ORDER

The petitioner in this writ petition is seeking to quash the proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 pursuant to the notice issued to the petitioner herein at Annexure-D, dated 29.07.2017 in No.Jani/SWD/D6/CC/CR/2017-18; Annexure-E, dated 13.08.2017 and Annexure-G, dated 15.11.2018 and a writ of mandamus quashing the report issued by respondent No.2 at annexure-A dated 03.08.2004 declaring the caste of the petitioner as "Pariwara" to be illegal and void ab initio.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was issued with a caste certificate stating that she belongs to "Nayaka" community classified as Scheduled Tribe under Article 342 of the Constitution of India in respect of State of Karnataka. On the basis of the caste certificate obtained by the petitioner, she was appointed as Hostel Warden in the Department of Social Welfare. This being so, the petitioner continued in the services and attained superannuation on 31.01.2016. It appears that on 14.07.1995, a complaint was lodged before respondent No.2 by one C Gopal, Editor, Harijana Hudaraka Sampadakaru, stating that the petitioner has obtained fake certificate claiming that she belongs to "Nayaka" community, in fact she belongs to "Pariwara" community, which is notified as Backward Class Category-I by the State Government under Article 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India. It is stated that based on the complaint lodged by the said person, respondent No.2 conducted an enquiry and submitted report to respondent No.3 to take appropriate action and to inform the decision taken by the District Caste Verification Committee as per Annexure-A, on 03.08.2004.

3. It is stated that pursuant to this, the District Caste Verification Committee issued notice to the petitioner to appear as per Annexures-D to G. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash the said notices.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that during the pendency of the writ petition, "Pariwara" and "Talawara" communities have been included as Synonym with "Nayaka" community by the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Orders (Amendment) Act, 2020, dated 29.01.2022 and consequently, the State Government by its order dated 29.10.2022 has deleted "Talawara" and "Pariwara" communities from the list of Backward Class Category-I issued by the State Government on 30.03.2022. It is stated that "Pariwara" and "Talawara" are Synonym to "Nayaka" Scheduled Tribe and is retrospective in light of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jayanna vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District and others reported in KLJ 2013 (1) Page No.177(FB), wherein at paragraph 14, it has been held as follows;

"14. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the original grantee's name was "Nayaka" in vernacular/Kannada. How this is to be spelt in English is the abiding questing that arises even before us. If we translate it as 'Naikda' or 'Nayaka', then it was included in 1950 Presidential enumeration. If we are to translate it as 'Naika' or 'Nayak' then it is to be found in the subsequent amendment of 1991 only. The translation should have been made with greater care by the Assistant Commissioner and thereafter by the Deputy Commissioner. We are certain that the Scheduled Tribe is the same, attracting only the variant spelling in the translation. Both the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner have erroneously concluded that since "Nayaka" (Naika or Nayak) was included as Scheduled Tribe only in 1991, the grantee did not fall within the purview of the PTCL Act and erroneously restored the land to the state. This error would not have manifested had the two authorities perceived the legal position that all entries in the Constitution (Schedule Tribes) order 1950 original of subsequent are only elucidatory and cla