@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.@mdashWrit petition by a person who had obtained employment meant for persons belonging to scheduled caste community by joining in the services of the Indian Telephone Industries Ltd., Dooravaninagar, Bangalore, way back in the year 1976. It appears, the petitioner also moved up in his career with the employer, but found some obstacles in the year 1990 when, at the instance of some persons, who, according to the petitioner, were inimical towards the petitioner, had addressed an anonymous petition to the civil rights enforcement cell complaining that the petitioner does not belong to scheduled caste community but belongs to Ediga caste, which is not a caste notified as scheduled caste community. It appears that the investigation resulted in the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner as a person belonging to scheduled caste community being withdrawn.
2. Petitioner is basically aggrieved that the variation to his status as a person belonging scheduled caste community has resulted in his employer though allowed to continue the petitioner till superannuation, has nevertheless withdrawn some retiral benefits and in that context has approached this Court for relief. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the orders passed by the caste verification committee functioning under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Classes (Reservation in Appointment etc.) Act, 1990 [for short, the State Act] and the further order passed by the caste verification appellate authority, both of them held that the petitioner does not belong to scheduled caste community.
3. If this status is confirmed, the retiral benefits which the employer of the petitioner has withheld, definitely will not reach the petitioner. As it appears the employer was awaiting outcome of such proceedings, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking for quashing of the order passed by the eighth respondent Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore urban district, cancelling the caste certificate which had been issued on 5-8-1974, in terms of the order dated 5-8-1974 and also the further affirming order issued by the 12th respondent - Commissioner for Scheduled Castes dated 21-11-2006 [Annexure-A5 and A-6 respectively]. It is in this context, the petitioner has also incidentally sought for the following prayers:
a) Quash the impugned Karnataka State Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Reservation/Appointment Act 7/1991 vide Annexure A-1 by issue of appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari on the ground of ULTRA VIRES that the same amounts to a subordinate legislature enacted by the state legislature beyond its legislative competence on the ground of ULTRA VIRES and the same is also opposed to ingredients of Articles 14, 246(1) and (2) and Article 248 of Constitution of India.
b) Quash the impugned Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Reservation/Appointment rules framed by the State Legislature/Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Reservation of Appointment Act 7 of 1990 as per the Notification No. SWD/137/ BCA 93 dated 11.11.1993 in constituting the Caste Verification Committee for each district throughout the state of Karnataka to verify the caste certificate issued in respect of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes vide Annexure A-2 as illegal and void on the ground of ULTRA VIRES, as the same is opposed to the Instructions and Guidelines contained in Chapter 13 of the Brochure (7th edition) on the reservation for Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes in services issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India which has got a statutory force under Article 73 of the Constitution of India and the said rules are also opposed to Articles 14, 16, 16(1), 16(2) and 16(3) of the Constitution of India and also Sections 74 and 76 of the Evidence Act.
c) Quash the Government Order bearing No. SWL/213/SAD/85 dated 23.3.1987 vide Annexure A-4 at Para 5 to the said order to the extent that in case of doubt of the genuineness of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Certificates, the authority concerned may refer the case to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (now Additional Director General of Police), Civil Rights Enforcement Cell for verification and report as the same is opposed to the Instructions and Guidelines contained in the Brochure chapter 13 (7th edition) issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India which has got a statutory force under Article 73 of Constitution of India on the ground of ULTRA VIRES.
d) Quash Section 4-D of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Reservation of Appointment Second Amendment Act 8/2004 on the ground of ULTRAVIRES vide ANNEXURE A-3, as the same is opposed to the Instructions and Guidelines contained in the Brochure Chapter 13 (7th edition) issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India, which has got a statutory force under Article 73 of Constitution of India.
4. Appearing for the petitioner, Sri G Dayananda Moorthy, Learned Counsel, has very vehemently urged that the procedure followed by the caste verification committee and the appellate authority is totally at variance with the procedure contemplated under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder; that no fair opportunity had been given to the petitioner to put forth his case and to make good his claim that he does belong to scheduled caste community; that such action is being taken at a long distance of time, particularly when the petitioner had been issued with caste certificate way back in the year 1974, cancelling the same in the year 2002 is opposed to all principles of natural justice, fair play and fair procedure; that the authorities are virtually estopped from acting at a belated stage; that the orders impugned are not sustainable and are required to be quashed.
5. It is also submitted that the very action initiated against the petitioner was one having no sanction in law; that the cell, which is a cell functioning under the provisions of the Act, a State Act, had no business to investigate into the status of the petitioner, which is a status conferred under an Act of Parliament viz., Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1956 [Act No 63 of 1956] [for short, the central Act]; that when the petitioner acquired the status of a person belonging to scheduled caste community in terms of the schedule to the 1956 Act, there is no question of a committee or an appellate authority functioning under the provisions of the Act -a State Act, either to cancel or varying the status of the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the actions taken are without authority of law and inasmuch as the state legislature has no competence to enact any law which can be at variance to the provisions of the Act made by the parliament; that it is only the central Act which can prevail and therefore so long as the action on the part of the functionary under the state Act is detriment to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to question not only the legality of such action but also the competence of the legislature to enact such laws under which the functionaries are acting and has in this context sought for the prayers referred to above.
6. The submission with regard to the want of procedural irregularity etc., is not a submission which can be accepted for the reason that the caste verification committee has held an enquiry, accorded opportunity to the petitioner and has opined as to whether the petitioner belongs to a scheduled caste community, which is classified or identified as a scheduled caste community even in terms of the central Act.
7. Even the procedural irregularities such as want of opportunity or violation of principles of natural justice, are not grounds available to the petitioner, as the petitioner had a remedy of appeal before the appellate authority which the petitioner had availed of. The petitioner had sufficient opportunity to put forth his case.
8. In so far as the procedural irregularities which are sought to be canvassed, I am of the view that it is not necessary for this Court to examine such other aspects, as ultimately such administrative bodies have to largely conform to the basic principles of fair opportunity and not beyond.
9. In so far as the argument that the action under the State Act is one without jurisdiction i.e. the state legislature could not have enacted such a legislation contrary to the provisions of the central Act, submission again proceeds on a fallacious premises. While under the central Act, what has been done is identification of the castes and communities to group them as scheduled caste community, under the State Act, what is essentially done is to provide for reservation in appointment etc., by or under the state government in favour of such persons. In fact the Act if at all is supplemental to the central Act.
10. As to whether a person belongs to a particular community is a question of fact which is a fact verified by the authorities constituted for the purpose and recognized under the State Act, while earmarking reservation in favour of scheduled caste community. It may be so that the petitioner might have obtained employment in an undertaking of the central government by utilizing the caste certificate issued by an authority in the year 1974. Though it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that at that time, the state Act viz., 1990 Act was not even in vogue and therefore the subsequent State Act cannot regulate or control such certificate particularly to the detriment of the petitioner etc., the argument fails as an action was initially not regulated by any legislation and was being taken care of on the administrative side or executive wing of the State was filling up a gap by issue of an administrative or executive order and it is subsequently is covered by a legislation made by the State, no exception can be taken and it is not open to any person to contend that the subsequent law cannot in any way govern the situation even in respect of the actions that had been taken when the law was not in force.
11. An area which was not subject to legislation or statutory provisions, is now made subject to the statutory provisions. Ultimately as to whether the petitioner belongs to a particular caste or community or not is a question of fact which is essentially within the domain of the Tahsildar, as was earlier, and in the domain of the caste verification committee, for which an appellate authority is also provided in the Act to go into the errors of facts etc. The petitioner having gone through these processes and if the finding of the committee and/or the appellate authority is that the petitioner does not belong to a caste, which is classified as a scheduled caste community, it is essentially a question of fact.
12. The authorities having substantially complied with the requirement of adhering to procedure by affording opportunity to the petitioner and having passed speaking orders, I do not find any need or necessity to interfere with such orders.
13. There is no merit in the writ petition.
14. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
