Karnataka High Court Asks Caste & Income Committee Officials To Pay Rs 2 Lakh To Woman For Delay In Issuance Of Validity Certificate In Defiance Of Settled Law

The petitioner approached the High Court, calling in question an order declining the issuance of a Validity certificate validating the caste and income certificate already issued, on the score that her husband’s income was beyond the permissible threshold for the grant of such a certificate.

The Single Bench of Justice M.Nagaprasanna said, “Imposition of exemplary cost has become necessary in the peculiar facts of the case, not only to recompense the petitioner, but become a cautionary call to all those who hold public office, that dereliction cloaked in ignorance shall find no refuge before this Court.”

“Between the denial and re-look, 12 months passed by, all for ignorance of law by the State Government in deliberate defiance of law”, it added.

Advocate A.R.Sharadamba represented the Petitioner while HCGP Spoorthy Hegde represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The State Government issued a notification calling for applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the posts of Assistant Public Prosecutors through the Directorate of Prosecution and Public Litigation Department. The petitioner, finding herself eligible, applied for the said post and was selected as one of the Assistant Public Prosecutors under Category 3A in terms of the select list. The Taluk Caste and Income Verification Committee refused to issue a Validity certificate, and the Taluk Backward Caste and Income Verification Officer submitted a report that the husband of the petitioner was working as Lecturer in a private College. This report results in the denial of issuance of a validity certificate to the petitioner.

On the denial of issuance of validity certificate, the petitioner began knocking at the doors of several fora of officers bringing to the notice of all those officers that the income of the husband cannot be taken for determination and sought issuance of a validity certificate. It was in such circumstances that the Petition came to be filed before the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the petitioner appropriately claimed Category-3A and submitted the caste and income certificate and sought validation of the caste and income certificate. On an erroneous presumption of law, the State Government denied, and on having a re-look at the law, the State granted the same later.

Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in Sunita Singh V. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) and Surinder Singh V. Punjab State Electricity Board And Others (2014), the Bench said, “Considering the aforementioned judgments, coordinate Benches of this Court had held that caste and income certificate would always depend on father’s income and not the income of the husband.”

“Observing that the State has time and again repeated same mistake of bringing the applicants to knock at the doors of Courts despite the declaration of law, had directed that, it was high time the State set its house in order and refrain from generating unnecessary litigation. The State, as it is known for its wont, has again repeated the same mistake”, it said.

As per the Bench, the denial of validity certificate to the petitioner – the key that would unlock the door to her lawful appointment was premised on a legal fallacy, long buried by the judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court and that of this Court, yet the State in willful ignorance or negligent defiance, clung to the misbegotten interpretation, imputing the income of the spouse to determine the backwardness of a woman, born into an eligible category.

“The attitude of the State cannot be countenanced. The petitioner whose documents were in order and whose claim was squarely covered under settled law, is left to knock on the bureaucratic doors, until her knuckles bled with frustration and had to approach this Court. It is the stern directions issued by this Court that awakened the State from slumber and issue a Validity Certificate, which was hers by right. The appointment then followed”, the Bench stated.

As per the Bench, the Chairman and the Members had deliberately ignored the law, as a result of which the petitioner was driven to unnecessary litigation and a consequential loss of 12 months of her employment. Thus, the Bench disposed of the Petition by ordering, “Writ Petition is disposed, with exemplary cost of ₹2,00,000/- to be paid to the petitioner by the Chairman and Members of the District Caste and Income Verification Committee, from out of their own funds and not from the funds of the State.”

Cause Title: State of Karnataka v. Advocate Muthulaxmi B.N. (Case No.: Writ Petition No.10897 of 2024 (GM - CC))

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate A.R. Sharadamba

Respondent: HCGP Spoorthy Hegde

Click here to read/download Order