Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1009 (KAR)

J. Sridevi v. Department of Public Instructions

2017-07-05

L.NARAYANA SWAMY

body2017
ORDER : L. NARAYANA SWAMY, J. 1. The petitioner-plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.5763/2013 seeking declaration that she belongs to Soligaru Castes which is Scheduled Tribes and consequently to direct defendants-respondents to incorporate her caste as Soligaru Caste in her school records and to rectify the mistake appearing in the records. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit to declare that she belongs to Soligaru Caste. In support of his case, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the caste certificate issued by the Competent Authority. The Tahsildar, North Bangalore Taluk has issued caste certificate of the father of the petitioner as per Ex.P1, caste certificates of petitioner's sisters as per Exs.P4 & P5 and the caste certificate of petitioner himself as per Ex.P3. The petitioner has been examined as PW-1. It is the specific case of the petitioner that she belongs to Soligaru Caste which is classified as ST for the purpose of reservation. The Competent Authority has also issued caste certificate of parents and sisters of the petitioner declaring their caste as Soligaru, but in the Transfer Certificate the school authorities have wrongly mentioned the caste of the petitioner as Shooligaru. 3. It is further submitted that in the caste certificate at the relevant column the caste of the petitioner has been shown as Shooligaru, but in order to rectify the same, the petitioner made a request by way of representation to the third respondent-School, but the same has been rejected. Hence, the suit was filed for declaration of her caste as Soligaru. 4. The learned Judge despite producing all the materials, has rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that under Articles 342(1), it is only the parliament has to rectify the same and it is not open for this Court to do the same. The reasoning assigned by the Trial Court in rejecting the case of the petitioner is an error of jurisdiction. Though, power is available to learned Judge of the Trial Court to exercise the jurisdiction, it has failed to exercise the same. Accordingly, this petition is filed before this Court to exercise jurisdiction under section 115 of CPC as it has got supervisory powers to give relief to the petitioner. 5. Though, power is available to learned Judge of the Trial Court to exercise the jurisdiction, it has failed to exercise the same. Accordingly, this petition is filed before this Court to exercise jurisdiction under section 115 of CPC as it has got supervisory powers to give relief to the petitioner. 5. The learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents submits that the suit itself is not maintainable as the petitioner itself has mentioned her caste as Shooligaru which is a mistake committed by the petitioner and secondly it is submitted for rectification of caste, the petitioner should have approached appropriate authority under the Karnataka SC and ST and other Backward Classes Act, 1993. It is not open for the Civil Court to alter the caste for the benefit of reservation. 6. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. On the basis of the pleadings of the both the parties, the Court has framed a issue to the effect that “Whether a civil suit to declare caste of plaintiff and to give direction to the defendants 1 to 3 that she belongs to Soligaru Caste which is recognized as Schedule Tribes could be issued or is maintainable” and the issue has been answered in negative. 7. In order to find out whether Court below has committed an error, I have gone through the certified copy of the caste certificates produced before this Court. Ex.P1 is the caste certificate belongs to father of the petitioner. The Tahsildhar Bangalore North Taluk has issued caste certificate in No. MSC(C)CT-II 124/93-94. When the father of the petitioner belongs to the ST community it goes without saying that the petitioner also belongs to ST Community. Even the caste certificates issued to the sisters of the petitioner show that they belong to Soligaru which is classified under ST category. When the castes of the father and sisters of the petitioner are not disputed that they belong to Soligaru, the learned Judge of the Trial Court should have declared the caste as sought for by the petitioner since the caste of the petitioner has been wrongly shown in the TC by the school authorites as Shooligaru instead of Soligaru. Under the provisions of the Act, in case if the caste is required to be rectified, it is for the parties to approach the Appropriate Authority. In this case, there is no such occasion arises. Under the provisions of the Act, in case if the caste is required to be rectified, it is for the parties to approach the Appropriate Authority. In this case, there is no such occasion arises. The caste of the petitioner should have been declared on the basis of caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore. In the circumstances, if the caste of the petitioner is not declared as per caste certificate, it would certainly cause hardship to the petitioner. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the learned Judge has failed to exercise his discretionary jurisdiction available under Constitution of India. Hence, I pass the following order: 8. The writ petition is allowed. The suit of the petitioner is decreed as prayed for. The caste of the petitioner in TC bearing No. 64/97-98 in respect of admission No. 13/94-95 is recognized as 'Soligaru' xxx xxx xxx instead of 'Shooligaru – xxxx xxx xxx 9. The liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the school authorities in order to obtain fresh TC by mentioning her caste as 'Soligaru' in place of 'Shooligaru' on the observation made above.