Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders passed by the respondent authorities cancelling the petitioner’s caste certificate and rejecting the appeal. The Court declared that the classification of the same community under different groups for education and employment purposes is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court directed the State to reclassify the community under the same group for both purposes. It further declared that the petitioner is entitled to reservation benefits under Group-B for employment and directed that her service as a primary school teacher be continued accordingly.

The petitioner, claiming to belong to the “Balajiga/Banajiga” community, approached the High Court challenging two orders: (i) an order dated 08.04.1996 issued by the Member Secretary, Caste and Income Verification Committee, Mysore District, cancelling her caste certificate, and (ii) an appellate order dated 15.06.1999 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mysore Division, rejecting her appeal against the cancellation.

Also Read: Arbitral tribunal can proceed against party though not served with Section 21 notice or named in Section 11 application as consent is key to jurisdiction : Supreme Court

The petitioner completed her education using certificates that recorded her caste as “Balajiga/Banajiga,” which was categorized under Group-B for purposes of educational reservation under Article 15(4). Based on this classification, she applied for and was provisionally appointed as a Primary School Teacher on 17.01.1993.

However, on 19.02.1996, she received a notice alleging that, for employment purposes, the “Balajiga/Banajiga” community fell under Group-D and not Group-B. Consequently, it was contended that the caste certificate submitted in support of her reservation claim was incorrect for employment benefits.

On 08.04.1996, the Member Secretary of the Verification Committee passed an order cancelling her caste certificate. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Mysore Division, contending that the mention of Group-B instead of Group-D was a technical error and sought that her claim be considered under Group-D. This appeal was dismissed on 15.06.1999.

The petitioner then filed W.P. No. 22400 of 1999 before the High Court, which directed her to approach the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the matter on 11.02.2013 as not maintainable, giving liberty to approach the appropriate forum.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition, W.P. No. 15499 of 2013, contending that she had put in over 20 years of service and that she had not made any false or misleading statement regarding her caste or group. She reiterated that the discrepancy arose from the dual classification of the community.

By way of amendment, the petitioner challenged the legality of the dual classification. The Government Order dated 13.10.1986 classified “Balajiga/Banajiga” under Group-B in Annexure-I for educational purposes and under Group-D in Annexure-II for employment purposes. She argued that such dual classification was unconstitutional, discriminatory, and inconsistent with Articles 14, 15(4), and 16(4) of the Constitution.

Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that she was unaware of the dual classification and always identified as Group-B, as recorded consistently in her educational documents. He argued that there could not be separate classifications for education and employment when the community in question remained the same and its socio-economic status unchanged.

The petitioner also relied on precedents from the Supreme Court, including K.C. Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka and State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh, to support her contention that the criteria for classification under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) were not mutually exclusive and must be based on identical socio-economic considerations.

The State, represented by its Additional Government Advocate, defended the dual classification, stating that Group-B classification for education was based on educational backwardness, whereas Group-D classification for employment reflected the community's relatively stronger economic standing. The State contended that the classification was policy-based and founded on multiple factors including standard of living, occupation, and hierarchy in social structure.

 “The Petitioner belonging to the ‘Balajiga/Banajiga community’ is not in dispute.”

“It is also not in dispute that... the said ‘Balajiga/Banajiga community’ is classified as Group-B [for education]... and... as Group-D [for employment].”

The Court recorded that the petitioner had availed the benefit of Group-B during her education, and her employment application continued to reflect this classification.

“There cannot be two categories of reservation for the very same community, one for education, the other for employment.”

Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted that the classification for both purposes is based on socio-economic backwardness. He stated: “The very same socio-economic backwardness would apply equally for reservation under both Article 15(4) and 16(4).”

The Court examined Article 14 and observed: “The term equality before the law in my considered opinion, would also include the reservation to be equal in all respects i.e., both under Article 15(4) and Article 16(4).”

On the principle of equal protection under law, the Court held: “The protection under Article 14 being subject to Article 15(4) and Article 16(4), there cannot be a discrimination of reservation inter se Article 15(4) and Article 16(4).”

Citing Article 16(4), the Court emphasized that backward classes inadequately represented in services of the State are eligible for reservation. It observed:

“There is nothing... to indicate that the ‘Balajiga/Banajiga community’ has been adequately represented in the services under the State, despite sufficient opportunities having been granted.”

 “When a particular community is stated to be socially and educationally backward, it cannot be the case that such... Classes of Citizens are adequately represented in the services under the State.”

The Court reasoned that reservation for employment is a natural progression from educational upliftment:

“Since the framers of the Constitution did realize that without education being provided, employment cannot be provided... it is only after making sufficient provisions for education that necessary provisions could be made for employment.”

Referring to apex court precedents, the Court cited: “The Hon’ble Apex Court in Davinder Singh’s case further held that inadequate representation in Article 16(4) is not mutually exclusive of the requirement of backwardness.”

 “It is therefore clear... socially and educationally backwardness would be the basic criteria for both Article 15(4) and Article 16(4) to enable the State to make suitable special provisions.”

The judgment concluded the legal reasoning with a categorical pronouncement:“A particular community cannot be classified for educational purposes under a different group than the classification made for the very same community for employment purposes under a different group.”

The writ petition was allowed. The Court issued a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 8.4.1996 in No.BCM.4.ANI.77-96-96 passed by Respondent No.2, which had cancelled the petitioner’s caste certificate. It also quashed the order dated 15.6.1999 in No.CCI.30/97-97 passed by Respondent No.4—the Appellate Authority—which had upheld the cancellation. These impugned orders were set aside on the ground that the dual classification of the petitioner’s community was unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Court declared that the classification of the “Balajiga/Banajiga community” for the purpose of employment, being different from that for the purpose of education, is discriminatory and illegal. It held that such classification is void ab initio and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws.

Also Read: “No Contraband Was Found… Retesting Strictly Prohibited Unless in Exceptional Circumstances”: Rajasthan High Court Quashes NDPS FIR, Says Request Must Be Made Within 15 Days of FSL Report

The State of Karnataka was directed to reclassify the “Balajiga/Banajiga community” under Article 16(4) for employment purposes under Group-B, instead of Group-D. The Court held that the State could not assign a lower reservation category to the community for employment while continuing to recognize the same community as more backward in the educational context.

It was further declared that the petitioner, belonging to the “Balajiga/Banajiga community,” would be entitled to reservation for employment under Group-B. Consequently, the petitioner’s employment as a primary school teacher was directed to be continued, and she was held entitled to the benefits of reservation under Group-B for that purpose.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: M.S. Bhagwath, Senior Advocate, L. Srinivasa Babu, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mahantesh Shettar, Additional Government Advocate for R1 to R4

Case Title: Smt. V. Sumitra v. State of Karnataka & Others

Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:15564

Case Number: W.P. No. 15499 of 2013

Bench: Justice Suraj Govindaraj

[Read/Download order]