The validity of a caste certificate can be challenged, and the burden of proof lies on the applicant to establish their caste status under the Act of 1990.

ORDER

A. Background

1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 27.02.2024 passed by the Respondent No.1 in No. Pa Va Ka E/Appeal/CR-01/2022-23 produced at Annexure: M and dismiss the appeal filed by the Respondent No.2;

ii) Grant such other relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, including an order as to costs, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The Petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Tribe community - ‘Bedar’ which is classified as a Scheduled Tribe under Article 342 of the Constitution of India in the State of Karnataka.

3. Upon submitting an application, Respondent No. 2 was selected and appointed to the post of ‘Assistant Accounts Officer’ at the ‘Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company Ltd.’ (in short: ‘GESCOM’) under the Schedule Tribe category.

4. In pursuance of relevant provisions and rules under the ‘ Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 , (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1990’), Respondent No. 2 had to produce a caste certificate and upon furnishing the same, the appointing authority referred this to Respondent No. 3 – District Caste Verification Committee (in short: ‘DCVC’) to verify the caste certificate of Respondent No. 2 and to issue a validity certificate to that effect.

5. Thereafter, upon enquiry, Respondent Nos. 3-6 rejected the caste certificate of Respondent No.2 vide order dated 27.09.2021 holding that Respondent No.2 actually belongs to the ‘Kuruba’ community which is classified as a Backward Category under II-A reservation and not the ‘Gond’/Gonda community as claimed by Respondent No.2, against which Respondent No.2 preferred an appeal before the Respondent No.1-appellate authority and the same came to be numbered as Appeal No. CR 1/2002-23. Notices having been issued, the Petitioner herein filed an impleading application in the said appeal contending that the father and paternal uncle of Respondent No. 2 belong to the Kuruba community amongst other contentions, Respondent No.1 authority allowed the impleading application.

6. On hearing all concerned parties to the appeal, Respondent No.1 authority passed an order dated 27.02.2024 holding that Respondent No. 2 belonged to the ‘Gond’ community, hence, the caste certificate issued was valid and consequently allowed the appeal.

7. It is impugning this order of Respondent No.1 dated 27.02.2024, in PaVaKaE/Appeal/CR-01 2022-23, that the Petitioner is before this court.

B. Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner

8. Smt. Hema Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, would submit that;

8.1. Not only is the impugned order not a speaking one but no finding has been adjudged as regards the documents submitted by the Petitioner marked as annexures – D, E and F in the writ petition wherein her contention is that the caste certificate of the paternal uncle of Respondent No.2, one Shri. Shyam Rao s/o Manikappa, his wife Smt. Nagamma and his daughter Kum. Bhuvaneshwari state that they belong to the ‘Kuruba’ community which is classified under II-A category issued by the Tahsildhar, Chincholi Taluk vide certificate dated 03.08.2017 as per the order of the state government issued under Articles 15(4) & 16(4) of the Indian Constitution, when such is the case, the father, brother and sister of Respondent No.2 as also Respondent No.2 cannot claim to belong to the ‘Gond’ community.

8.2. Respondent No.2 in collusion with revenue officials based on entries in school records has managed to obtain a false caste certificate fraudulently as against the procedure contemplated under rule 3A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Rules, 1992 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “Rules of 1992”) and by this very act has committed a grave fraud on the