SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Kar) 928

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.Nagaprasanna, J.
Hemanthkumar N., S/o Nanyanaik - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Karnataka Rep. By Its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha Bengaluru - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 24847 OF 2022 (GM-CC)
Decided On : 31-01-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri. Bola Vedvyas Shenoy, Advocate
For the Respondent: Smt.Shwetha Krishnappa, AGA, Sri.K.M.Prakash, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
A trivial error in caste categorization should not deprive a candidate of their right to be considered as belonging to a scheduled caste.

Headnote:

Error - Caste categorization - RAM KUMAR GIJROYA v. DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD, (2016) 4 SCC 754 - The court discussed the issue of caste categorization and the importance of caste certificates in the appointment process. It emphasized that a trivial error in caste categorization should not take away the right of a candidate for consideration of their case as a candidate belonging to a scheduled caste.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, belonging to Scheduled Caste, applied for a post but erroneously filled the application under the Scheduled Tribe category. Despite efforts to rectify the error, the Commission refused to make the correction, leading to the petitioner's exclusion from the select list.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's caste status was not in dispute, and the error in the application should not have resulted in the petitioner's exclusion from consideration for appointment.

Issues: The main issue was the refusal of the Commission to rectify the error in the petitioner's caste categorization, leading to the petitioner's exclusion from the select list.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the case of RAM KUMAR GIJROYA v. DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD, emphasizing that a trivial error in caste categorization should not take away the right of a candidate for consideration of their case as a candidate belonging to a scheduled caste.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, issued a mandamus to rectify the error, and directed the Commission to treat the petitioner as belonging to Scheduled Caste and regulate the select list accordingly.

ORDER :

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question non- consideration of his candidature under SC, SC/KMS, SC/RL category owing to his name not being figured in the provisional select list dated 25-11-2022 published by the 2nd respondent/ Karnataka Public Service Commission (‘the Commission’ for short) for the post of Junior Assistant/Second Division Assistant. The petitioner further seeks a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to correct the error of the petitioner which is depicted as him belonging to Scheduled Tribe to that of Scheduled Caste.

2. Brief facts that lead the petitioner to this court in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-

    The 2nd respondent/Commission issues a Notification on 29-02-2020, inviting applications for the post of Junior Assistant/ Second Division Assistant in the Resident Parent Cadre. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste and finding himself eligible applies pursuant to the said notification and the application had been sent through online as required. The petitioner claims to have got it typed at a cyber centre and while filling the application under the category column fills it as Scheduled Tribe instead of Scheduled Caste. The application gets uploaded online showing the petitioner as belonging to Scheduled Tribe instead of Scheduled Caste to which he actually belongs. Noticing the error, the petitioner again made efforts to change the category online on 15-07-2021 and claims that the change was approved on the website. Thinking that he was a participant under the Scheduled Caste category, the petitioner participated in the written test which was held on 19-09-2021.

3. The merit list was then notified of the candidates who had come within the zone of consideration and the name of the petitioner did figure in the said merit list securing 163 marks. After the notification of the merit list, the petitioner was called for document verification on 8.09.1922. It was then the petitioner gets to know that his category has not been changed from Scheduled Tribe to Scheduled Caste and the error that had crept in online on 20.03.2020 had become part of the record. The petitioner then files an affidavit immediately before the Commission bringing to its notice that it was an error committed by the cyber centre but he does belong to Scheduled Caste and a certificate issued to him way back in the year 2013 certifying his caste. The Commission refused to accept the change.

4. The petitioner approaches the Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (‘SC/ST Commission’ for short) venting out his grievance that he would lose the opportunity of consideration of his candidature for appointment if he is not considered as belonging to Scheduled Caste. The SC/ST Commission also requests the 2nd respondent/Commission to consider the case of the petitioner. The petitioner then represented on 17-09- 2022 and 23-09-2022 with regard to the correction of error. All these did not yield any result. A provisional select list was notified on 25-11-2022 and the name of the petitioner did not figure in the said list ostensibly for the reason that the petitioner was treated as belonging to Scheduled Tribe and the posts reserved for Scheduled Tribe were minimal. It is then, the petitioner knocked at the doors of this Court in the subject petition calling in question the aforesaid action.

5. Heard Sri Bola Vedvyas Shenoy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Shwetha Krishnappa, learned Additional Government Advocate and Sri K.M.Prakash, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/Commission.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend with vehemence that it is an error on the part of the person who was uploading the application in cyber centre which missed the eye of the petitioner as it was uploaded depicting the petitioner to be belonging as Scheduled Tribe which in fact is an error and he does belong t

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top