ORDER : 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayers: In W.P.NO. 101338/2024 In W.P.NO. 101338/2024 A. issue a Writ or order in the nature of writ of Certiorari for quashing the impugned Order No. HIWAKE/MASHA/CR-30/ 2020-21, dated 20.04.2022 passed by the Respondent No.1 vide Annexure-S and accordingly quash the impugned order no. DBCM/SIDHUSTWA/CR-14/ 2010-11 dated 06.08.2020 issued by 2 nd respondent vide Annexure-P, since the petitioner belongs to Category II-A and not to the Category III-B. B. to issue a Writ or order in the nature of writ of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order no. NWKRTC/KEKA/HU/DME/34(19)/768, dated 14.07.2021 passed by the Respondent no.4 vide Annexure-N and accordingly quash the impugned order no. NWKRTC/HUWI/ SIBBANDHI/NEMAKA/a10/ 2535 dated 11.07.2019 issued by 5th respondent vide Annexure-M and the respondent no.4 and 5 be directed to re-instate the petitioner to his original post of driver cum conductor. C. PASS any other relief/reliefs, orders, directions, writ as deemed fit to grant, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The petitioners in both these cases were appointed as trainee Driver-cum-Conductors on the strength of a particular caste certificate possessed by them, depicting them as ‘Hindu-Sadaru’. The termination of these petitioners comes about on the score that the petitioners do not belong to Category 2A Hindu-Sadaru as Sadaru-Lingayat. Sadaru is depicted to be a Lingayat caste. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, in identical circumstances this Court following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M.V. Chandrakanth vs. Sangappa and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 934 has allowed those claims. 4. The learned counsel Sri.Prashant Hosmani, seeks to refute the submissions in contending that the said judgment has no application to the facts of the case, as the entire clan of the petitioners is shown to be Hindu-Lingayat, and the word ‘Sadaru’ does not even appear in the caste certificate. The learned counsel would therefore submit that the petitions be dismissed. 5. The issue is with regard to whether the petitioners could continue in employment or otherwise or their termination should be upheld on the score that the petitioners were producing caste certificate depicting them as Hindu-Sadaru, which, according to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, is a Lingayat. 6. The Apex Court, in the case of M.V. CHANDRAKANTH (quoted supra) has considered this very issue and has held as follows: “9. 6. The Apex Court, in the case of M.V. CHANDRAKANTH (quoted supra) has considered this very issue and has held as follows: “9. On or about 7th October 2005, the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) published the provisional list of candidates selected for the Group A and Group B posts of Probationary Officers. After publication of the provisional list on 7 th October 2005, KPSC sent the caste certificate of the Respondent No.1 to the Respondent No.3 for verification. On 21st October 2005, the Respondent No.3 issued a certificate validating the caste certificate submitted by the Respondent No.1. 10. KPSC notified the final list of selected candidates on 29th November 2005. The Appellant was selected for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Respondent No.1 was selected for the post of Assistant Commissioner (Junior Grade Scale). Both the Appellant and the Respondent No.1 were selected under the Reserved Category II-A of the Reservation Policy. The Respondent No.1 secured 1152 marks and was placed at Sl. No. 15 in the category of posts of Assistant Commissioner, whereas the Appellant secured 1151 marks and was placed at Sl. No.6 in the category of posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police. 11. The Appellant claims that in 2005, he came to know that the Respondent No.1’s father belonged to the ‘Lingayat’ caste whereas the Respondent No.1 had claimed the benefit of reservation under Category II-A of the Reservation Policy claiming that he belonged to the ‘Ganiga’ caste. The Appellant contends that the ‘Lingayat’ caste including the sub-castes thereof fall under Category III-B with 5% reservation whereas Hindu Ganiga falls under Category II-A with 15% reservation. 12. The Appellant filed an appeal under Section 4D of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990, hereinafter referred to as “SC/ST and OBC Reservation Act” before the Respondent No.2 challenging the Caste Validity Certificate issued to the Respondent No.1 by the Respondent No.3. In the said appeal, the Appellant enclosed the school extract of Government Higher Primary School, Honnihala, Bagalokote wherein the caste of the Respondent No.1’s father was recorded as ‘Hindu Lingayat’. 13. In the said appeal, the Appellant enclosed the school extract of Government Higher Primary School, Honnihala, Bagalokote wherein the caste of the Respondent No.1’s father was recorded as ‘Hindu Lingayat’. 13. The Appellant alleges that Respondent No.3 issued the Validity Certificate dated 21st October 2005 in undue haste, with scant regard to the procedure laid down in Rule 7 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment, etc.) Rules 1992, hereinafter referred to as “Karnataka SC/ST and OBC Reservation Rules.” 14. By an interim order dated 5th December 2005, the Respondent No.2 stayed the Validity Certificate issued to the Respondent No.1 until further orders. Thereafter, the Respondent No.2 called for the records from the Respondent No.1. Notices were also issued to the Head Masters of the concerned schools for production of original school admission registers pertaining to the Respondent No.1 and his father. 15. After hearing the parties and perusing the records, the Respondent No.2 passed an order dated 23 rd January 2006, concluding that the Respondent No.1 belonged to the ‘Hindu Lingayat’ caste as he would inherit the caste of his father. Relying on the school register of the Respondent No.1’s father of the year 1953, his High School records and the Service Register of DCC Bank where he (the Respondent No.1’s father) had worked as Supervisor, the Respondent No.2 cancelled the Validity Certificate. The Respondent No. 2 inferred that the entries in the school records of the Respondent No.1 had been made in the year 1982, with a view to obtain the benefit of reservation.” 7. The said judgment was followed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 100557 of 2023 dated 12.10.2023, wherein the Division Bench has held as follows: “4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the complainants-writ petitioners belong to ‘Hindu Sadar’ community which comes under Category II-A. The request of the respective complainants-writ petitioners for issuance of caste validation certificates having been refused by the Appellant-State, the complainants-writ petitioners approached this Court in the instant petitions which were allowed by this court by vide impugned orders which are assailed in the writ appeals. 5. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge will indicate that reliance is placed by the learned Single Judge on a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M.V. Chandrakanth Vs. 5. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge will indicate that reliance is placed by the learned Single Judge on a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M.V. Chandrakanth Vs. Sangappa & Others, Civil Appeal No. 4963/2022 , whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court had directed issuance of caste validation certificates in favour of similarly/identically situated persons. So also, in W.P. No.100175/2023, a learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the petition vide final order dated 25.01.2023 and directed issuance of caste validation certificate in favour of the said writ petitioners. The State preferred an appeal against the said order of the learned Single Judge and the same was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.100381/2023 dated 12.09.2023. Under these circumstances, having regard to the earlier judgments of this Court and the Apex Court referred to supra and other judgments of this Court, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge was justified in passing the impugned order allowing the writ petitions and consequently, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference by this Court in the present appeals. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the appeals and the same are hereby dismissed. 6. Insofar as the contempt proceedings are concerned, the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the caste validation certificates would be issued in favour of the respective complainants-writ petitioners and the same would also be intimated/informed/forwarded to the Appointing Authority within a period of five weeks from today. Submission is placed on record. 7. The appellants-State, who are also arrayed as accused in the contempt proceedings are hereby directed to issue the caste validation certificates and also forward/intimate the same to the Appointing authority and the complainant-writ petitioners within a period of five weeks so as to enable the complainants-writ petitioners to obtain appointment to the respective posts. 8. Under these circumstances, the contempt proceedings are also hereby closed reserving liberty in favour of the complainants-writ petitioners to seek reopening of the contempt proceedings and/or file fresh contempt proceedings, if the occasion so arises.” 8. Both these orders are followed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 100416 of 2025 dated 06.02.2025, wherein it was held as follows: “1. Under these circumstances, the contempt proceedings are also hereby closed reserving liberty in favour of the complainants-writ petitioners to seek reopening of the contempt proceedings and/or file fresh contempt proceedings, if the occasion so arises.” 8. Both these orders are followed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 100416 of 2025 dated 06.02.2025, wherein it was held as follows: “1. Learned counsel appearing for the parties in unison would submit that, the issue in the lis stands answered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.116190/2019 connected with W.P.No.100571/2024 , disposed of on 20 th January 2025 . The Coordinate Bench held as follows: “2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue in the lis stands covered on its fours to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of M.V. Chandrakanth Vs. Sangappa and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 934. 3. The Apex Court while considering identical issue has held as follows: “9. On or about 7th October 2005, the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) published the provisional list of candidates selected for the Group A and Group B posts of Probationary Officers. After publication of the provisional list on 7 th October 2005, KPSC sent the caste certificate of the Respondent No.1 to the Respondent No.3 for verification. On 21st October 2005, the Respondent No.3 issued a certificate validating the caste certificate submitted by the Respondent No.1. 10. KPSC notified the final list of selected candidates on 29 th November 2005. The Appellant was selected for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Respondent No.1 was selected for the post of Assistant Commissioner (Junior Grade Scale). Both the Appellant and the Respondent No.1 were selected under the Reserved Category II-A of the Reservation Policy. The Respondent No.1 secured 1152 marks and was placed at Sl. No. 15 in the category of posts of Assistant Commissioner, whereas the Appellant secured 1151 marks and was placed at Sl. No.6 in the category of posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police. 11. The Appellant claims that in 2005, he came to know that the Respondent No.1’s father belonged to the ‘Lingayat’ caste whereas the Respondent No.1 had claimed the benefit of reservation under Category II-A of the Reservation Policy claiming that he belonged to the ‘Ganiga’ caste. No.6 in the category of posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police. 11. The Appellant claims that in 2005, he came to know that the Respondent No.1’s father belonged to the ‘Lingayat’ caste whereas the Respondent No.1 had claimed the benefit of reservation under Category II-A of the Reservation Policy claiming that he belonged to the ‘Ganiga’ caste. The Appellant contends that the ‘Lingayat’ caste including the sub-castes thereof fall under Category III-B with 5% reservation whereas Hindu Ganiga falls under Category II-A with 15% reservation. 12. The Appellant filed an appeal under Section 4D of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990, hereinafter referred to as “SC/ST and OBC Reservation Act” before the Respondent No.2 challenging the Caste Validity Certificate issued to the Respondent No.1 by the Respondent No.3. In the said appeal, the Appellant enclosed the school extract of Government Higher Primary School, Honnihala, Bagalokote wherein the caste of the Respondent No.1’s father was recorded as ‘Hindu Lingayat’. 13. The Appellant alleges that Respondent No.3 issued the Validity Certificate dated 21st October 2005 in undue haste, with scant regard to the procedure laid down in Rule 7 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment, etc.) Rules 1992, hereinafter referred to as “Karnataka SC/ST and OBC Reservation Rules ”. 14. By an interim order dated 5th December 2005, the Respondent No.2 stayed the Validity Certificate issued to the Respondent No.1 until further orders. Thereafter, the Respondent No.2 called for the records from the Respondent No.1. Notices were also issued to the Head Masters of the concerned schools for production of original school admission registers pertaining to the Respondent No.1 and his father. 15. After hearing the parties and perusing the records, the Respondent No.2 passed an order dated 23 rd January 2006, concluding that the Respondent No.1 belonged to the ‘Hindu Lingayat’ caste as he would inherit the caste of his father. Relying on the school register of the Respondent No.1’s father of the year 1953, his High School records and the Service Register of DCC Bank where he (the Respondent No.1’s father) had worked as Supervisor, the Respondent No.2 cancelled the Validity Certificate. Relying on the school register of the Respondent No.1’s father of the year 1953, his High School records and the Service Register of DCC Bank where he (the Respondent No.1’s father) had worked as Supervisor, the Respondent No.2 cancelled the Validity Certificate. The Respondent No. 2 inferred that the entries in the school records of the Respondent No.1 had been made in the year 1982, with a view to obtain the benefit of reservation.” 4. The learned counsel would further submit that following the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, a Division Bench of this Court closed several proceedings in terms of its order dated 12.10.2023. The order passed in Writ Appeal No.100557/2023 reads as follows: “4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the complainants-writ petitioners belong to ‘Hindu Sadar’ community which comes under Category II-A. The request of the respective complainants-writ petitioners for issuance of caste validation certificates having been refused by the Appellant-State, the complainants-writ petitioners approached this Court in the instant petitions which were allowed by this court by vide impugned orders which are assailed in the writ appeals. 5. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge will indicate that reliance is placed by the learned Single Judge on a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M.V. Chandrakanth Vs. Sangappa & Others, Civil Appeal No. 4963/2022 , whereby the Hon’ble Apex Court had directed issuance of caste validation certificates in favour of similarly/identically situated persons. So also, in W.P. No.100175/2023, a learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the petition vide final order dated 25.01.2023 and directed issuance of caste validation certificate in favour of the said writ petitioners. The State preferred an appeal against the said order of the learned Single Judge and the same was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.100381/2023 dated 12.09.2023. Under these circumstances, having regard to the earlier judgments of this Court and the Apex Court referred to supra and other judgments of this Court, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge was justified in passing the impugned order allowing the writ petitions and consequently, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference by this Court in the present appeals. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the appeals and the same are hereby dismissed. 6. Insofar as the contempt proceedings are concerned, the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the caste validation certificates would be issued in favour of the respective complainants- writ petitioners and the same would also be intimated/informed/forwarded to the Appointing Authority within a period of five weeks from today. Submission is placed on record. 7. The appellants-State, who are also arrayed as accused in the contempt proceedings are hereby directed to issue the caste validation certificates and also forward/intimate the same to the Appointing authority and the complainant-writ petitioners within a period of five weeks so as to enable the complainants-writ petitioners to obtain appointment to the respective posts. 8. Under these circumstances, the contempt proceedings are also hereby closed reserving liberty in favour of the complainants-writ petitioners to seek reopening of the contempt proceedings and/or file fresh contempt proceedings, if the occasion so arises.” 5. The learned AGA Sri.Sharad A. Magdum would however seek to distinguish those orders passed by the Apex Court or that of the Division Bench on the score that the declaration of synonyms could not have been made. The submission is only to be rejected in the light of the fact that the Apex Court so considered and the Division Bench so followed the judgment of the Apex Court. 6. In that light, petition deserves to succeed. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER: i. Petitions are allowed. ii. The impugned order in W.P.No.116190/2019 dated 19.07.2016 passed by the 2 nd respondent produced at Annexure-E and the order dated 26.05.2018 passed by the 3 rd respondent produced at Annexure-U1 and the impugned order in W.P.No.100571/2024 dated 16.02.2018 passed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 produced at Annexure-D, stand quashed. iii. The petitioner becomes entitled for all consequential benefit that arose from the quashment of the order.” 2. The learned AGA Sri. Sharad V. Magadum would not dispute the position of law as laid down by the Coordinate Bench in the aforesaid judgment. 3. In the light of the aforesaid submission, which is in unison, the petition deserve to succeed. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following: ORDER i. Petitions are allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 06.08.2020 passed by the respondent-Committee produced at Annexures-E to E3, stands quashed. iii. 3. In the light of the aforesaid submission, which is in unison, the petition deserve to succeed. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following: ORDER i. Petitions are allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 06.08.2020 passed by the respondent-Committee produced at Annexures-E to E3, stands quashed. iii. The petitioner becomes entitled for all consequential benefits that would flow from the quashment of the order to be complied, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.” 9. In the light of the issue before the Division Bench being whether Hindu-Sadaru was Category 2A or otherwise being held in favour of the employee, I deem it appropriate to follow the orders passed by the Division Bench and obliterate the proceedings against this petitioners, subject to the petitioners producing appropriate caste certificates before the respondent-Corporation for seeking re-employment in their earlier positions. 10. For the aforesaid observations, the following: ORDER: i. Petitions are allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 27.11.2018 passed by the respondent No.5 vide Annexure-F, the impugned order dated 06.08.2020 passed by the respondents No.2,3,6 and 7 vide Annexure-L and the impugned order dated 20.04.2022 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-M in Writ Petition No.101338/2024 are herby quashed. iii. The impugned order dated 20.04.2022 passed by the respondent No.1 vide Annexures-S, the impugned order dated 06.08.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-P, the impugned order dated 14.07.2021 passed by respondent No.4 vide Annexure-N and the impugned order dated 11.07.2019 issued by respondent No.5 vide Annexure-M in Writ Petition No.103105/2023 are herby quashed. iv. The petitioners become entitled for all consequential benefits that would flow from the quashment of the order to be complied, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.