Deekshitha Sharmile

The High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad, Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell lacked authority to initiate Suo Motu investigation into the validity of a caste certificate without a referral from the District Caste Verification Committee. The Court, noting that the Cell cannot embark on such inquiries on its own, set aside the orders cancelling the petitioner’s certificate and directed that any withheld service benefits be released. The dispute concerned allegations that a teacher had secured employment and promotion on the basis of an incorrect caste claim, prompting action by enforcement authorities. The ruling clarifies that, in such matters, only the Committee’s reference can trigger an investigation, and all steps taken otherwise stand invalid.

The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in an aided institution and later promoted to the post of Headmaster against a reserved category post. The promotion was based on a caste certificate indicating Scheduled Caste status under the Bhovi community. The competent authority approved the promotion.

Also Read: Art 226 | Writ Petition Cannot Be Invoked When Alternate Statutory Remedy Lies Before High Court In Different Jurisdiction: Supreme Court

Subsequently, a complaint was filed alleging that the petitioner had obtained a false caste certificate, claiming Scheduled Caste status while actually belonging to another community. The Civil Rights Enforcement Cell initiated suo motu investigation based on the complaint, without reference from the District Caste Verification Committee. The investigation led to cancellation of the caste certificate and registration of a criminal case.

The petitioner retired during this period and filed an appeal. He was acquitted in the criminal case, which attained finality. The dispute before the Court concerned whether the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell had jurisdiction to conduct investigation without a reference from the District Caste Verification Committee. The statutory provision invoked was Rule 7(4) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Rules, 1992, which prescribes the procedure for referring doubtful claims to the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna recorded: “Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 7 of the Rules mandates that the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell can spring into action only upon a reference being made by the District Caste Verification Committee to conduct an investigation with regard to the caste status of any person.”

The Court noted: “The jurisprudence is replete with the judgments rendered by the Division Benches and of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, with regard to the power of the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell to take up suo motu investigation.”

Referring to earlier rulings, it was stated: “On perusal of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 and the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Rules, 1992, we find that no such powers of suo motu revision are vested in the Caste Verification Committee.” The Court further recorded: “It is well settled in law that when the statute provides a manner of doing a particular thing in a particular manner, that thing has to be performed in that manner alone.”

It was observed: “In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, it is evident that the enquiry in to the caste certificate has to be made by the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement on the basis of reference made by District Caste Verification Committee as provided under Rule 7(4) of the Rules.” The Court stated: “Therefore, the proceedings that have now emerged from the hands of the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell and all action in its aftermath would become a nullity in law.”

Finally, the Court recorded: “The very foundation for all the impugned action is the action of the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell. If such foundation is contrary to law, the superstructure built upon such foundation would necessarily tumble down.”

Also Read: Mere Plea Of Insanity Not Enough; Accused Must Prove Mental State At Time Of Offence: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Rejection Of Applications In Murder Case

The Court directed: “The petition stands allowed. The impugned Orders 21.06.2024, 17.05.2024 and 28.02.2017 all stand obliterated. The terminal benefits of the petitioner, if they have been withheld on the strength of the aforesaid orders, shall be released without brooking any delay.”

It clarified: “It is made clear that the subject caste certificate shall not be used by any family members of the petitioner for any benefit to claim that they belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, in the peculiar facts of this case. The terminal benefits shall be released within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Sri. Vijaykumar B., Advocate for Sri. G.K. Hiregoudar, Advocates
For the Respondents: Sri. C. Jagadish, Advocate

Case Title: T H Hosamani v State of Karnataka & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC-D:15821
Case Number: WP No. 109449 of 2017
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna