IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
S.G. PANDIT, ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, JJ.
Selection Authority and Secretary, Karnataka High School Examination Board – Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Geetha Dattatreya Gokarn W/o Sanjeeva Kumar V. Hosakeri – Respondent
W.P. No. 103063 of 2021
Decided On : 23-02-2022
Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Act, 1990 - Section 4-A - Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Rules, 1992 - Rule 3-C – Writ Petition - Creamy layer certificate - Validity of Certificate issued by Tahsildar – Petitioner is Selection Authority and Secretary, Karnataka High School Examination Board. Petitioner is before this Court questioning correctness and legality of order in Application passed by Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal by which Tribunal allowed application filed by respondent No. 1 and directed to consider case of respondent No. 1 for appointment to post of Secondary School Assistant Teacher (CBZ-Kannada) under GM/Rural in pursuant to additional list with all benefits from date on which candidates appointed, except salary for period with notional fixation.
Finding of the Court:
Court are dealing with submission of creamy layer certificate subsequent to publication of selection list - As stated above, both caste certificate and creamy layer certificate are two different certificates and both certificates cannot be treated alike - A person is by birth and not by acquisition of any event taking place subsequently - Creamy layer certificate or income certificate would depend on income of a person from his avocation or profession or employment as on date of issuing such certificate - Income of a person whether he is a Government Servant, businessman, professional or coolie would definitely vary from time to time - Creamy layer certificate produced by applicant subsequent to publication of select list is contrary to general instructions stated at clause 26 of notification inviting application - Court are of view that Tribunal committed an error in allowing application - Court find force in contentions raised by respondent-Government in writ petition.
Result: Writ petition is allowed.
ORDER :
1. Petitioner is the Selection Authority and the Secretary, Karnataka High School Examination Board. Petitioner is before this Court questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 09.03.2020 in Application No. 926/2015 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi (for short ‘Tribunal’) by which the Tribunal allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 1 and directed to consider the case of the respondent No. 1 for appointment to the post of Secondary School Assistant Teacher (CBZ-Kannada) under GM/Rural in pursuant to additional list dated 12.09.2013 with all the benefits from the date on which candidates appointed, except the salary for the period with notional fixation.
2. The parties to the Writ Petition would be referred to as they rank before the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal the petitioner herein was the respondent and the respondent herein was the applicant.
The respondent by notification dated 02.04.2012 (Annexure-A7) invited applications to fill up the post of Secondary School Assistant Teacher Grade-II which consisted of Arts Teacher (Kannada, English, Telugu and Urdu Medium); Physics Teacher (Kannada, English and Urdu Medium); Biology Teacher (Kannada, English, Tamil and Urdu Medium); Language Teachers (Kannada, English, Hindi, Tamil, Sanskrit and Urdu). The last date for submitting application was 10.05.2012. The method of selection was on the marks obtained in the written examination as well as on the marks obtained in the qualifying examination. The petitioner being qualified for the post of Secondary School Asst. Teacher (CBZ Kannada) applied for the post claiming reservation under Women, Rural as well as Kannada medium. The applicant was not selected in the main list and when the respondent-selection authority prepared additional list, the petitioner was selected in the additional list and was placed at S. No. 6 in the said additional list. Thereafter, the applicant was asked by the selection authority to produce original documents for verification. Accordingly, it is stated that the applicant produced all the original documents including creamy layer certificate. As the applicant was not issued with order of appointment and candidates below the applicant in the additional select list were issued with order of appointment, the applicant submitted a representation to the Commissioner for Public Instructions. On consideration of the said representation the applicant was issued with an endorsement dated 01.07.2014 (Annexure-A12) wherein it is stated that since the petitioner failed to submit creamy layer certificate obtained within the period prescribed under the notification of recruitment, the candidature of the applicant was rejected. Challenging the said endorsement the applicant was before the Tribunal in Application No. 926/2015. The Tribunal on consideration of the applicant’s case, allowed the application, set aside the impugned endorsement dated 01.07.2014 and directed the respondent to consider the case of the applicant for appointment to the post of Secondary School Assistant Teacher Grade-II (CBZ Kannada) under GM (Rural) in pursuace to additional list dated 12.09.2013 with all the benefits except the salary, but granted notional fixation. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent-Board is before this Court.
3. We have heard Sri. G.K. Hiregoudar, learned Government Advocate for the petitioner/ respondent and Sri. Ramesh Zirali, learned counsel for respondent/applicant.
4. Learned Government Advocate would submit that the applicant had participated in the recruitment process to the post of Secondary School Assistant Teacher Grade-II (CBZ Kannada) in pursuant to notification dated 02.04.2012. The applicant had claimed reservation under Women/Rural/KMS. The applicant was required to produce the creamy layer certificate obtained from the competent Tahasildar.
5. Learned Govt. Advocate submits that the applicant produced creamy layer certificate dated 31.10.2006 in Form No.
Ram Kumar Guroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Another
Point of Law : Caste Certificate and Income Certificate issued under 1990 Act are two different and distinct certificates. Both certificates cannot be treated alike.
Adherence to specified deadlines and requirements outlined in the advertisement is crucial for the validity of caste certificates and the selection process.
Adherence to terms and conditions in the advertisement and the stipulated selection procedure is crucial for claiming reservation. The requirement of non-creamy layer certificate for reservation agai....
Point of Law : Advertisement issued by respondent and letter of Collector makes it clear that all documents including non creamy layer certificate ought to have been produced by successful candidates....
Reservations – Caste - As an institution of national importance, IISER TVM strives to have a workforce which reflects an all India character and hence candidates from all over country are encouraged ....
Candidates must possess and submit valid non-creamy layer certificates as per the advertisement requirements at the time of online application, and false declaration can lead to dismissal of candidat....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.