ORDER : 1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 06-03-2024 which declines issuance of a Validity certificate validating the caste and income certificate already issued, on the score that her husband’s income is beyond the permissible threshold of grant of such certificate. 2. Heard Smt. A.R. Sharadamba, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Spoorthy Hegde, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: - The State Government issues a notification calling for applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the posts of Assistant Public Prosecutors through the Directorate of Prosecution and Public Litigation Department. The notification was issued for filling up of 181 posts on 30-09-2019. The petitioner finding herself eligible, applies for the said post and was selected as one of the Assistant Public Prosecutors under the Category 3A in terms of the select list dated 17-01-2023. After the notification of the select list, in terms of the process of selection, the petitioner is said to have uploaded all the documents for verification on the Sevasindhu portal on 25-05-2023 and also submitted all the copies of documents uploaded to the 4 th respondent/Taluk Caste and Income Verification Committee. The 4 th respondent refuses to issue a Validity certificate, but instead sends a communication to the Taluk Backward Caste and Income Verification Officer directing him to visit the house of the petitioner, conduct inspection and submit a report. The said officer, on such visit, submits a report that the husband of the petitioner was working as Lecturer in a private College and reports that the caste and income certificate should be based upon the income of the husband. This report results in denial of issuance of validity certificate to the petitioner. 4. On the denial of issuance of validity certificate, the petitioner began knocking at the doors of several fora of officers bringing to the notice of all those officers that the income of the husband cannot be taken for the purpose of determination and for issuance of caste and income certificate or a validity certificate, as the case would be. It is only the father’s income should be taken note of. At every fora, the petitioner brought to their notice the judgments of the Apex Court and that of this Court contending that it was a settled principle of law. It is only the father’s income should be taken note of. At every fora, the petitioner brought to their notice the judgments of the Apex Court and that of this Court contending that it was a settled principle of law. Notwithstanding the judgment of the Apex Court and this Court having been brought to the notice of the Authorities, the Authorities – respondents 2 and 3 passed an order declining to issue validity certificate to the caste and income certificate to the petitioner as coming under Category-3A, on the score that the income of husband of the petitioner was beyond the threshold limit for grant of such certificate. It is at that juncture the petitioner is at the doors of this Court in the subject petition. 5. This Court passed several orders, interim though, on different dates. They read as follows: “22-04-2024: This Court has time and again repeated that the State should set its house in order, as they are repeating the very same mistake on every occasion of not issuing a validity certificate on erroneous presumption on law. Again the petitioner is made to knock at the doors of this Court by the respondent No.2 – Appellate Authority/ Commissioner for Backward Classes. List this matter on 24.04.2024, in the fresh matters list. In the event the validity certificate is not issued by then, the respondents will have to pay costs from his/her pocket, as the case would be. … 24-04-2024: Learned AGA on instructions would undertake that the Committee for issuance of validity certificate would meet on 29.04.2024 after the elections on 26.04.2024 and would issue a validity certificate, in accordance with law. The submission is place on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application seeking validity certificate was filed on 27.06.2023 and all the others who were candidates along with the petitioner have all been appointed, as their validity certificates are issued and the appointment of the petitioner is postponed for eight months on account of non-issuance of a validity certificate. Therefore, the said aspect would be considered after the validity certificate is issued to the petitioner, as undertaken by the learned AGA, which is on instructions. List this matter on 27.05.2024 at 4:00 pm for further hearing. … 28-05-2024: Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that in terms of the order dated 24.04.2024, the validity certificate is issued on 29.04.2024. Therefore, the said aspect would be considered after the validity certificate is issued to the petitioner, as undertaken by the learned AGA, which is on instructions. List this matter on 27.05.2024 at 4:00 pm for further hearing. … 28-05-2024: Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that in terms of the order dated 24.04.2024, the validity certificate is issued on 29.04.2024. Smt. A.R. Sharadamba, learned counsel for petitioner would submit that respondent No.7 is yet to issue an appointment order, which was delayed on the score of non- furnishing of the validity certificate. Learned Additional Government Advocate on instructions shall submit qua respondent No.7 in not issuing the appointment order, on the next date of hearing. List this matter on 07.06.2024.” (Emphasis supplied) The State Government, is said to have issued the caste and income certificate to the petitioner, during the subsistence of the subject petition, after the afore-quoted directions of this Court, directing corrective measures to be taken immediately. The order so passed on 24-04-2024 reads as follows: (Emphasis added) A perusal at the order is indicative of the fact that the Committee has issued a Validity Certificate only for the reason that this Court has directed to. What this Court had directed, is quoted hereinabove. Therefore, the observation undoubtedly amounts to admitting ignorance of law, as settled by the Apex Court and this Court and an act of contumacious contempt for having observed so that they are issuing the Validity Certificate only because this Court has directed. This Court’s direction was to act in tune with law. Since the certificate is issued, this Court is holding its hands from initiating proceedings for contempt, but would undoubtedly mulct the members of the Committee with exemplary cost. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all others who were selected in terms of the same select list dated 17-01-2023 were given appointments. It is only the petitioner, on an erroneous presumption, was not given appointment along with others, and it is delayed by 12 months. 7. On the score that the certificate is granted in a manner known to law, the petition would have to be closed as having become infructuous. It is only the petitioner, on an erroneous presumption, was not given appointment along with others, and it is delayed by 12 months. 7. On the score that the certificate is granted in a manner known to law, the petition would have to be closed as having become infructuous. However, in the considered view of the Court, the case cannot be closed by mere observation that the petition has become infructuous on the ground that caste and income certificate is given and appointment is also given and the delay in issuing the appointment order cannot be laid at the doors of the petitioner. The petitioner appropriately claimed Category-3A and submitted the caste and income certificate and sought validation of the caste and income certificate. On an erroneous presumption of law, the State Government denied and on having a re-look at the law, the State has granted it now. Between the denial and re-look, 12 months passed by, all for ignorance of law by the State Government in deliberate defiance of law. 8. The law, in this regard, is too well settled, where this Court on an earlier occasion had to admonish the State Government in the case of Akshata Chougala and Others v. State of Karnataka, 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 168 whereby the State had denied caste and income certificate on the same score. This Court, followed the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Surinder Singh v. Punjab State Electricity Board and Others , (2014) 15 SCC 767 , wherein the Apex Court had held as follows: “…. …. …. 8. The question which still arises is, whether it was open to the High Court, to include the individual's income in determining his eligibility for being declared as backward class, by reading down the policy instructions on the subject? Insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, there can be no doubt that the issue is determinable with reference to the decision rendered by this Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385 . But for the determination of the present controversy, we need not travel to the decision in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India , 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385 ]. But for the determination of the present controversy, we need not travel to the decision in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India , 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385 ]. It will be sufficient to make a reference to the decision rendered by this Court in Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. State of Bihar, (1995) 5 SCC 403 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 1248 : (1995) 31 ATC 159, wherein this Court, having examined the Office Memorandum dated 8-9-1993, approved the same by observing as under: (SCC p. 417, para 10) “ 10. We have carefully examined the criteria for identifying the ‘creamy layer’ laid down by the Government of India in the Schedule, quoted above, and we are of the view that the same is in conformity with the law laid down by this Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India , 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385. We have no hesitation in approving the rule of exclusion framed by the Government of India in Para 2(c) read with the Schedule of the Office Memorandum quoted above . The learned counsel for the petitioners have also vehemently commended that the State Governments should follow the Government of India and lay down similar criteria for identifying the ‘creamy layer’.” (Emphasis supplied) It is apparent from the observations recorded by this Court, as have been extracted hereinabove, that the Office Memorandum dated 8-9-1993 had been examined by this Court, specifically with reference to the decision rendered in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India , 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1: (1992) 22 ATC 385 . Having done so, this Court expressly approved and confirmed the Schedule to the Office Memorandum dated 8-9-1993. …. …. …. 11. The above issue came to be examined yet again by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) through its memorandum dated 14-10-2004. In the above memorandum, a large number of queries were clarified. Queries at Serial Nos. (vi) and (vii) of Para 4 are relevant to the present controversy, and are accordingly reproduced hereunder: “4. Following questions have been raised from time to time about the application of the above provisions to determine creamy layer. In the above memorandum, a large number of queries were clarified. Queries at Serial Nos. (vi) and (vii) of Para 4 are relevant to the present controversy, and are accordingly reproduced hereunder: “4. Following questions have been raised from time to time about the application of the above provisions to determine creamy layer. (vi) Will a candidate who himself is a directly recruited Class I/Group A officer or a directly recruited Class II/Group B officer who got into Class I/Group A at the age of 40 or earlier be treated to be falling in creamy layer on the basis of his service status? (vii) Will a candidate who has gross annual income of Rs 2.5 lakhs or above or possesses wealth above the exemption limit as prescribed in the Wealth Tax Act for a period of three consecutive years be treated to fall in creamy layer?” The aforesaid queries came to be answered in Para 8 by observing as under: “8. In regard to clauses (vi), (vii) and (viii) of Para 4, it is clarified that the creamy layer status of a candidate is determined on the basis of the status of his parents and not on the basis of his own status or income or on the basis of status or income of his/her spouse. Therefore, while determining the creamy layer status of a person the status or the income of the candidate himself or of his/her spouse shall not be taken into account.” (Emphasis supplied) In view of the above, there is no room for any further consideration, whether or not the individual's income is to be taken into consideration, while computing the total income relevant to determine whether an individual belongs to the “creamy layer”. The above clarification reveals, that it is only the parents' income, which has to be taken into consideration. (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court holds that there is no room for any further consideration of individual’s income to be taken into consideration while computing total income. The clarification issued therein would reveal that it is only the parents’ income which has to be taken into consideration. The Apex Court, further, in the case of Sunita Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh , (2018) 2 SCC 493 , has held as follows: “…. …. …. 5. The clarification issued therein would reveal that it is only the parents’ income which has to be taken into consideration. The Apex Court, further, in the case of Sunita Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh , (2018) 2 SCC 493 , has held as follows: “…. …. …. 5. There cannot be any dispute that the caste is determined by birth and the caste cannot be changed by marriage with a person of Scheduled Caste. Undoubtedly, the appellant was born in “Agarwal” family, which falls in general category and not in Scheduled Caste. Merely because her husband is belonging to a Scheduled Caste category, the appellant should not have been issued with a caste certificate showing her caste as Scheduled Caste. In that regard, the orders of the authorities as well as the judgment of the High Court cannot be faulted. (Emphasis supplied) Considering the aforementioned judgments, coordinate Benches of this Court had held that caste and income certificate would always depend on father’s income and not the income of the husband. This Court in the case of Akshata Chougala and Others v. State of Karnataka , 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 168 supra had observed as follows: “…. …. …. 12. It is rather surprising that the State is time and again repeating the very same mistake and driving the applicants to knock at the doors of this Court despite the declaration of law by the Apex court and that of this Court, by clinging on to a Government order dated 12-12- 1986, which is on the face of it unsustainable. Therefore, it is for the State to direct the selecting authorities to act in tune with law and not contrary to law. It is high time to State, sets its house in order, and refrain from generating unnecessary litigation.” (Emphasis supplied) Observing that the State has time and again repeated same mistake of bringing the applicants to knock at the doors of Courts despite declaration of law, had directed that, it was high time the State set its house in order and refrain from generating unnecessary litigation. The State, as it is known for its wont, has again repeated the same mistake 9. The State, as it is known for its wont, has again repeated the same mistake 9. The denial of validity certificate to the petitioner – the key that would unlock the door to her lawful appointment was premised on a legal fallacy, long buried by the judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court and that of this Court, yet the State in willful ignorance or negligent defiance, clung to the misbegotten interpretation, imputing the income of the spouse to determine the backwardness of a woman, born into an eligible category. The attitude of the State cannot be countenanced. The petitioner whose documents were in order and whose claim was squarely covered under settled law, is left to knock on the bureaucratic doors, until her knuckles bled with frustration and had to approach this Court. It is the stern directions issued by this Court that awakened the State from slumber and issue a Validity Certificate, which was hers by right. The appointment then followed. 10. It is necessary to observe that justice delayed is justice dented . For 12 long months, while others from the same select list stepped into service, the petitioner languished in anxious limbo. Her legitimate aspirations swept under the weight of official indifference. This Court, thus, cannot permit the curtain to fall on this matter with a mere note of closure. The law was clear, the precedent was binding, yet the Officers with impunity, chose to act in contravention The members of the Committee who authored the document of miscarriage of justice must bear the burden for their folly. 11. It is a case where the members of the Committee must be mulcted with exemplary cost. The Chairman and the Members who have deliberately ignored the law, as a result of which, the petitioner is driven to unnecessary litigation and a consequential loss of 12 months of her employment, shall bear the costs. The cost not to be paid by State, but by the Members of the District Caste and Income Verification Committee, Hassan District, headed by the Deputy Commissioner at the relevant point in time from their pockets. Imposition of exemplary cost has become necessary in the peculiar facts of the case, not only to recompense the petitioner, but become a cautionary call to all those who hold public office, that dereliction cloaked in ignorance shall find no refuge before this Court. 12. Imposition of exemplary cost has become necessary in the peculiar facts of the case, not only to recompense the petitioner, but become a cautionary call to all those who hold public office, that dereliction cloaked in ignorance shall find no refuge before this Court. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER : (i) Writ Petition is disposed, with exemplary cost of Rs. 2,00,000/- to be paid to the petitioner by the Chairman and Members of the District Caste and Income Verification Committee, from out of their own funds and not from the funds of the State. (ii) The cost shall be paid to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.