[2012] 6 Kar. L.J.

691
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Present:

Vikramajit SenC. J. and Aravind Kumar, J.

Smt. Geethanjali

v.
Canara Bank (A Government of India Undertaking), Head Office, Bangalore and Others

co

KARNATAKA SCHEDULED CASTES, SCHEDULED TRIBES AND OTHER BACKWARD CLASSES

(RESERVATION OF APPOINTMENTS, ETC.) RULES, 1992, Rule 4 Karnataka High Court Act,
1961, Sections 8 and 9 Petitioner had secured a job in Canara Bank Pseudonymous
complaint against him Caste Certificate issued by Tahsildar, Udupi was not correct The
District Caste Verification Committee cancelled the Caste Certificate Appellate Authority
upheld this view Writ petition was filed before a Single Bench The learned Single Judge
referred question to a larger Bench Held, after promulgation of above Rules, 1992, the District
Caste Verification Committee is the Competent Authority to look into genuineness or otherwise
of any Caste Certificate.

w
w

.k

ljl
ib
ra
r

y.

Vikramajit Sen, C.J. and Aravind Kumar, J., Held: This matter has been referred to the
Division Bench by a learned Single Judge. However, no question has been formulated for our
consideration. . . . . . . The petitioner had secured an appointment with the Canara Bank on the
basis of a Caste Certificate issued by the Tahsildar on 3-2-1990. A pseudonymous complaint
was received by the Bank which eventually lead to scrutiny and investigation being
conducted into the Scheduled Caste status of the petitioner by her employer. The District
Caste Verification Committee, by its order dated 31-12-2003 concluded that the Caste
Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Udupi on 3-2-1990 was not correct; and the Caste
Certificate was accordingly cancelled. This view was upheld by the First Appellate Authority
on 6-8-2004. W.P. No. 46548 of 2004 came to be filed thereafter and in the hearings held on
31-10-2006, the learned Single Judge referred the question to a Larger Bench in terms of
Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. . . . . . On the wider issue spelt out above,
viz., the paramountcy of the Tahsildar in the matter of issuance of Caste Certificate, the
matter is no longer res integra. . . . . . This comprehensively and completely answers any
doubts that may remain in the mind of the learned Single Judge. Having regard to the ratio of
R. Vishwanatha Pillais case what the learned Single Judge would have to satisfy himself, on
is whether the investigation into the genuineness of the Caste Certificate produced by the
petitioner had come to its culmination before the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Rules, 1992 came
into force. The DCVC is a creature of these Rules. If the answer is in the negative R.
Vishwanatha Pillais case will clarify that there is no scope to hold to conviction that
retrospectivity of the Rules would result. . . . . . The promulgation of Karnataka Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.)
Rules, 1992, it will only be the DCVC which is the Competent Authority to look into the
genuineness or otherwise of any caste certificate, even if it be had been issued by the
Tahsildar in the previous legal regime as it was then prevailing. [Paras 1, 2, 7, 8 and 9]
Cases referred :
1. The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and Others v. Bhovi Samaja
Seva Sangha, Sirsi, Uttara Kannada District and Others [2004] 2 Kar. L.J. 9

Seva Sangha, Sirsi, Uttara Kannada District and Others [2004] 2 Kar. L.J. 9
2. R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala and Others AIR [2004] SC 1469; [2004] SCC (L
and S) 350; [2004] 2 SCC 105; [2004] AIR SCW 419
1. The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum and Others v. Bhovi Samaja
Seva Sangha, Sirsi, Uttara Kannada District and Others [2004] 2 Kar. L.J. 9
2. R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala and Others AIR [2004] SC 1469; [2004] SCC (L
and S) 350; [2004] 2 SCC 105; [2004] AIR SCW 419
for Respondent
Writ Petition No. 46548 of 2004 (S-DIS).

ORDER ON REFERENCE
Vikramajit Sen, C.J., made the following:
Vikramajit Sen, C.J. (Oral):

co

This matter has been referred to the Division Bench by a learned Single Judge. However, no
question has been formulated for our consideration. Earlier, the writ petition had come up for
consideration on 13-1-2009 and was dismissed in default of appearance and for want of
prosecution. Thereafter, it appears to have been restored. However, on 1-9-2010, it was once
again dismissed for non-prosecution and thereafter it was restored again on 28-10-2010.

ljl
ib
ra
r

y.

2. The petitioner had secured an appointment with the Canara Bank on the basis of a Caste
Certificate issued by the Tahsildar on 3-2-1990. A pseudonymous complaint was received by
the Bank which eventually
Page No: 692

w
w

.k

lead to scrutiny and investigation being conducted into the Scheduled Caste status of the
petitioner by her employer. The District Caste Verification Committee (in short DCVC), by
its order dated 31-12-2003 concluded that the Caste Certificate issued by the Tahsildar,
Udupi on 3-2-1990 was not correct; and the Caste Certificate was accordingly cancelled. This
view was upheld by the First Appellate Authority on 6-8-2004. W.P. No. 46548 of 2004 came
to be filed thereafter and in the hearings held on 31-10-2006, the learned Single Judge
referred the question to a Larger Bench in terms of Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court
Act, 1961. We have perused the said section and find that it does not contemplate a referral to
a larger Bench. That power is contained in Section 8 which, however, deals with Revisions.
Therefore, as the Rules presently stand, when raised with the writ petition, whenever a
learned Single Judge is seized with a writ petition he must decide the lis even though he may
find himself in the awkward position of being confronted by disparate dialectics of a Division
Bench on the same question.
3. The reference has been found necessary in view of the decision of Single Bench rendered
in W.P. No. 18799 of 1992. However, the learned Single Judge who referred the matter was
not entirely correct in assuming that a reference could be made merely because he was not in
agreement with the opinion of another learned Single Judge. W.P. No. 18799 of 1992 was
decided on the premise that the dispute was fully covered by the decision of the Division
Bench in Writ Appeal No. 4452 of 1995 along with Writ Appeal No. 4453 of 1995. The
learned Single Judge was duty bound to extrapolate the ratio of the Division Bench into the
case before him. We have gone into this aspect of the case to emphasise that the law of
precedents which every common law system assiduously respects, ordains that the opinion of
a larger Bench will invariably prevail on a similar factual matrix. In other words, even if the

a larger Bench will invariably prevail on a similar factual matrix. In other words, even if the
Referral Bench was ad idem with the reasoning of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.
4452 of 1995 it could have done no more than diplomatically and respectfully recording its
reasoning and thereafter, follow the ratio set down by the Division Bench. Consistence and
discipline in law is far more important than the possibility of an incorrect legal interpretation
remaining in force till it is referred to a larger Bench by a co-equal or coordinate Bench, or is
set at naught by a larger Bench.

4. We shall now move on to the aspect of the other question namely-whether it is legally
correct and proper to accept the correctness or genuineness of a Caste Certificate as per
conclusions arrived at by the DCVC, or where the Caste Certificate has been issued by the
Tahsildar in accordance with the then prevailing law. Whether it is only Tahsildar to whom it
can be reverted to, and whose opinion would then prevail? In this regard, we also have the
advantage of a decision of the Full Bench rendered in W.P. Nos. 8520 to 8538 of 1989
pronounced on 19-9-1997 titled Savitha Chandrashekar Shirali v State, which is
unquestionably relevant for the determination of the present controversy. A perusal of the
said judgment makes it manifestly clear that although the Full
Page No: 693

ljl
ib
ra
r

y.

co

Bench had given its imprimatur to the DCVC conclusion, it refrained from going conundrum
of whether the decision of DCVC would prevail over that of the Tahsildar. The learned
Single Judge in our view, should have extracted the ratio of the said decision rendered by the
Full Bench and applied it. This ratio is that the decision of the DCVC prevails over the
decision of the Tahsildar, regardless of whether the latter occurred before the statute creating
the DCVC was promulgated.

w
w

.k

5. A piquant situation has emerged, namely, the learned Single Judge who disposed of Writ
Petition No. 18799 of 1992 holding that it was covered on all fours by the decision rendered
by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 4452 of 1995 was one of the Honble members of
the Full Bench which pronounced the judgment dated 19-9-1997. Disregarding both these
features thereafter, on 30-8-2001, the same learned Single Judge took the view that, the Full
Bench of this Court which has referred the matter to DCVC earlier had lost sight of the legal
position. It cannot be over emphasised that the paramount concomitant of the jural
convention of precedents, now a binding discipline, is that it imparts certainty and continuity
in law. Detracting from an existing precedent therefore should be a rarity. Added to the
doctrine of Precedents is that of Stare Decisis which enjoins adherence to the decision
rendered by a co-ordinate Bench which has endured the passage of considerable time and
thus adorned the mantle of venerability. We respectfully disagree with the approach taken by
the Single Judge who referred the question to us as well as the learned Single Judge who was
one of the Honble members of the Full Bench and yet expressed doubt on the correctness of
its ratio.
6. In the judgment dated 30-8-2001 entitled The Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division,
Belgaum and Others v Bhovi Samaja Seva Sangha, Sirsi, Uttara Kannada District and
1
Others , already referred to above, the conclusions of the learned Single Judge was that
Bhovi was a Scheduled Caste in the Constitutional dispensation. That decision was assailed
by the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, but without success. The issue before
the Division Bench in this Appeal reported as Bhovi Samaja Seva Sanghas case was within
the parameter of whether the members of Bhovi community were entitled to all the
privileges available to other scheduled caste communities. It therefore, has no bearing on the

privileges available to other scheduled caste communities. It therefore, has no bearing on the
conundrum before us.
7. On the wider issue spelt out above, viz., the paramountcy of the Tahsildar in the matter of
issuance of Caste Certificate, the matter is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the
2
Constitution Bench in R. Vishwanatha Pillai v State of Kerala and Others , as will be evident
from a reading of the following extract:
20. Another point argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant was that the law
laid down by this Court in Kumari
1. 2004(2) Kar. L.J. 9 (DB): ILR 2003 Kar. 1584 (DB)
2. AIR 2004 SC 1469: 2004 SCC (L and S) 350: (2004)2 SCC 105: 2004 AIR SCW 419
Page No: 694

ljl
ib
ra
r

y.

co

Madhuri Patil and Another v Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others, AIR
1995 SC 94, would be operate prospectively and could not be applied in the case of the
appellant. We do not find any substance in this submission as well. The judgment in Kumari
Madhuri Patils case was delivered on 2-9-1994. Inquiry against the appellant had started in
the year 1988 by KIRTADS. Report of the Inquiry Committee is dated 11-4-1994. Report of
the Scrutiny Committee is dated 18-11-1995. The order of removal from service is dated
11-10-2000. Keeping in view the fact that the order was passed subsequent to the order of
this Court, it cannot be held that the law laid down in Kumari Madhuri Patils case is being
applied retrospectively. Because of this decision cases which were concluded prior to the
judgment of the Court are not being reopened. Procedure/Rule laid down in Kumari Madhuri
Patils case is being applied to a case in which fraud was detected after the Judgment.

w
w

.k

8. This comprehensively and completely answers any doubts that may remain in the mind of
the learned Single Judge. Having regard to the ratio of R. Vishwanatha Pillais case what the
learned Single Judge would have to satisfy himself, on is whether the investigation into the
genuineness of the Caste Certificate produced by the petitioner had come to its culmination
before the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes
(Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Rules, 1992 came into force. The DCVC is a creature of
these Rules. If the answer is in the negative R. Vishwanatha Pillais case will clarify that
there is no scope to hold to conviction that retrospectivity of the Rules would result.
9. We hold that after the promulgation of Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Rules, 1992, it will only be the
DCVC which is the Competent Authority to look into the genuineness or otherwise of any
caste certificate, even if it be had been issued by the Tahsildar in the previous legal regime as
it was then prevailing.
10. The reference is answered accordingly. The case be placed before the learned Single
Judge for further proceedings on 31-7-2012 as per roster.
11. Writ Appeal No. 530 of 2007 be listed for consideration before Court on 18-7-2012
subject to orders of Honble Chief Justice.
Page No: 695