Case: M. V. CHANDRAKANTH Vs. SANGAPPA &amp; ORS

that reservation to backward classes had not been introduced when the Respondent No.1s father had been admitted to school in 1953. By the time the Appellant came to be admitted to school, Reservation Policy for backward classes had been introduced. This could be the reason why the caste was not entered in the school records of the Respondent No.1s father where only Lingayat was mentioned but in the case of the Respondent No.1 the caste was mentioned as Hindu- Ganiga. 30. The Division Bench rightly held that, if the Respondent No.1s father was, in fact, Ganiga, the mere fact that his caste may not have been mentioned in his school records, or elsewhere, would not mean that he would have to be treated as a non-Ganiga by caste. The Division Bench referred to a report of the Karnataka Backward Classes Commission constituted under the Chairmanship of L.J. Havanur and in particular Paragraph 11 thereof which reads:- 11. Veerashaivas (Lingayats) claim to belong to a religion of their own, though legally they are considered as a Hindu denomination. It originated by uniting certain caste-blocks, and has grown by adding new ones which did not accept the principle of status or rank ascribed by birth. The unit of endogamy amongst veerashaivas in principle, is their denominational community, but in the process of expanding itself into a still larger community, it has allowed, perhaps, the new entrants to retain their autonomy and identity. That appears to be the reason why we find separate religious heads and monasteries of each section widespread in the State. The cases of those caste-units who have not yet been wholly assimilated into, or are half-way to, the Veerashaiva community but who could be readily identified and whose population could be ascertained have been considered separately. Such cases include the Ganigas (oil pressers), the Kumbaras (potters), the Kshowrikas (barbers), the Agasas (washermen), some Neygis (weavers), etc. 31. It appears that the finding of the Single Bench that the earlier notification in which Category II-A comprised many castes of which Ganiga was one, did not include Lingayat-Ganiga is misconceived. In the Government notification issued on 3rd March 2002, Category II-A comprised of Ganiga and other castes without referring to Lingayat Ganigas. Subsequently, on 27th January 2009, an order was issued by the Government of Karnataka to the effect that 19 sub-castes within Veerashaiva Lingayat were included in Category III-B. One of the castes so brought under Category III-B was Lingayat/Veerashaiva- Ganiga. Subsequently, however the Government issued a Notification on 28th February 2009 to the effect that the caste in Serial No.1 to 12 and 14 to 19 which were included in Category III-B as per the order/notification dated 27th January 2009 were deleted from the Category III-B and restored to the earlier position prevailing before 27th January 2009. 32. As observed by the Division Bench, the order dated 27th January 2009 shows that 19 sub-castes of Lingayat/Veerashaiva were included in Category III-B. One of the sub-castes was Lingayat/Veerashaiva- Ganiga. However, by another notification issued within a month that is 28th February 2009, the caste mentioned in Serial Nos. 1 to 12 and 14 to 19 Category III-B were deleted and the position prevailing before 27th January 2009 was restored. Lingayat/Veerashaiva-Ganiga was deleted. The intent of the order was to extend the benefit of reservation under Category II-A to the Lingayat-Ganigas also. 33. The Division Bench found that the finding of the Single Judge that Hindu-Ganiga and Lingayat-Ganiga were two different castes was not possible to accept. A Lingayat is also a Hindu governed by the Hindu Succession Act 1956, the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956 and the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956. The caste of the Respondent No.1 was thus shown as Hindu-Lingayat in the school registers by the Respondent No.1s father. 34. The Division Bench was correct in its finding that, the mere fact that the Caste Verification Committee gave a report of about 16 candidates in a few days cannot be a reason to doubt the correctness of the report. The Division Bench found that the report was made in accordance with the provisions of SC/ST and OBC Reservation Act. 35. Furthermore, during the pendency of the Writ Petition, Respondent No.1 produced a registered document of the year 1909 where the caste of the great grandfather of the Respondent No.1 was shown as Ganiger. The said document was taken on record by the Writ Court, but there was no discussion about it in the impugned order. The document is relevant in that it proves the caste of the Respondent No.1 to be Ganiga. Ganiger is a variant of the word Ganiga found in north Karnataka region. Respondent No.1 had also relied upon caste certificates issued to the relatives of the Respondent No.1 showing their caste as Ganiga. 36. The Respondent No.1 also referred to an order of this Court in Lawrence Salvador DSouza v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.6539/2016), where this Court directed the Committee to consider the caste certificate of the niece of the Appellant in that case for making a report about his caste. In this case, the Appellant has produced a number of caste certificates of his relatives indicating their caste as Hindu-Ganiga. After perusing the documents produced, this Court held that since the caste of the forefather of the Appellant was mentioned as Ganiger, an inference may be drawn with the help of this document that the caste of the Appellant was also Ganiga. 37. The decision of the Civil Enforcement Cell not to initiate the prosecution may have been against the directions issued by the Respondent No.2. The decision however, was justified, considering the materials on record showing the caste of the forefather and relatives of the Respondent No.1 as Ganiger or Ganiga. Even if the Caste Certificate and the Validity Certificate are ignored, there are materials including a pre-constitution registered sale deed of the Respondent No.1s grandfather showing his caste was Ganiga.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]27. The Division Bench referred to the judgments of Karnataka High Court in Somashekhar Veerappa B. Murgod v. State of Karnataka and Another AIR 1980 Karnataka 62 and Prabhushankar K.V. v. Selection Committee for Medical Colleges & others (1981) 1 Kant.L.J. 255. In Somashekhar Veerappa B. Murgod (supra), the Single Bench held:-6. The evidence recorded and the conclusion reached by the Commission, in particular the underlined portions, clearly disclose that in the State there is a community which is called Kuruhina Setty. The hereditary avocation of this community is neyge(weaving). At some point of time in the past some of the Kuruhina Settys adopted Veerashaiva or Lingayat faith. Among Kuruhina Settys, there are both vegetarians and non-vegetarians and those who have adopted Lingayat faith are vegetarians. From the finding recorded by the Commission, it is clear that all persons belonging to Kuruhina Setty community are considered as backward irrespective of the fact that some of them are Lingayats and others are not. The petitioner has claimed that he is a Kuruhina Setty, though he is a Lingayat. He had also produced certificate issued by the Tahasildar in which it is specifically stated that the petitioner belongs to Kuruhina Setty Community. The only reason given by the Selection Committee for rejecting the claim of the petitioner is that in the transfer certificate produced by the petitioner, the community of the petitioner is given as Lingayat. Even the petitioner does not dispute that he is a Lingayat. The fact that he is a Lingayat does not mean that he does not belong to Kuruhina Setty community. As pointed out by the commission, among persons belonging to Kuruhina Setty community some have become Lingayats, but all of them are considered and identified as belonging to backward community. Therefore, a Kuruhina Setty who has become a Lingayat is not disentitled to the benefit of reservation. In this behalf it is necessary to set out the relevant portion in the appendix-1 to Government Order No. ED 44 TGL 77, Bangalore, dated 18th May, 1977, which sets out all the communities falling under the category of Neygi who are considered as Backward Community. The relevant portion reads:(i) BACKWARD COMMUNITIES XXX XXX XXX XXX10. Neygi : Kuruhinasetti, Bilimagga, Thogata, Seniga, Jamkhana, Ayiri, Avir, Sale, Padmasale, Saale, Kaikolan, Neikar, Jadar, Jandra, Swakulasale.9. In the result, I hold that every person who belongs to Kuruhina Setty community whether a Lingayat or not belongs to Backward community for the purpose of the Government Order, and can claim the benefit of special provisions subject to the income test prescribed in the Government Order and, therefore, the Selection Committee erred in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for selection to 1st Year M.B.B.S. Course as against seats reserved for Backward Communities.28. In Prabhushankar v. Selection Committee for Medical Colleges (supra), a Single Bench of Karnataka High Court held:-6. In my view there is nothing unnatural in the conduct of the petitioner or his parents in not indicating that the petitioner apart from being a Lingayat also belonged to Ganiga Community, as no one knew at that stage that special provisions would be made in their favour and omission to do so does not preclude the petitioner from claiming the benefit of reservation if in truth the petitioner belongs to Ganiga community as indicated in the certificate issued by the Tahsildar who is the competent authority to issue the necessary certificate.7. In the face of the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, it was not open for the Selection Committee to reject the claim of the petitioner on the mere ground that in the transfer certificate the community of the petitioner was shown as Lingayat as the possibility of a Lingayat being a Ganiga could not be excluded. Therefore in the absence of any other material evidence before the Selection Committee on the basis of which it could have come to the conclusion that the positioner did not belong to Ganiga Community, the application could not have been rejected. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the reconsideration of his case.29. The Division Bench analysed the facts of the case but found that reservation to backward classes had not been introduced when the Respondent No.1s father had been admitted to school in 1953. By the time the Appellant came to be admitted to school, Reservation Policy for backward classes had been introduced. This could be the reason why the caste was not entered in the school records of the Respondent No.1s father where only Lingayat was mentioned but in the case of the Respondent No.1 the caste was mentioned as Hindu- Ganiga.30. The Division Bench rightly held that, if the Respondent No.1s father was, in fact, Ganiga, the mere fact that his caste may not have been mentioned in his school records, or elsewhere, would not mean that he would have to be treated as a non-Ganiga by caste. The Division Bench referred to a report of the Karnataka Backward Classes Commission constituted under the Chairmanship of L.J. Havanur and in particular Paragraph 11 thereof which reads:-11. Veerashaivas (Lingayats) claim to belong to a religion of their own, though legally they are considered as a Hindu denomination. It originated by uniting certain caste-blocks, and has grown by adding new ones which did not accept the principle of status or rank ascribed by birth. The unit of endogamy amongst veerashaivas in principle, is their denominational community, but in the process of expanding itself into a still larger community, it has allowed, perhaps, the new entrants to retain their autonomy and identity. That appears to be the reason why we find separate religious heads and monasteries of each section widespread in the State. The cases of those caste-units who have not yet been wholly assimilated into, or are half-way to, the Veerashaiva community but who could be readily identified and whose population could be ascertained have been considered separately. Such cases include the Ganigas (oil pressers), the Kumbaras (potters), the Kshowrikas (barbers), the Agasas (washermen), some Neygis (weavers), etc.31. It appears that the finding of the Single Bench that the earlier notification in which Category II-A comprised many castes of which Ganiga was one, did not include Lingayat-Ganiga is misconceived. In the Government notification issued on 3rd March 2002, Category II-A comprised of Ganiga and other castes without referring to Lingayat Ganigas. Subsequently, on 27th January 2009, an order was issued by the Government of Karnataka to the effect that 19 sub-castes within Veerashaiva Lingayat were included in Category III-B. One of the castes so brought under Category III-B was Lingayat/Veerashaiva- Ganiga. Subsequently, however the Government issued a Notification on 28th February 2009 to the effect that the caste in Serial No.1 to 12 and 14 to 19 which were included in Category III-B as per the order/notification dated 27th January 2009 were deleted from the Category III-B and restored to the earlier position prevailing before 27th January 2009.32. As observed by the Division Bench, the order dated 27th January 2009 shows that 19 sub-castes of Lingayat/Veerashaiva were included in Category III-B. One of the sub-castes was Lingayat/Veerashaiva- Ganiga. However, by another notification issued within a month that is 28th February 2009, the caste mentioned in Serial Nos. 1 to 12 and 14 to 19 Category III-B were deleted and the position prevailing before 27th January 2009 was restored. Lingayat/Veerashaiva-Ganiga was deleted. The intent of the order was to extend the benefit of reservation under Category II-A to the Lingayat-Ganigas also.33. The Division Bench found that the finding of the Single Judge that Hindu-Ganiga and Lingayat-Ganiga were two different castes was not possible to accept. A Lingayat is also a Hindu governed by the Hindu Succession Act 1956, the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956 and the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956. The caste of the Respondent No.1 was thus shown as Hindu-Lingayat in the school registers by the Respondent No.1s father.34. The Division Bench was correct in its finding that, the mere fact that the Caste Verification Committee gave a report of about 16 candidates in a few days cannot be a reason to doubt the correctness of the report. The Division Bench found that the report was made in accordance with the provisions of SC/ST and OBC Reservation Act.35. Furthermore, during the pendency of the Writ Petition, Respondent No.1 produced a registered document of the year 1909 where the caste of the great grandfather of the Respondent No.1 was shown as Ganiger. The said document was taken on record by the Writ Court, but there was no discussion about it in the impugned order. The document is relevant in that it proves the caste of the Respondent No.1 to be Ganiga. Ganiger is a variant of the word Ganiga found in north Karnataka region. Respondent No.1 had also relied upon caste certificates issued to the relatives of the Respondent No.1 showing their caste as Ganiga.37. The decision of the Civil Enforcement Cell not to initiate the prosecution may have been against the directions issued by the Respondent No.2. The decision however, was justified, considering the materials on record showing the caste of the forefather and relatives of the Respondent No.1 as Ganiger or Ganiga. Even if the Caste Certificate and the Validity Certificate are ignored, there are materials including a pre-constitution registered sale deed of the Respondent No.1s grandfather showing his caste was Ganiga.