M. V CHANDRAKANTH versus SANGAPPPA & ORS

Citation: [2022] 17 S.C.R. 222 · Decided: 29-07-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDIRA BANERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
222
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
   [2022] 17 S.C.R. 222
222
M. V CHANDRAKANTH
v.
SANGAPPPA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4963 of 2022)
JULY 29, 2022
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND J. K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Schedule Tribes and Other
Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 –
Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Schedule Tribes and Other Backward
Classes (Reservation of Appointment, etc.) Rules, 1992 – r.7 – Single
Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by respondent no.1 claiming
the benefit of reservation for Other Backward Classes as a member
of the ‘Ganiga’ caste – Order set aside by Division Bench –
Correctness of – Held: Division Bench observed that the Single
Judge also accepted that the caste of the Respondent might be
Lingayat-Ganiga but erred in arriving at the finding that Lingayat-
Ganiga could not be construed Hindu Ganiga – It found that the
finding of the Single Judge that Hindu-Ganiga and Lingayat-
Ganiga were two different castes was not acceptable – A Lingayat
is also a Hindu – Also, materials on record show the caste of the
forefather and relatives of the Respondent No.1 as ‘Ganiger’ or
‘Ganiga’ – ‘Ganiger’ is a variant of the word ‘Ganiga’ found in
north Karnataka region – Further, 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.1’s
grandfather showing his caste was ‘Ganiga’ – The document is
relevant, it proves the caste of the Respondent No.1 to be ‘Ganiga’
– No ground to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the
Division Bench.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Division Bench observed that from the
findings given by the Single Judge, it was apparent that the Single
Judge was also of the opinion that caste of the Respondent No.1
was ‘Lingayat-Ganiga’. The Single Judge, however, held that he
could not claim reservation under Category II-A. The Division
Bench accepted that ordinarily children belong to the caste of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
223
their father. The Division Bench, however, observed, in effect,
that the Single Judge also accepted that the caste of the
Respondent might be Lingayat-Ganiga but erred in arriving at
the finding Lingayat-Ganiga could not be construed Hindu Ganiga.
The Division Bench analysed the facts of the case but found that
reservation to backward classes had not been introduced when
the Respondent No.1’s 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.1’s father where only
‘Lingayat’ was mentioned but in the case of the Respondent No.1
the caste was mentioned as ‘Hindu-Ganiga’. The Division Bench
rightly held that, if the Respondent No.1’s 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. 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. [Paras 26, 29-31][230-D-E; 232-F-H; 233-A, E-G]
1.2 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
M. V. CHANDRAKANTH v. SANGAPPPA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
224
SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.