2020 Supreme(Kar) 150

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
G. NARENDAR, J.
Karnataka Kaigarika Pradeshabhivruddi Mandali Parishista Jaathi Parishista Pangada Matthu Hindulida Vargagala Noukarara Sangha (Regd.) – Petitioner
Versus
State of Karnataka by its Principal Secretary to Government Backward Classes Welfare Department – Respondent
W.P. No. 33055 of 2019
Decided On : 08-05-2020

Headnote:

Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 - Section 3 - Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 16 - Post reserved for backward caste is illegal – Quash of order – Employment and service - Whether it is desirable to have centralized selection of candidates for courts subordinate to respective High Court and if it finds it desirable may formulate rules to carry out that purpose either for State or on zonal or divisional basis - Whether appointment is irregular or illegal termination is warranted - Whether Commission can act on an essential document not submitted earlier as per terms of advertisement but submitted after completion of entire process of selection - Whether any other candidates any essential document relating to right/benefits etc not furnished with application or at time of interview but submitted after interview was accepted or not - Whether power of review is vested in Speaker enabling him to review his own order under tenth schedule of Constitution and while so considering same Apex Court considered issue of laces in matter of preferring petition impugning legality of order passed in review by Speaker – It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that father of petitioner was employed as a foreman in University College of Engineering and that he superannuated and annual income was in excess of which is income limit stipulated for purpose of claiming reservation under backward caste - In this regard he would invite attention of court to Annexure-R an information furnished by college authorities detailing salary and allowances paid by University to father of 4th respondent on his re-employment - He would contend that monthly income of father of 4th respondent was paise and hence annual income exceeded and hence 4th respondent was ineligible to be considered even for appointment as against backward caste category – Held, Petitioner has not questioned selection process - Neither has petitioner questioned competency of selection committee and grievance is that though respondent belongs to caste which he claims but he is not entitled to seek appointment against reserved post in view of annual income exceeding specified limit - It is not in dispute that said fact as to whether income of the 4th respondents father exceeded specified limit or not can be subject matter before an alternative forum a statutory appeal remedy provided under Act of 1990 which statute came to be enacted pursuant to law laid down by Honble Apex Court in case - Other limb of argument that appointment against post was not notified also requires to be rejected in light of law laid down by Honble Apex Court and as succinctly stated by Division Bench - There is no dispute that as prescribed by statute providing for reservation roster point-8 and 10 on date of appointment provide for reservation of three posts in favor of BSG BCT and BCM - Petitioner has also placed on record deliberations of selection committee and the circular ordering strict compliance in matters pertaining to reservation of posts - If contention of petitioner is accepted and if it is held that as per notification two candidates of Scheduled Castes category ought to have been appointed as per notification then same would have resulted in violation of Government Order pertaining to roster points – Apparently selection committee realizing error in notification has proceeded to make selections in accordance with law relating to roster points - It cannot be gainfully argued that notification would prevail over statute governing roster point - Petitioner having not impugned correctness of notification further discussion in this regard is aborted as unnecessary – Hence only moot question that remains is whether 4th respondent who was appointed against roster point 5, 8 and 10 as clarified in Annexure-R3 is valid and correct - Answers are not for to seek - Writ petition in so far as relates to correctness and legality of Caste Certificate issued by Competent Authority need not detain this Court for long - Caste Certificate admittedly has been issued by Competent Authority said Caste Certificate has been verified at instance of employer and selection committee acting on basis of Caste Certificate has deemed it appropriate to appoint 4th respondent against post reserved for backward classes as per roster point - Selection process culminated and whether proceedings which had culminated years ago can be gone into at this distant point of time and thereby unsettle a settled position - Petitioner is an organization which has come into existence and desires to question legality of proceedings completed – Hence said relief prayer requires to be rejected on short ground of delay and laches alone - Further determination of issue involves adjudication of facts which is domain of competent authority whose certification has stood test of time and scrutiny even by a legislative committee and which fact is also within knowledge of petitioner - In fact inquiry by committee was on allegation that respondent was appointed against a post reserved for schedule castes - Petitioner has not demonstrated as to how it is aggrieved by caste certificate - If reliefs sought for as noted supra are adjudicated it would virtually amount to converting present proceedings into a public interest litigation contrary to well settled position in law in this regard - In guise of a writ of quo-warranto petitioner cannot seek a roving enquiry with regard to facts pertaining to issuance of a caste certificate and that too in the face of an insurmountable obstacle, that is delay and laches - Timing of the petition questioning recommendation of competent committee cannot be at instance of petitioner as it cannot be classified as an aggrieved person - Various information said to have been issued to 3rd parties is neither authenticated nor have recipients of information come before this court - In that view of fact also this court is constrained to hold that petitioner has not approached court with clean hands and hence writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost - Petition stands dismissed