Caste determination involves assessing both contemporaneous records and subsequent evidence, affirming that Lingayat and Ganiga identities may coexist within the same familial context, necessitating rigorous proof in claims for reservation benefits.

CAV ORDER

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

a) Call for the records pertaining to Order bearing No. Him Va Ka Ni/Ma Sha/C.R-12/2011-12 dated25.11.2015 of the fourth Respondent at Annexure-A and order No. D.O.B C.M./ACT/2010-11 dated 19.7.2010 of Respondent No.1 at Annexure-D and peruse the same;

b) Quash the order bearing No. Him Va Ka Ni/Ma Sha/C.R-12/2011-12 dated 25.11.2015 of the fourth respondent at Annexure-A and order No. D.O.B.C.M./Act/2010-11 dated 19.7.2010 of R1 at Annexure-D, by issue of writ of certiorari or any other order of direction, as case may be;

c) Grant such other suitable reliefs as this Hon’ble corut deems fit, in the circumstance of the case.

2. The petitioner states that he has been serving as a Police Constable since his appointment in the year 1998. He belongs to the Vishwakarma community, which falls under Category 2A of the Other Backward Classes. It is alleged that respondent No.3, in fact, belongs to the Lingayat caste, which does not fall under Category 2A.

3. In the year 2009, pursuant to a Government Notification inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Police Sub-Inspector (PSI), both the petitioner and respondent No.3 applied for the said post. According to the petitioner, respondent No.3 secured selection during the recruitment process of 2010–11 by falsely representing that he belonged to the Lingayat Ganiga community, which is classified under Category 2A.

4. Aggrieved by the said selection, the petitioner submitted a complaint before respondent No.4 – the Commissioner, Backward Classes Welfare Department. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.1 – the District Caste and Income Verification Committee, which conducted an inquiry and, by order dated 16.06.2010, rejected the request for issuance of a caste certificate under Category 2A in favour of respondent No.3. In the said order, respondent No.1 recorded that the relevant documents pertaining to the father, brother, and sister of respondent No.3 were verified and all such records reflected their caste as “Lingayat,” with no reference to “Lingayat Ganiga.”

5. Respondent No.3 preferred an appeal before respondent No.4. By order dated 13.07.2010, the appellate authority allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to respondent No.1 for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity to respondent No.3 to produce all relevant documents.

6. Upon remand, respondent No.1 observed that there was a correction/insertion in the school records of respondent No.3 indicating his caste as “Lingayat Ganiga.” Proceeding on the presumption that such correction was made pursuant to a valid order, respondent No.1, by order dated 19.07.2010, directed issuance of a caste certificate under Category 2A in favour of respondent No.3. The order also records that the President of the Akhila Bharath Ganigara Sangha had recommended issuance of the caste certificate.

7. The order dated 19.07.2010 passed by respondent No.1 was challenged before the appellate authority. However, the appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 25.11.2015. It is challenging the orders dated 19.07.2010 and 25.11.2015 that the petitioner is before this Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

8. Sri.Shridhar N.Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that:

8.1. The impugned order dated 19.07.2010 passed by respondent No.1 is illegal, arbitrary, perverse, and contrary to the material available on record. The said order suffers from non- application of mind and warrants interference by this Court.

8.2. Respondent No.1, while noticing that there was an insertion/correction in the school records of respondent No.3, proceeded on the p