Caste validation certificates directly impact employment rights; wrongful classification can lead to termination, which the court corrected based on precedent.

ORDER :

1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayers:

In W.P.NO. 101338/2024

In W.P.NO. 101338/2024

A. issue a Writ or order in the nature of writ of Certiorari for quashing the impugned Order No. HIWAKE/MASHA/CR-30/ 2020-21, dated 20.04.2022 passed by the Respondent No.1 vide Annexure-S and accordingly quash the impugned order no. DBCM/SIDHUSTWA/CR-14/ 2010-11 dated 06.08.2020 issued by 2^nd respondent vide Annexure-P, since the petitioner belongs to Category II-A and not to the Category III-B.

B. to issue a Writ or order in the nature of writ of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order no. NWKRTC/KEKA/HU/DME/34(19)/768, dated 14.07.2021 passed by the Respondent no.4 vide Annexure-N and accordingly quash the impugned order no. NWKRTC/HUWI/ SIBBANDHI/NEMAKA/a10/ 2535 dated 11.07.2019 issued by 5th respondent vide Annexure-M and the respondent no.4 and 5 be directed to re-instate the petitioner to his original post of driver cum conductor.

C. PASS any other relief/reliefs, orders, directions, writ as deemed fit to grant, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The petitioners in both these cases were appointed as trainee Driver-cum-Conductors on the strength of a particular caste certificate possessed by them, depicting them as ‘Hindu-Sadaru’. The termination of these petitioners comes about on the score that the petitioners do not belong to Category 2A Hindu-Sadaru as Sadaru-Lingayat. Sadaru is depicted to be a Lingayat caste.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, in identical circumstances this Court following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M.V. Chandrakanth vs. Sangappa and Others , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 934 has allowed those claims.

4. The learned counsel Sri.Prashant Hosmani, seeks to refute the submissions in contending that the said judgment has no application to the facts of the case, as the entire clan of the petitioners is shown to be Hindu-Lingayat, and the word ‘Sadaru’ does not even appear in the caste certificate. The learned counsel would therefore submit that the petitions be dismissed.

5. The issue is with regard to whether the petitioners could continue in employment or otherwise or their termination should be upheld on the score that the petitioners were producing caste certificate depicting them as Hindu-Sadaru, which, according to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, is a Lingayat.

6. The Apex Court, in the case of M.V. CHANDRAKANTH (quoted supra) has considered this very issue and has held as follows:

“9. On or about 7th October 2005, the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) published the provisional list of candidates selected for the Group A and Group B posts of Probationary Officers. After publication of the provisional list on 7 th October 2005, KPSC sent the caste certificate of the Respondent No.1 to the Respondent No.3 for verification. On 21st October 2005, the Respondent No.3 issued a certificate validating the caste certificate submitted by the Respondent No.1.

10. KPSC notified the final list of selected candidates on 29th November 2005. The Appellant was selected for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Respondent No.1 was selected for the post of Assistant Commissioner (Junior Grade Scale). Both the Appellant and the Respondent No.1 were selected under the Reserved Category II-A of the Reservation Policy. The Respondent No.1 secured 1152 marks and was placed at Sl. No. 15 in the category of posts of Assistant Commissioner, whereas the Appella