Point of Law: Caste Certificate – Cancellation of - Subsequent declaration of law by overruling the N.E.Horo cannot ipso facto result in the caste certificate issued to respondent No.l herein being fraudulent, illegal or invalid. In this regard, we find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.l..

JUDGMENT :

The legality and correctness of order dated 26/03/2016, passed in W.P.No.8209/2016 is called in question in this intra-court appeal, by respondent No.6 in the writ petition.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that respondent No.1 herein/petitioner had assailed the correctness of order dated 26/12/2015, passed by respondent No.2 herein, by which the caste certificate issued in her favour to the effect that she belongs to the Scheduled Caste community, was cancelled on the ground that she had failed to produce any document in order to substantiate the fact that she belongs to “Adi Karnataka Caste” notified as a Scheduled Caste. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 married Govindaiah who belongs to Scheduled Caste. Consequently, respondent No.1 sought and was issued a caste certificate in the year 1979 that she belongs to the Scheduled Caste community. She was, thereafter, appointed as Kannada Teacher on 05/11/1979 in JSS High School, which is an aided institution, on the basis of the said caste certificate. She served in the said institution and has retired from service on 30/09/2015 on attaining the age of superannuation.

3. Just prior to her retirement, on 08/09/2011, the appellant herein filed a complaint against respondent No.1 seeking action against her on the premise that she had obtained the caste certificate by making false averments and was enjoying the benefits of a Scheduled Caste person and had also obtained employment as a Kannada teacher on that basis. Respondent No.3 herein issued notice to respondent No.1 herein on 25/06/2012 calling upon her to participate in an enquiry as per Circular dated 30/06/2007. Respondent No.1 herein/petitioner attended the enquiry and submitted her reply on 13/07/2012. By order dated 28/06/2013, the caste certificate issued in her favour was cancelled. Respondent No.1, thereafter, submitted her representation and challenged the said order on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to cancel the caste certificate by filing W.P.No.33848/2013 before this Court. That writ petition was allowed by order dated 12/06/2014 and the matter was remitted to the District Caste Verification Committee. It is the case of respondent No.1 that the District Caste Verification Committee without issuing notice to respondent No.1 herein by order dated 11/09/2014 once again cancelled the caste certificate issued in her favour. Also, a criminal case was registered against her for the offence under Section 3(1)(9) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on 18/12/2014, which order was assailed by respondent No.1 herein in W.P.No.55478/2014 before this Court. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed on 13/01/2015 and the matter was remitted for fresh disposal.

4. During the pendency of the said proceeding before the District Caste Verification Committee, respondent No.1 attained the age of superannuation in September, 2015 and retired from service on 30/09/2015. Thereafter, by order dated 26/12/2015, the caste certificate issued in favour of respondent No.1 was cancelled. Hence, respondent No.1 filed W.P.No.8209/2016 before this Court.

5. Learned single Judge, on considering the respective contentions of the parties, has allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order dated 26/12/2015 as well as the FIR dated 18/12/2014 registered against respondent No.1 herein. Learned single Judge directed that respondent No.1 is entitled to terminal benefits on the basis of the caste certificate issued in her favour. However, she shall not be entitled to claim benefits of a person belonging to the Schedule Caste in future. Being aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been preferred.

6. We have heard Sri A.Nagarajappa, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri V.R.Sarathy, learned counsel for caveator/respondent No.1 through video conference and learned Additional Government Advocate by way of assistance on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 7 and perused the material o