ community,
which is a Scheduled Tribe and hence, he is an
– 49 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
aggrieved party as a false caste certificate
obtained fraudulently amounts to a fraud
played on the ST community as a whole.
Respondent No. 2 takes the stand that the
Petitioner being a third-party and not an
aggrieved person by Respondent No.2’s
appointment at GESCOM, (neither being the
employer nor an interested party for the post of
Assistant Accounts Officer) holds no locus to
challenge the validity of the caste certificate
issued to Respondent No.2.
15.2. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ayaaubkhan‘s case
(supra) at para no. 9 and 10 has made the
following observation, reproduced hereunder for
easy reference:
“9. It is a settled legal proposition that a
stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any
proceeding, unless he satisfies the authority/court,
that he falls within the category of aggrieved
persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers
from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order,
etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution is maintainable either for the
– 50 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or
when there is a complaint by the appellant that there
has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of
the authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially
enforceable right available for enforcement, on the
basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The
Court can, of course, enforce the performance of a
statutory duty by a public body, using its writ
jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that
such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal
right to insist on such performance. The existence of
such right is a condition precedent for invoking the
writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the
exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that the
relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right.
In fact, the existence of such right, is the foundation
of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court.
The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily
be the right of the appellant himself, who complains
of infraction of such right and approaches the Court
for relief as regards the same. [Vide State of
Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta [1951 SCC 1024 : AIR
1952 SC 12] , Saghir Ahmad v. State of U.P. [AIR
1954 SC 728] , Calcutta Gas Co. (Proprietary)
Ltd. v. State of W.B. [AIR 1962 SC 1044] , Rajendra
Singh v. State of M.P. [(1996) 5 SCC 460 : AIR 1996
SC 2736] and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders
Welfare Assn. (2) v. S.C. Sekar [(2009) 2 SCC 784] ]
10. A “legal right”, means an entitlement
arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as
an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person
by the rule of law. The expression, “person
aggrieved” does not include a person who suffers
from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person
aggrieved must, therefore, necessarily be one whose
right or interest has been adversely affected or
jeopardised. (Vide Shanti Kumar R. Canji v. Home
Insurance Co. of New York [(1974) 2 SCC 387 : AIR
1974 SC 1719] and State of Rajasthan v. Union of
India [(1977) 3 SCC 592 : AIR 1977 SC 1361] .)”
15.3. The above extract elucidates that an ‘aggrieved
person’ is one who suffers from a legal injury
– 51 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
and one who has a legal right of recourse
against the same. It further affirms that the
right to claim relief under writ jurisdiction is
entertainable in cases of breach of statutory
duties by authorities. Similarly, the Petitioner
herein claiming to have suffered a legal injury
by being a member of the ST community claims
a right to question the validity of the caste
certificate issued to Respondent No.2.
Additionally, he impugns the order of
Respondent No.1-Authority on the basis of it
not having judiciously carried out its statutory
duties. A cloud on the caste status of
respondent No. 2 having been raised by the
petitioner on grounds of having suffered a legal
injury by virtue of being a member of the ST
community vis-à-vis the caste certificate of her
paternal uncle and the misfeasance on part of
the Respondent No.1-authority would plainly
attract the law laid down in the above-
– 52 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
mentioned case when a question of who is an
aggrieved person is put forth.
15.4. On a careful consideration of the facts in the
matter at hand, the ratio enunciated in
Ayaaubkhan‘s case (supra) would enure to
the benefit of the Petitioner herein.
15.5. Further the Hon’ble Apex Court in A. Subhash
Babu vs State of A.P.19 has dealt with the
concept of an ‘Aggrieved Party’ more
particularly at para no. 25 which is reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
25.” ……The expression “aggrieved person” denotes
an elastic and an elusive concept. It cannot be
confined within the bounds of a rigid, exact and
comprehensive definition. Its scope and meaning
depends on diverse, variable factors such as the
content and intent of the statute of which the
contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances
of the case, the nature and extent of complainant’s
interest and the nature and the extent of the
prejudice or injury suffered by the complainant……”
19
(2011) 7 SCC 616
– 53 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
15.6. Subhash Babu‘s case, aids in the building of a
comprehensive outlook towards the extent of
the scope of determining an aggrieved person.
It puts to perspective the elastic nature of a
legal injury and in that regard the elastic nature
of the bestowment of legal rights and the
legislative intent in the governing statutes. The
Act of 1990 being a beneficial legislation, to
help uplift members of the SC/ST communities ,
any fraudulent methods of availing benefits
therefrom by any unentitled persons ought to
be open to scrutiny, at any-time by anyone
from such SC/ST communities. This being the
case, the Petitioner’s cloud on locus stands
further resolved, granting him a legal standing
by way of being a member of the ST
community to raise ‘reasonable’ claims of injury
suffered.
15.7. Finally, the judgment of a co-ordinate bench of
– 54 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
this Court in Vageesh‘s case (supra) has laid
to rest the issue of locus as regards a
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe members’
right to challenge the validity of a caste
certificate issued to other alleged SC/ST
persons. Having relied upon all leading
judgements on the point of the locus of a third-
party to a dispute and the elastic nature of a
legal injury one may suffer, has opined that:
“…discrimination or larger public injustice may be
alleged by a third-party, provided that, the writ
petitioner demonstrates a certain appreciable
disadvantage qua other similarly situated
persons…”
15.8. This Court, when it comes to matters of grave
societal importance may in essence not have to
treat the matter simply as a litigation in public
interest but as a public law litigation. This
would thus enable a scrutiny upon whether a
person is guilty of having committed a fraud on
the Constitution and the society as a whole.
– 55 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
The Petitioner in the instant case having
established all of the above qualities to hold
locus as a third-party, the law laid down in
Vaagesh‘s case would be attracted to the case
at hand, as regards the locus of the Petitioner.
15.9. On a conjoint reading of the above-mentioned
case laws it is clear that the scope of what
constitutes an aggrieved party is an expandable
one and any bona-fide member of the SC/ST
community holds locus to challenge the validity
of a caste certificate issued to any alleged
member of the SC/ST community. This finds
ground from the fact that a fraudulently
obtained false caste certificate would directly
infringe upon the rights and interests of other
genuine SC/ST members, conferred by way of
reservation and other benefits to socially uplift
the oppressed classes, such an act would
plainly put fraudulent members at an undue
– 56 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
advantage which he/she is otherwise disentitled
to.
15.10. Respondent No. 2 by relying on the cases of
R.S. Mahadev & M. David (Supra) took the
stand that the petitioner not being an aspirant
to the post applied for by Respondent No. 2 is
without locus to maintain the instant petition.
R.S. Mahadev’s case being one related to a
cloud on entitlement of caste-based benefits
upon marriage and not one relating to the
inheritance of caste by birth would not be
applicable to the present facts of this case and
hence would not enure to the benefit of
Respondent No.2.
15.11. Dr. M. David‘s case dealt with the contentions
of irregularities in the selection process,
requisite compliance by the applicants, and the
caste status of a person born in a different
state, and therefore does not in any manner
– 57 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
apply to the factual matrix of the dispute at
hand and hence would also not enure to the
benefit of Respondent No.2.
15.12. As afore indicated Section 4A of the Act of 1990
deals with the issuance of caste certificate and
income and caste certificate by the Tahasildar
and the procedure to be followed by the
Tahasildar. In terms of sub-section 5 of Section
4-A of the Act, of 1990, the burden of proving
that the candidate or his parents or guardian
belong to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes
and Other Backward Classes shall be on the
applicant.
15.13. In the present case, such a caste certificate has
been issued indicating that respondent No.2
belongs to the Scheduled Castes ‘Gonda
community’ having issued a caste certificate
and thereafter having applied to the GESCOM to
be appointed as an Assistant Accounts Officer.
– 58 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
15.14. In terms of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1992, the same
was referred to the DCVC for issuance of a
validity certificate. Rule 9 of Rules, 1992 is
reproduced hereunder now for easy reference:
“9. Recruitments :- No person who claims the
benefit of reservation shall be appointed to a service
or a post under Government or to an establishment
in public sector without production of the validity
certificate.
Provided that the cases pending before the
Scrutinising Community constituted under Rule 9A
on the date of commencement of the Karnataka
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other
Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment
etc.)(Amendment) Rules, 2000 shall stand
transferred to the concerned Caste Verification
Committee and they shall dispose of such cases as if
such cases were filed before them.
15.15. The requirement for referring the caste
certificate issued under Section 4-A of the Act
of 1990 for a validity certificate was on account
of the specific embargo under Rule 9 of Rules,
1992 that no person who claims benefit of
reservation shall be appointed to a service or a
post under the Government or to an
establishment in Public Sector without the
– 59 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024production of a validity certificate. The DCVC
rejected the caste certificate issued under
Section 4-A of the Act of 1990 and it was
challenging the same that the respondent No.1
had filed an appeal under Section 4-B of the
Act, 1990.
15.16. It is in those proceedings that the petitioner
had filed an impleading application, which came
to be allowed. The appeal also had been
allowed setting aside the order of the DCVC. It
is in this background, it is contended that the
petitioner does not have locus since he has not
applied for the said post and as such, he cannot
be said to be an aggrieved person.
15.17. Insofar as the present matter is concerned, the
petitioner had been impleaded in the appeal
under Section 4D of the Act of 1990. The
petitioner had been heard by the DCVC,
however the contentions were rejected and it is
– 60 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024in that background the petitioner is before this
Court.
15.18. The aspect of a person being aggrieved under
Section 4D of the Act, 1990 would have to be
treated differently than that in a writ petition,
the concept of locus in a writ petition being
much wider to achieve the ends of justice.
Whereas, under Section 4D, it is a little
constricted. The present writ petition is not a
statutory appeal, but it is a writ petition filed
seeking for exercise of supervisory powers
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
This Court would have wider power and
amplitude in considering a writ petition and if
this Court were to come to a conclusion that
the order passed by the Appellate Authority
under Section 4D is required to be set aside on
the basis of any details, documents, facts or
submission made by anyone, this court would
– 61 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024have to take cognizance and exercise
supervisory power to render the order.
15.19. In that view of the matter, even though in an
appeal under Section 4D, the concept of locus is
a little restricted. However, as held in
Vageesh‘s case (supra), if a fraud is sought to
be perpetrated on the Constitution of India and
a person ineligible to any benefits has sought to
fraudulently avail the said benefits, the same
would amount to to the entire Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes community, who would be
affected by any such fraud played by a person
falsely claiming to belong to the SC/ST
community.
15.20. I am of the considered opinion that the
petitioner cannot at the initial stage itself be
shut off from hearing without considering the
submissions sought to be made. If a well-
meaning person belonging to the SC/ST
– 62 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024community, representing the interest of the
SC/ST community were to come before this
Court to contend that the interest of the
community is suffering as a whole. This Court
could always consider the same as public law
litigation, irrespective of whether such a person
was a party to such proceedings or not.
15.21. In the present case, as indicated supra, the
petitioner had filed an impleading application in
the appeal filed by respondent No.1 under
Section 4A of the Act of 1990 and had
represented the matter before the appellate
authority. Then the petitioner has been a party
before the appellate authority. I am of the
considered opinion that the petitioner cannot be
deprived of challenging the order passed in
which he is a party, as such, I am of the
considered opinion that the petitioner has locus
to file the present petition.
– 63 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 202415.22. Hence, I answer point No.1 by holding that the
petitioner can be considered to be an
‘aggrieved party’ both on account of the claim
made by the petitioner that the benefits of
reservation granted to the SC/ST community
has been usurped by a person not so entitled as
also on account of the petitioner being a party
to the appeal filed under Section 4D of the Act
of 1990.
16. Answer to Point No. 2: When Schedule Tribe
certificates are issued to the parents of
Respondent No. 2, her certificate as that
belonging to the Schedule Tribe category
cannot be questioned?
16.1. The argument placed on behalf of Respondent
No.2 was that she has been availing benefits
under the ST reservation for the past 35 years
and that both her parents as well as her
brother, sister and paternal aunt are holders of
a valid Gond Scheduled Tribe certificate and
– 64 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
hence the caste certificate issued to
Respondent No. 2 is authentic and
unimpeachable. It was further argued that
caste being hereditary in nature and her
parents holding certificates to that effect alone
is enough to not question the validity of
Respondent No. 2’s caste certificate.
16.2. Although caste is hereditary in nature and one
can be associated to a particular caste only by
being born into that caste-community, it is
pertinent to note that the caste of the parents
or ancestors merely creates an eligibility to
apply and avail a caste status certificate and
does not by itself conclude or determine with
finality the caste of a person in the eyes of law.
16.3. It is in pursuance of the same, despite a person
holding a caste certificate, the legislature in its
wisdom through section 4-C of the Act of 1990
and rule 4 read with rule 9 of the Rules of 1992
– 65 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
envisioned the need for the verification of a
caste certificate prior to a reservation-based
appointment or an educational seat being
granted to an applicant.
16.4. Rule 9 of the Rules of 1992 is reproduced here
under for easy reference:
“9. Recruitments:- No person who claims the
benefit of reservation shall be appointed to a service or a
post under Government or to an establishment in public
sector without production of the validity certificate.
Provided that the cases pending before the Scrutinising
Committee constituted under rule 9A on the date of
commencement of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of
Appointment etc.) (Amendment) Rules, 2000 shall stand
transferred to the concerned Caste Verification Committee and
they shall dispose of such cases as if such cases were filed
before them.”
16.5. The aforesaid rule creates an embargo on any
person who claims the benefit of reservation to
be appointed to a service or a post under the
Government or to an establishment in Public
Sector without the production of the validity
certificate.
– 66 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
16.6. Thus, even if a caste certificate is produced by a
candidate, such candidate cannot be appointed
without the verification of his/her caste
certificate and a validity certificate issued by
the DCVC. This being so, since the State is also
vested with a duty to see to it that no person
claims for and obtains benefit of reservation
without being entitled to it. Rule 9 is in aid of
providing reservation to eligible candidates and
weeding out persons, who are not eligible and it
is for that reason that Rule 7A of the Rules of
1992 also contemplates prosecution for
obtaining a false caste certificate. The said Rule
7A is reproduced for easy reference hereunder :
“7A. Prosecution for obtaining false caste
Certificate:- (1) The Caste Verification Committee or
the caste and income verification Committee. As the
case may be and the * Divisional Commissioner, shall
send a copy of the order rejecting claim of the
applicant for grant of validity certificate or, as the case
may be, a copy of the order in appeal rejecting such
claim to the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement.
(2) The Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement
shall take steps to prosecute such claimant who has
obtained a false caste certificate.”
– 67 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
16.7. A perusal of Rule 7A, makes it clear the
intention of the legislature in safeguarding the
persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes or
Scheduled Tribes category from fraudulent
persons, who seek to obtain such reservation
without being eligible to do so, the same also
indicates that the caste Certificate ipso facto is
not valid, if a false certificate is obtained the
same can be questioned and if the certificate is
found to be false, the person obtaining such
false certificate can be prosecuted.
16.8. These very provisions being brought to life
clearly puts into perspective the intention of the
legislature to put to test the validity of a caste
claim and the authenticity of the caste
certificate itself so as to prosecute fraudulent
persons from availing caste-based reservation
benefits.
– 68 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
16.9. It is therefore clear that any caste certificate
issued by the concerned authority warrants the
need to undergo a test of validity.
16.10. In this case, merely because the parents of
Respondent No.2 are holders of a ST caste
certificate would not clothe Respondent No.2’s
caste certificate with immunity from being
questioned, this finds substantiation from the
fact that the caste certificate of her parents as
well is open to challenge and verification. When
the caste certificate of the parents and relatives
of Respondent No. 2 itself is open to be
challenged, verified and put to test, then so
would Respondent No.2-daughter’s certificate
be open to challenge and being put to test, until
a finality is achieved as regards the said
certificate.
16.11. The parents of respondent No.2 did not seek for
reservation to be appointed to a service or a
– 69 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
post under the Government or to an
establishment in Public Sector requiring the
validation of their caste certificate in terms of
Rule 9 of the Rules of 1992. Respondent No.2
having sought for such appointment, the rules
mandate that the said certificate is validated.
Thus, the caste certificates issued to the
parents of respondent No.2, which have not
undergone a process of validation would not
clothe those certificates with immunity.
16.12. The 2nd respondent having sought for
appointment to a service or a post under the
Government, namely the Accounts Officer at
GESCOM, her certificate, irrespective of the
certificates issued in favour of her parents,
would have to undergo validation in terms of
Rule 9 of the Rules of 1992.
16.13. This being so, there is nothing that is placed on
record to indicate that the caste certificates of
– 70 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
the parents and relatives of Respondent No. 2
have been validated and verified in accordance
with the provisions of the Act of 1990 and the
Rules of 1992.
16.14. The Division Bench of this Court in Uttar
Kannada Zilla’s case (supra) has clearly held
that a certificate of caste issued by a competent
authority is always open to scrutiny by the
verification committee and that the same is a
settled law in this regard.
16.15. By relying on Sumit Anand‘s case (supra), it is
argued that when both Respondent No.2 and
the parents and relatives of Respondent No. 2
are holders of scheduled tribe caste certificates,
the caste of Respondent No. 2 stands
established and hence the same ought not to
be questioned. However, Sumit Anand‘s case
deals with the very issuance of a caste
certificate itself and not one where an issued
– 71 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
caste certificate is being made a subject-matter
of validity and verification proceedings. The
instant case not being one in relation to the
issuance of a caste certificate but with regard to
the verification of a previously issued caste
certificate, more particularly for the purpose of
employment the said decision in Sumit
Anand‘s case would not enure to the benefit of
Respondent No. 2.
16.16. In K.P. Manu‘s case (supra) the point in
question was as regards the validity of a caste
claim upon re-conversion into the Hindu faith
by a subsequent generation in the family and
the same cannot be applied to the contrasting
facts of the instant petition and therefore the
same would not enure to the benefit of
Respondent No.2.
16.17. In light of the above elucidation and the law laid
down in Uttar Kannada Zilla’s case, it is clear
– 72 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
that the validity of the Schedule Tribe caste
certificate held by Respondent No. 2 can be
questioned and is open to be put under a test
of verification, notwithstanding the grant of a
Schedule Tribe caste certificate in favour of the
parents of Respondent No.2, more so when the
certificates of her parents have not undergone
a test of verification and validation. The caste
certificate is required to be validated especially
when Respondent No. 2 is an applicant for
employment to a government post under the
reserved category status.
16.18. Hence, I answer point No.2 by holding that
even if Scheduled Tribe certificates are issued
to the parents of a person, claiming the benefit
of reservation for appointment to a service or a
post under the Government or to an
establishment in Public Sector would
necessitate to get the caste certificate validated
– 73 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
in accordance with law so long as the caste
certificates of the parents have not been
validated.
16.19. Needless to say, if the caste certificates of the
parents have been validated and verified, then
there would be no need for the children to get
the said certificates validated. But however, in
view of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1992, the process
of validation of the caste certificate would have
to be undergone, when the earlier validity
certificate issued in favour of the parents could
be placed on record for consideration.
17. Answer to Point No. 3: Is a Schedule
Caste/Schedule Tribe certificate conclusive and
presumed to be valid?
17.1. The answer to this question entails a two-fold
discussion, first on the conclusiveness of a
caste certificate and second, on the
presumption of its validity.
– 74 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
17.2. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Laveti Giri‘s case
(supra) and this Court in Uttar Kannada
Zilla’s case (supra) have categorically held that
the mere issuance of a caste certificate or the
enjoyment of benefits under the same is not
conclusive proof of caste and can be a subject-
matter of scrutiny. As stated earlier, relevant
provisions of the Act of 1990 (more particularly
section 4-C) and the rules made thereunder
(more particularly rules 4, 6, 6A & 7) distinctly
cast a duty upon statutory bodies to verify the
validity of a caste certificate relied upon to
claim reservation benefits, either for
employment or for education.
17.3. A harmonious interpretation of the case laws
and the statute, both mentioned hereinabove
would plainly put to rest the cloud on
conclusiveness of an issued caste certificate
and hence mere issuance of a SC/ST caste
– 75 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
certificate is not conclusive proof of the same.
17.4. This Hon’ble Court in Ayaaubkhan‘s case
(supra) has held that any caste certificate is
‘regularly and ordinarily’ issued only upon due
verification as per the rules prescribed
thereunder. Sub-clause 3 to rule 4-A of the Act
of 1990 is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
“(3) The Tahasildar may, on receipt of an
application under sub-section (1) or (2), and after
holding such enquiry as he deems fit and satisfying
himself regarding the genuineness of the claim made
by applicant pass an order issuing a caste certificate
or, as the case may be, an income and caste
certificate in such form as may be prescribed, or
rejecting the application.”
17.5. A plain reading of the above extract would
convey that the certificate-issuing authority
ought to perform necessary enquiry as deemed
fit, and satisfy itself as regards the genuineness
of the claim before issuing the caste certificate
and hence this exercise is a statutory duty
performed ‘regularly and ordinarily’.
– 76 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
17.6. The verification that the Tahashildar does while
issuing a caste certificate under Section 4A of
the Act of 1990 is different from the verification
that is required to be done when a person
claims to be appointed to a service or a post in
the Government. Merely because a certificate
has been issued under Section 4A of the Act
1990 would not make the said certificate valid
for all purposes.
17.7. It is only when a person seeks for usage of the
said caste certificate for claiming benefits of
reservation either for appointment or education
that there would be a requirement for the
certificate to be validated by following the due
procedure. The reasons for the same have been
explained herein above.
17.8. It is for those reasons also that when a caste
certificate is issued, any person aggrieved by
the order of the Tahashildar could file an appeal
– 77 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
challenging the same and any person would
include a person who could be affected by such
order.
17.9. In pursuance of such challenge, the matter is
referred to the Caste Verification Committee in
terms of Section 4C and the Caste Verification
Committee would have to hold an enquiry in
terms of the applicable provisions and submit a
report either accepting the validity of the
certificate or rejecting the same. Challenge to
the said order of the DCVC is also provided
under Section 4D of the Act of 1990. The order
passed under Section 4D is also revisable under
Section 4F.
17.10. These are all checks and balances which
have been incorporated in the legislation to
maintain the sanctity of the reservation process
to ensure that a person who is entitled to
benefits of the reservation is granted such
– 78 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
entitlement and a person who is not entitled to
such entitlement is denied such reservation as
also prosecuted for furnishing of false
particulars.
17.11. I Answer point No.3 by holding that the
SC/ST caste certificate issued under Section 4A
of the Act of 1990 is not conclusive and there is
no presumption of validity attached thereto.
The said certificate as indicated above is
amenable for an appeal under Section 4B,
verification by the DCVC under Section 4C,
which verification can be challenged in appeal
under Section 4D, and revisable under Section
4F.
17.12. It is only after standing the test of all the
above, that a certificate can be said to be valid
and acted upon conferring the benefits attached
to such certificate by way of reservation either
in education or in employment.
– 79 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
18. Answer to Point No. 4: On whom does the
burden of proof lie, is it on the person
asserting that he/she belongs to the Schedule
Caste/Schedule Tribe category to prove that
he/she belongs to that category or does it lie
on the person alleging that he/she does not
belong to that category to prove that fact?
18.1. Section 4 of the Act of 1990 refers to the
reservation for appointment to a post. Section
4A deals with issuance of caste certificate and
income and caste certificate in which an
applicant, any candidate or his parent or
guardian belonging to scheduled castes or
scheduled tribes may in order to claim benefit
of reservation under Section 4 either for
appointment to any service or post, or for
admission to a course of study in an University
or any educational institution, may make an
application to the Tahashildar in such form and
such manner as may be prescribed. Section 4A
of the Act, 1990 is reproduced hereunder for
easy reference:
“4A. Issue of caste certificate and income
and caste certificate.- (1) Any candidate or his parent
– 80 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024or guardian belonging to the Scheduled Castes or the
Scheduled Tribes may, in order to claim benefit of
reservation under section 4, either for appointment to
any service or post or for admission to a course of study
in a university or any educational institution, make an
application to the Tahasildar in such form and in such
manner as may be prescribed for issue of a caste
certificate.
(2) Any candidate or his parent or guardian
belonging to other Backward Classes may, in order to
claim benefit of reservation under section 4 either for
appointment to any service or post or for admission to a
course of study in a university or any educational
Institution, make an application to the Tahasildar in such
form and in such manner as may be prescribed for issue
of an income and caste certificate.
(3) The Tahasildar may, on receipt of an
application under sub-section (1) or (2), and after
holding such enquiry as he deems fit and satisfying
himself regarding the genuineness of the claim made by
applicant pass an order issuing a caste certificate or, as
the case may be, an income and caste certificate in such
form as may be prescribed, or rejecting the application.
(4) The Tahasildar shall follow such procedure as
may be prescribed before passing the order under sub-
section (3).
(5) The burden of proving that the candidate or
his parent or guardian belongs to Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes or other Backward Classes shall be on
the applicant.”
18.2. A perusal of the above would indicate that an
application having been made, the Tahasildhar
is required to hold an enquiry, satisfy himself
regarding the genuineness of the claim made
by the applicant and pass an order issuing a
caste certificate or an income and caste
– 81 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
certificate as the case may be or reject the
same.
18.3. In terms of Sub-section (5) of Section 4A, the
burden of proving that the candidate or his
parents, or guardian belongs to the Scheduled
castes or Scheduled tribes or the other
backward classes is on the applicant. That is to
say, if the applicant is a candidate himself, then
the burden is on the candidate/applicant. If the
applicant is otherwise than the candidate, that
is to say a parent or guardian, then the burden
of proof would be on such parent or guardian to
prove that the candidate belongs to Scheduled
Castes, Schedule Tribes or Other Backward
Classes.
18.4. The enquiry in respect of an application under
Section 4A is to be conducted in terms of Rule
3A of the Rules of 1992. The said Rule 3A is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
– 82 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024“3A. Issue of Caste Certificate and Income and
Caste Certificate:-
(1) Every application for Caste Certificate or
Income and Caste Certificate under section 4A shall be
in forms A,B or C as may be appropriate accompanied by
such document and other materials in support of the
claim.
(2) On receipt of the application, the Tahsildar shall
verify the information, documents and such other
materials furnished by the applicant and on such
verification if he is satisfied with the correctness of the
information, documents and evidence furnished by the
applicant, he shall issue caste certificate or income and
caste certificate in forms D E or F as may be appropriate
within two months from the date of receipt of the
application.
(3) Where the Tahsildar is not satisfied with the
correctness of the information. Documents or other
materials furnished by the applicant he shall then
proceed to hold enquiry as follows:
(a) The Tahsildar shall fix the date of enquiry and
issue notice to the applicant to appear on the date so
fixed along with all documents and other materials,
which he desires to produce.
(b) During the course of enquiry he shall examine
the school records. Birth registration certificate, if any
and such other relevant records. He shall examine the
applicant if he is present and may also examine the
parent / guardian of the applicant and any other person
who has the knowledge of the social status of the
applicant and parent / guardian.
Provided that in the case of an applicant who
belongs to the Scheduled tribes, the Tahsildar shall also
take into account the anthropological and ethnological
traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death
ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies and such
other matters.
(c) The Tahsildar shall also cause to be issued a
public notice by beat of drum or any other convenient
mode in the village or locality to which the applicant and
his parent/guardian belongs. If in response to such
notice or otherwise any person or association opposes
the claim of the applicant such person or association
shall also be given an opportunity to produce evidence
during the enquiry.
– 83 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
(d) The Tahsildar may require the assistance of any
officer for the purpose of satisfying himself regarding the
genuineness of the claim made by the applicant.
(e) Where the applicants or parents/ guardians are
inhabitants in an area which is not within the territorial
jurisdiction of the Tahsildar, he may make a reference to
the District Social Welfare Officer concerned in the case
of persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes or to the District officer of Backward
Classes, in the case of persons belonging to the
Backward Classes to provide such professional
assistance as available with them.
(f) The Tahsildar may also call for further
information, document or material if he deems it
necessary.
(g) The Tahsildar may after holding the enquiry in
the manners specified above either issue caste
certificate or income and caste certificate in Forms D,E
or F as may appropriate or reject the claim within a
period of two months, from the date receipt of the
application.”
18.5. A perusal of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3A would
indicate that, on the application being received,
the Tahashildar shall verify the information and
documents and if he is so satisfied with the
documents, a caste certificate in the necessary
form would be issued within two months.
18.6. If the Tahashildar is not satisfied with the
correctness of the information and documents,
then he shall hold an enquiry in terms of Sub-
rule (3) of Rule 3A as aforesaid i.e., this enquiry
– 84 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
contemplated under Sub-rule 3A of the Rules,
1992 and Sub-section (3) of Section 4A of the
Act, 1990 is an exhaustive independent enquiry
to be conducted by the Tahashildar.
18.7. Be that as it may, in terms of Sub-section (5) of
Section 4A, the burden of proving as aforesaid
is on the applicant, hence if questions are to be
answered or clarification given, it is for the
applicant to do so.
18.8. The next stage is that there could be a
possibility of an appeal being filed as regards
the order passed by the Tahashildar under
Section 4A. Section 4B provides for any person
aggrieved, to prefer an appeal to the Assistant
Commissioner of the Revenue Sub-division.
Section 4B is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
“4B. Appeal against order under section
4A.- (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the
Tahasildar under section 4A may, within thirty days
– 85 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024from the date of receipt of the order prefer an appeal
to Assistant Commissioner of the revenue sub-division.
(2) The Assistant Commissioner of the revenue sub-
division may after giving both parties an opportunity
of being heard pass orders allowing or dismissing the
appeal and in appropriate cases directing issue of a
caste certificate or as the case may be, an income and
caste certificate to the applicant.”
18.9. Sub-section (1) of Section 4B relates to an
appeal being filed by an aggrieved person. Sub-
section (2) of Section 4B requires the Assistant
Commissioner to give both parties an
opportunity of being heard before passing the
order. Rule 3B relates to an appeal under
Section 4A, which is reproduced hereunder for
easy reference:
“3B. Appeal against order under section
4A:- On receipt of an appeal under section 4B the
Assistant Commissioner may obtain the records from
the Tahsildar and after giving an opportunity of being
heard to both the parties and making any local
enquiry, if necessary, pass an order giving reasons
thereof within a period of one month from the date of
filing of appeal.”
18.10. A reading of Section 4B and Rule 3A would
indicate that any person aggrieved could also
mean a person other than the applicant or
candidate. Since in terms of Sub-section (2) of
– 86 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
Section 4B, the Assistant Commissioner is
required to after giving both parties an
opportunity of being heard and pass orders,
thus the aggrieved party is not only the
candidate/applicant, but a third party also.
Since the only other person involved in Section
4A certification is the Tahashildar, who cannot
be said to be aggrieved. Thus, if an appeal is
filed under Section 4B, the burden of proof is
on the person who has filed the appeal who
would be a third party to prove otherwise.
18.11. If a candidate/applicant’s application is
rejected, then it is for the candidate/applicant
to prove otherwise in order to overcome the
order of the Tahashildar. If it is a third party,
who is aggrieved by an order of the Tahasildhar,
issuing a certificate, then it is for the third party
to establish that such a certificate could not
have been issued to the candidate/applicant.
– 87 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
18.12. There is one other methodology which has been
introduced under Section 4C for verification of
caste certificate and income and caste
certificate. Section 4C is reproduced hereunder
for easy reference:
“4C. Verification of Caste Certificate and
Income and Caste Certificate.- (1) The State
Government shall constitute one or more Verification
Committees for each district consisting of such person or
persons as may be prescribed for verification of caste
certificate and income and caste certificate issued under
section 4A or section 4B.
(2) Any person who has obtained a caste
certificate or an income and caste certificate under
section 4A or 4B or the appointing authority or any
authority making admission to a course of study in the
university or any educational institution may make an
application to the Verification Committee in such form
and in such manner as may be prescribed for issue of a
validity certificate.
(3) The Verification Committee may after holding
such enquiry as it deems fit within thirty days from the
date of the application either grant a validity certificate
in a prescribed form or reject the application.”
18.13. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 4C, the State
Government shall constitute one or more
verification committees for each District for
verification of the caste certificate issued. Sub-
Section (2) of Section 4C requires that any
person who has obtained a caste certificate, or
– 88 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
an income and caste certificate or the
appointing authority or any authority making
admission to a course of study in the University
or any education institution, may make an
application to the verification committee in such
form and in such manner as may be prescribed
for issuance of the validity certificate.
18.14. In terms of Sub-section (3) of section 4C, the
verification committee, after holding such
enquiry as it deems fit, within 30 days from the
date of application either grants a valid
certificate in the prescribed form or rejects the
application. Thus, under Section 4C an
independent caste verification committee has
been established, any person who has been
issued a certificate could apply to the said
committee for issuance of a validity certificate,
so also any employer or education institution
before whom the benefit of reservation is
– 89 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
sought for can refer to the verification
committee for issuance of a validity certificate.
18.15. It is the verification committee, who will have to
conduct an independent enquiry and either
issue or reject the application for validity
certificate. Rule 4 of the Rules, 1992 speaks of
Caste Verification Committee, the said rule is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
“4. Caste Verification Committee:- (1) There
shall be a committee called the Caste Verification
Committee for each district to verify the caste certificate
issued in respect of the persons belonging to Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The committee shall
consist of the following members namely:-
(1) The Deputy Commissioner of the District who
shall be the Chairman;
(2) The Deputy Secretary (Administration) of the
Zilla Panchayat;
(3) The Tahsildar of Taluk;
(4) The District Social welfare officer who shall be
the Member Secretary.
IV* Amendment of Rule 4:- In rule 4 of the said Rules
the following shall be inserted namely:- Provided that
the State Government may constitute an additional
Caste Verification Committee for any district to verify the
caste certificate issued in respect of the persons
belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes
which shall consist of the following members, namely.
(i) An officer not below the rank of Chairman
Special Deputy Commissioner
appointed by the State
Government
- 90 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
(ii) The Assistant Commissioner Member
of the Sub-Division
(iii) The Tahsildar of the Taluk Member
(iv) The District of Social Welfare Member"
Officer
18.16. It is in terms of Rule 4, that the committee is
constituted and the persons and certain officers
are designated to be members of the
committee.
18.17. Rule 5 deals with certificates issued for
Backward Classes and the persons who shall be
members of such committee.
18.18. Rule 6 speaks of the application for verification.
Rule 6A speaks of the manner of verification of
the caste and income certificate. Said Rule 6A is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
“6A. Verification by the Caste and Income
Verification-Committee:-
Caste “Verification Committee or as the case
may be the Caste and Income Verification Committee
shall refer the application for issue of validity
certificate to the District Social Welfare Officer
concerned of the Social Welfare Department in the
case of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes and to the District officer for
Backward Classes concerned of the Backward Classes
– 91 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024Department in case of persons belonging to other
Backward Classes for verification and report after
holding local enquiries”.”
18.19. After obtaining a report under Rule 6A, a
validity certificate would be issued by the
verification committee by following the
procedure under Rule 7. Rule 7 is reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
“7. Issue of Validity Certificate:- (1) After
getting a report on a reference made under rule 6A the
Caste Verification Committee and the Caste and
Income Verification Committee shall hold and enquiry
after giving opportunity to the parties concerned.
(2) The Committee may examine school
records, birth registration certificate if any and such
other relevant materials and may also examine any
other person who has the knowledge of the community
of the applicant.
Provided that in case of an applicant who
belongs to the Scheduled Tribes, the Committee may
also examine the anthropological and ethnological
traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death
ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies and such
other matters.
(3) If on such enquiry the committee finds that
the applicants claim is genuine it may issue the
certificate sought for, in form I-A, but where the
committee finds that the applicant obtained the caste
certificate or income and caste certificate by making a
false representation, it shall pass an order rejecting
the application indicating the reasons there of for such
refusal. An order under this sub-rule shall be passed
within one month from the date of receipt of the
application.
(4) Where the Committee even after the
enquiry referred to in sub-rules (2) and (3) finds that
the claim is doubtful and is not opposition to come to a
– 92 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
conclusion it shall refer the matter to the Directorate of
Civil Rights Enforcement for detailed investigation and
report. On receipt of the report from the Directorate of
Civil Rights Enforcement, the Committee shall dispose
off the case on merit, after holding such enquiry as it
deems fit and after giving the applicant an opportunity
of being heard. An order under this sub-rule shall be
made within one month from date of receipt of the
application.
(5) Any person aggrieved by an order of the
Caste Verification Committee or caste and income
Verification committee may appeal to the Divisional
Commissioner. The [~Divisional Commissioner] shall
after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the
parties pass such order as he deems fit within forty
five days from the date of filing of such appeal.
[~Amendment to the Act, vide notification
dated:23-2-2004 Appellate Authorities changed from
DVC to concerned HOD’s]”
18.20. An examination of Rule 7 would indicate that
the committee would have to examine all the
school records, Birth Registration Certificate,
relevant material, examine any other person,
who has knowledge of the community of the
applicant. In the event of the person belonging
to the scheduled tribe he should also examine
the anthropological ðnological traits, deity,
rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death
ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies
and such other matters and it is after such
– 93 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024enquiry, if the committee were to so find the
claim of the applicant to be doubtful, the
committee can refer the matter to the
Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement for
detailed investigation and report in terms of
Sub-rule (4) of rule 7 and after getting a
report, if it deems fit give the applicant an
opportunity of being heard and pass orders.
18.21. Thus, in terms of Section 4C and Rules 4 to 7 of
the Rules of 1992, an independent enquiry
would have to be made by the Caste
Verification Committee. If the Verification
Committee is not satisfied, the matter could be
referred to the Director of Civil Rights
Enforcement. If an order is to be passed
against the applicant, a hearing would have to
be provided to the applicant. Thus, the
applicant would once again have a chance to
establish the right of the applicant for such a
– 94 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024validity certificate before the verification
committee.
18.22. Section 4D provides for an appeal by any
person aggrieved by an order passed by the
verification committee. Section 4D reads as
under:
“4D. Appeal.- (1) Any person aggrieved by an
order passed by the Verification Committee under
section 4C may, within thirty days from the date of
receipt of the order appeal,-
(i) to the Commissioner / Director, Social
Welfare in case the verification certificate relates to a
person belonging to the Scheduled Castes;
(ii) to the Director, Tribal Welfare in case the
verification certificate relates to a person belonging to
the Scheduled Tribes;
(iii) to the Director, Backward classes
Department, in case the verification certificate relates
to a person belonging to other Backward Classes; in
such form and in such manner and on payment of such
fee as may be prescribed.
(2) The Appellate Authority shall after giving to
both the parties an opportunity of being heard pass
such order in appeal as it deems fit.
(3) XXX”
18.23. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 7 also deals with such an
appeal, which has been reproduced
hereinabove. The person aggrieved by an order
passed by the verification committee would
– 95 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
necessarily be the applicant, if the application
of the applicant is rejected.
18.24. A perusal of Sub-section (2) of Section 4D
would indicate that the appellate authority shall
after giving to both the parties an opportunity
of being heard, pass such order in appeal as it
deems fit, which would also imply that a person
other than the applicant could also be
aggrieved and that person would have to be
heard.
18.25. If the validity of the caste certificate is refused
by the verification committee and an appeal is
filed by the applicant/candidate, the burden of
proof would lie with the
appellant/candidate/applicant to establish the
caste of the applicant and negate the finding of
the verification committee. If an appeal is filed
by a third-party on account of grant of a
validity certificate, it would be for such third-
– 96 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
party to establish as to why the certificate
ought not to have been granted and how the
issuance of certificate is bad in law as also why
the applicant or candidate is not entitled for the
validity certificate in respect of the caste
certificate.
18.26. Thus, the burden of proof will be on the person,
who files an appeal to establish the grounds
raised in the appeal.
18.27. Section 4F provides for revision by the Deputy
Commissioner in terms of Section 4F is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
“4F. Revision by Deputy Commissioner.- (1)
The Deputy Commissioner may at any time either
suomoto or on an application made to him with in the
prescribed period, call for and examine the records
relating to any decision made or order passed by the
Tahasildar under section 4A or the Assistant
Commissioner under section 4B, for the purposes of
satisfying himself as to the legality, propriety of such
decision or order and if, in any case, it appears to the
Deputy Commissioner that any such decision or order
shall be modified, annulled, revised or remitted for
reconsideration, he may pass orders within thirty days
accordingly; provided that the Deputy Commissioner
shall not pass any order prejudicial to any person unless
such person is given an opportunity of being heard.
– 97 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, stay the
execution of any such decision or order pending the
exercise of his powers under sub-section (1) in respect
thereof.”
18.28. A perusal of Section 4F would indicate that the
Deputy Commissioner may at any time either
suo-moto or on an application made to him
within the prescribed period, call for and
examine records relating to any decision made
or order passed by the Tahashildar under
Section 4A or the Assistant Commissioner
under section 4B for the purposes of satisfying
himself as to the legality or propriety of such
decision or order.
18.29. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4F
indicates that the order of the Deputy
Commissioner cannot be passed by the Deputy
Commissioner prejudicially to any person unless
such person is given an opportunity of being
heard. Thus, even if the Deputy Commissioner
were to exercise suo-moto revisional power, the
– 98 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
Deputy Commissioner would have to provide an
opportunity to the person to whom the
prejudice may be caused by such an order.
18.30. If a third-party were to file an application for
revision, then obviously the burden of proof
would be on such third-party to establish as to
why the order passed by the Tahashildar under
Section 4A or the Assistant Commissioner
under Section 4B is bad in law.
18.31. After all the above, a person would always have
a right to approach the High Court invoking the
powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
18.32. In terms of the supervisory powers of the
quasi-judicial authorities like the Tahashildar,
Assistant Commissioner and Deputy
Commissioner, again depending on who were to
approach the High Court, the burden of proof
– 99 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
would vest with such person to prove the
allegation made.
18.33. Thus, I answer point No.4 by holding that
initially the burden of proof is on the candidate
to establish that he/she belongs to Scheduled
Castes or Scheduled Tribes category. The said
burden of proof will continue to vest with the
said candidates/ applicant if the application was
rejected by the Tahashildar and proceedings
were moved before the Assistant Commissioner,
the burden will continue. If a validity certificate
is sought for as regards the caste certificate, in
the event of the Caste Verification Committee
rejecting the application for validity certificate,
the burden will again continue with the
applicant/candidate in an appeal under Section
4D. If the appeal filed by the
candidate/applicant under Section 4D is also
dismissed, then the burden will continue with
– 100 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
the candidate/applicant on a revision being
filed, if a revision were also to be dismissed and
a writ petition were filed, the burden will still
vest with the applicant/candidate.
18.34. In the event of a certificate having been issued
and a third-party filing an appeal under Section
4D, the burden would be on the third-party to
establish the invalidity of the caste certificate.
18.35. When a caste validity certificate is issued by the
DCVC and a challenge is made by a third-party
under Section 4D, the burden will be on such
third-party who challenges the validity
certificate. If a revision petition is filed by a
third-party seeking for revision of the orders of
the Tahashildar under Section 4A and order of
the Assistant Commissioner under Section 4B,
and order of verification committee under
Section 4D, the burden will be on such third-
party.
– 101 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
19. Answer to Point No. 5: Whether this Court can
adjudicate on matters relating to the validity
of caste as a fact-finding forum vis-à-vis the
Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes
and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of
Appointment Etc.) Act, 1990?
19.1. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Navneet Kaur
Harbhajansing Kundles vs State of
Maharashtra & Ors.20 deals with the
affirmation of the statutory fact-finding
authority, reaffirming the caste claims of a
person and the same being impugned before
writ courts. The Hon’ble Apex Court has
exhaustively dealt with the issue of writ courts
interfering into matters of disputed questions of
fact under the Article 226 jurisdiction via the
writ of certiorari when unwarranted, more
particularly para nos. 15, 17 & 19 thereof,
which have been reproduced hereunder for
easy reference:
20
2024 INSC 266
– 102 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024“15. Now, when the Scrutiny Committee which is
principally tasked with the fact-finding exercise for
validation of caste claim, had applied its mind and
reached a conclusion, then in such a situation,
whether a roving enquiry by High Court was
required? It is well settled that High Courts as well as
Supreme Court should refrain themselves from
deeper probe into factual issues like an appellate
body unless the inferences made by the concerned
authority suffers from perversity on the face of it or
are impermissible in the eyes of law. In the instant
case, the order passed by Scrutiny Committee
reflects due appreciation of evidence and application
of mind and in absence of any allegation of
bias/malice or lack of jurisdiction, disturbing the
findings of Scrutiny Committee cannot be sustained.
17. Having perused the order passed by the
Scrutiny Committee and findings recorded by it to
reach its subjective satisfaction with respect to claim
of Appellant, at this juncture, if we look at the whole
exercise carried out by High Court from the
perspective of settled principles of law for invocation
of jurisdiction Under Article 226 of Constitution of
India, particularly in relation of writ of certiorari, it
leaves us with no scope of doubt that the High Court
has clearly overstepped by re-appreciating the
evidence in absence of any allegation of mala-fide or
perversity. As fairly settled by this Court in catena of
judgments, the writ of certiorari being a writ of high
prerogative, should not be invoked on mere asking.
The purpose of a writ of certiorari for a superior Court
is not to review or reweigh the evidence to adjudicate
unless warranted. The jurisdiction is supervisory and
the Court exercising it, ought to refrain to act as an
appellate court unless the facts so warrant. It also
ought not re-appreciate the evidence and substitute
its own conclusion interfering with a finding unless
perverse. The High Court in a writ for certiorari
should not interfere when such challenge is on the
ground of insufficiency or adequacy of material to
sustain the impugned finding. Assessment of
adequacy or sufficiency of evidence in the case at
hand, fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Scrutiny Committee and re-agitation of challenge on
– 103 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
such grounds ought not have been entertained by
High Court in a routine manner.
19. In sum and substance, the writ of certiorari
is expended as a remedy and is intended to cure
jurisdictional error, if any, committed by the
Courts/forums below. It should not be used by
superior Court to substitute its own views by getting
into fact-finding exercise unless warranted. [See
Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences
and Anr. v. Bikartan Das and Ors.
MANU/SC/0888/2023 : 2023:INSC:733 – Para 51 and
52; Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan
MANU/SC/0184/1963 : 1963:INSC:205 : AIR 1964
SC 477 – Para 7]. At this juncture, it would also be
profitable to refer relevant extract from judgment
delivered by this Court in ‘Indian Overseas Bank’
(supra), wherein para 17, it was observed as thus –
17. ……..The findings of fact recorded by a
fact-finding authority duly constituted for the
purpose and which ordinarily should be
considered to have become final, cannot be
disturbed for the mere reason of having been
based on materials or evidence not sufficient or
credible in the opinion of the writ Court to
warrant those findings at any rate, as long as
they are based upon such materials which are
relevant for the purpose or even on the ground
that there is yet another view which can be
reasonably and possibly undertaken……
Such being the situation, in the instant case,
the High Court went into a probe regarding
credibility of the opinion of the Scrutiny
Committee because the writ Court felt the need
to substitute it’s own views. In case if the
findings of the Scrutiny Committee are based on
the materials specified Under Rule 16 followed by
its subjective satisfaction, then exercise of
jurisdiction under writ of certiorari to quash the
order of validation of caste claim by Scrutiny
Committee is unwarranted and uncalled for.”
– 104 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
19.2. Navneet Kaur‘s case deals with the writ
jurisdiction, by holding that the writ of certiorari
ought to be cautiously made use of and any
venturing into a fact-finding exercise such as
review or reappreciation of evidence would
have to be refrained from unless it is so
warranted by the discovery of mala-fides or
perverse adjudication. So long as the finding of
the verification committee is based on the
materials and procedure specified in the Rules
of 1992, the employment of the writ jurisdiction
under certiorari quashing any validation of
caste is unwarranted and bad in law.
19.3. A strict rule is to be applied; constitutional
courts especially in matters relating to the
adjudication of caste claims ought to refrain
themselves from interfering into factual matters
unless the observations of the concerned fact-
– 105 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
finding authority suffers from a severe legal
perversity, lack of jurisdiction or the non-
application of mind, proving to be impermissible
in the eyes of the law.
19.4. Though the Act of 1990 came into in the year
1990, Sections 4A to 4F were introduced by an
amendment inserted by Act of 27 of 1997 with
effect from 08.02.2000. This amendment also
was necessitated on account of the decision of
the Hon’ble Apex Court in Madhuri Patila’s
case, wherein at para 15 certain directions were
issued. The said para 15 is reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:
“15. The question then is whether the approach
adopted by the High Court in not elaborately considering
the case is vitiated by an error of law. High Court is not a
court of appeal to appreciate the evidence. The
Committee which is empowered to evaluate the evidence
placed before it when records a finding of fact, it ought to
prevail unless found vitiated by judicial review of any
High Court subject to limitations of interference with
findings of fact. The Committee when considers all the
material facts and records a finding, though another
view, as a court of appeal may be possible, it is not a
ground to reverse the findings. The court has to see
whether the Committee considered all the relevant
material placed before it or has not applied its mind to
– 106 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024relevant facts which have led the Committee ultimately
record the finding. Each case must be considered in the
backdrop of its own facts.”
19.5. The directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court
in exercise of the powers under Article 142 of
the Constitution of India was to fill the lacunae
in respect of the verification of a caste
certificate or in respect of the issuance of a
caste certificate and its verification thereof. Due
to which, there were several litigations which
were coming up before the Courts.
19.6. In part compliance with the directions issued by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in Madhuri Patila’s
case, an amendment was brought about to the
Act of 1990 and Sections 4A to 4F and certain
other provisions were inserted in the Act of
1990 so also amendment made to the Rules of
1992 vide various Government notifications to
bring it in line with the requirements of
direction issued in Madhuri Patila‘s case.
– 107 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
19.7. The Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with
Madhuri Patila‘s case especially in relation to
scheduled tribes was of the opinion that
enquiries which are required to be carried out
as regards the anthropological, ethnological
traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of
marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial
of dead bodies and such other matters such
requirement being necessitated on account of
different customs and traditions being followed.
The Hon’ble Apex Court clearly and
categorically came to a conclusion that there is
an in-depth enquiry which is required to be
conducted and for that reason specialized
agencies would have to be created and the
methodology of issuance of caste certificate and
verification thereof is to be scientifically done.
19.8. It is in that background that in the State of
Karnataka, the method of enquiry to be
– 108 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
conducted by the Tahashildar while issuing the
caste certificate has been detailed under Rule
3A of the Rules of 1992, which has been
reproduced hereinabove. The manner in which
the verification committee is to issue a validity
certificate has also been detailed out in Rule 7
of the Rules of 1992. A perusal of these rules
would indicate the details which are required to
be examined and enquired into and the
nuances that are to be looked into by the
Tahashildar and or the verification committee.
These details cannot be looked into by a Court
like this Court and such a detailed enquiry in
terms of Rule 3A and or Rule 7 cannot be made
by this Court.
19.9. In terms of Rules 4 and 5, composition of the
committee has been prescribed. Rule 7 also
provides for the committee if in doubt to refer
the matter to the Directorate of Civil Rights
– 109 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
Enforcement. The composition of the committee
and the composition of the Directorate of Civil
Rights Enforcement would indicate that the
specialized knowledge of the persons involved
therein, who could examine the matters in the
right perspective and appreciate each and every
fact to arrive at a just conclusion.
19.10. Thus, the fact finding being required to be done
initially by the Tahashildar and subsequently by
the Verification Committee, if and so the need
arises, I am of the considered opinion that this
Court would not have the authority to ex-facie
adjudicate on the validity or otherwise of the
caste certificate and come to a conclusion as to
what the caste of the person is.
19.11. Be that as it may, if there is any lacuna in the
enquiry of the Tahashildar or by the verification
committee, this Court could always set-aside
the certificate issued by the Tahashildar or the
– 110 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
validity certificate issued by the verification
committee and remit the matter for fresh
consideration and enquiry to such authorities.
19.12. In view of my above observations, I answer
point no. 5 by holding that this Court cannot
adjudicate on matters relating to the validity of
caste as a fact-finding authority vis-à-vis the
Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes
and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of
Appointment Etc.) Act, 1990.
20. Answer to Point No. 6: Whether the Impugned
Order dated 27.02.2024 suffers from any legal
infirmity requiring interference at the hands of
this Court?
20.1. The contention of respondent No.2 is that her
father and mother belong to the scheduled tribe
category. They have been issued caste
certificates accordingly. She has also obtained a
caste certificate in the scheduled tribe category
and submitted the same while seeking for
– 111 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
employment as an Accounts Officer with the
GESCOM. As such, the certificate issued in her
favour and that in favour of her parents, having
continued for a long period of time. The same
are not open to challenge.
20.2. It is in pursuance of Rule 9 of the Rules of
1992, which rule has been extracted
hereinabove that the caste certificate of
respondent No.2 was sent to the verification
committee. The verification committee rejected
the caste certificate, which order came to be
appealed before the appellate authority under
Section 4B, the appellate authority having
allowed the said appeal. The petitioner who also
belongs to the scheduled tribe community is
before this Court contending that an ineligible
person has been permitted to avail reservation
by the appellate authority, even though the
verification committee had rejected the claim.
– 112 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
20.3. The other aspect as regards locus and
otherwise have been dealt with in my answers
to the above earlier questions, what we are
concerned now is as regards the merits of the
matter.
20.4. The contention of the petitioner is that the
paternal uncle of respondent No.2 namely Sri
Shyam Rao S/o. Manikappa, his wife Smt.
Nagamma and his daughter Kumari
Bhuvaneshwari have obtained caste certificates
stating to belong to ‘Kuruba community’, which
comes under Category IIA and they have not
obtained any caste certificate as belonging to
scheduled tribe.
20.5. As such, respondent No.2 and her parents
cannot have any other caste than that of the
paternal uncle of respondent No.2. Inasmuch as
the paternal uncle of respondent No.2, who is
none other than the brother of the father of
– 113 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
respondent No.2, the two brothers cannot have
two different castes. One of them is having a
caste certificate of ‘Kuruba community’ not
having claimed the benefit of reservation for
the scheduled tribe category would indicate that
reasonable doubt has been cast as regards the
scheduled tribe category caste certificate of the
parents as also that of respondent No.2.
20.6. The petitioner had also placed on record the
certificates of the above persons for the
reference of the appellate authority. The
appellate authority, however, in the impugned
order has not considered these documents. The
appellate authority merely on the ground that
the parents of respondent No.2 have been
holding a scheduled tribe certificate as thought
it fit not to accept the allegations made by the
petitioner and confirmed the certificate of
respondent No.2.
– 114 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
20.7. The aspect of the validity and presumption as
regards the caste certificate which has not
undergone the process of validation under
Section 4C has been dealt with hereinabove.
20.8. I have categorically come to a conclusion that,
even if a certificate is issued to a person stating
that the person belongs to the Scheduled Caste
or Scheduled Tribe community, when a benefit
of reservation in education or employment is
sought for, validity certificate in respect thereto
has to be obtained in order to claim such
reservation and the validity certificate cannot
be issued merely on the ground that there is a
caste certificate issued to the parents of the
applicant.
20.9. The said certificate issued in favour of the
parents not having undergone validation under
Section 4C, the certificate of the applicant/
– 115 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
candidate would have to undergo the said
process.
20.10. This aspect has been completely missed by the
appellate authority and the appellate authority
has given a complete go-by to the report of the
DCVC, which report has been furnished after
detailed enquiry in relation thereto.
20.11. There are no reasons which have been provided
by the appellate authority to disbelieve or set
aside the enquiry of the DCVC. Except as
aforesaid, on the ground that a caste certificate
had been issued to the parents of respondent
No.2 and the parents have availed of benefits
as that belonging to scheduled tribe category. It
is pertinent to note that an unreasoned and
unsubstantiated order is a recipe for disaster
bound to reveal itself.
– 116 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
20.12. Clause 2 to Rule 7 of the Act of 1992 clearly
casts a duty upon the fact-finding authority to
examine the claimant on the basis
‘anthropological, sociological and ethnological
traits, rituals, customs and deities’ of a person
claiming to belong specifically to the scheduled
tribe community and a reference of the decision
of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in T.
Varahalu‘s case (supra), may also be drawn.
This statutory requirement too has not been
considered while passing of the impugned
order.
20.13. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the
appellate authority has not considered the
matter in the right perspective and the
impugned order passed suffers from the
infirmities in respect of my finding as regards
the various points raised hereinabove.
– 117 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
20.14. In that background, I answer point No.6 by
holding that the impugned order dated
27.02.2024 suffers from legal infirmities
requiring interference of the hands of this
Court.
21. Answer to Point No. 7: What Order?
21.1. In view of my answers to point nos.1 to 6
hereinabove, I pass the following;
ORDER
i. Writ petition is allowed.
ii. A Writ of certiorari is issued, the order dated
27.02.2024 passed by the 1st respondent
vide Annexure-M is hereby set aside.
iii. The matter is remitted to respondent No.2
for fresh consideration taking into account
the observations made hereinabove, the
appeal to be disposed of within a period of
120 days from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order.
– 118 –
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1381
WP No. 200867 of 2024
iv. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this
order to Respondent No.2 by email.
v. Learned AGA is directed to ensure that a
copy of this order is forwarded to
Respondent No.2 through Court Case
Monitoring System (CCMS).
SD/-
(SURAJ GOVINDRAJ)
JUDGE
BSM/CKK
