KARNATAKA KAIGARIKA PRADESHABHIVRUDDI MANDALI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel Sri. Nagendra Naik K. for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate Sri. T.S. Mahantesh on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned Senior Counsel Sri. A.S. Ponnanna along with the learned counsel Sri. Rajeswara P.N. for the respondent No.4 and the learned counsel Sri. P.V. Chandrashekar for the respondent No.5.

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the father of the petitioner was employed as a foreman in the University Visvesvaraya College of Engineering and that he superannuated on 30.09.1983 and the annual income was in excess of Rs.10,000/- which is the income limit stipulated for the purpose of claiming reservation under the backward caste. In this regard he would invite the attention of the court to Annexure-R an information furnished by the college authorities detailing the salary and allowances paid by the University to the father of the 4th respondent on his re-employment (post his retirement) from 09.12.1983 to 28.09.1984. He would contend that the monthly income of the father of the 4th respondent was Rs.1,188.75 paise and hence the annual income exceeded Rs.10,000/- and hence the 4th respondent was ineligible to be considered even for appointment as against the backward caste category. He would further invite the attention of the court to Annexure- H said to be the notification issued by the fifth respondent inviting applications for the post of Assistant Engineer and would contend that applications were invited for six posts and two posts were reserved in respect of the candidates hailing from the scheduled caste category, two from the general merit category, one from the backward class community and one from the BSG category. He would contend that no post had been reserved in respect of backward class or backward tribe and despite the same the 4th respondent has been appointed against the post reserved for backward class tribe. In this regard he would invite the attention of the court to Annexure-J being the proceedings of the Selection Committee. Hence he would contend that the selection of the 4th respondent under the BCT category in the absence of any reservation in favour of the said category, the appointment of the 4th respondent is rendered illegal and hence the petitioner has made out a case for issuance of a writ of quo-warranto. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also place reliance on Annexure-G2 to contend that the 4th respondent is not entitled to be appointed against the post reserved for backward class tribe.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the light of the Annexure-R the family income of the petitioner being excess of Rs.10,000/- the 4th respondent is not entitled to be appointed against the post reserved for backward caste and hence on that count also the appointment of the 4th respondent requires to be negated and set-aside. He would further contend that the light of these facts the caste certificate dated 18.01.1985 (Annexure-W) certifying the 4th respondent as hailing from the backward caste is illegal and the subsequent proceedings of the Caste Verification Committee dated 20.02.2019 (Annexure-AE) upholding the same is contrary to the notification and is illegal and hence both the Caste Certificate and proceedings of the Caste Verification Committee are required to be set-aside and quashed.