GEETHANJALI Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter has been referred to the Division Bench by a learned Single Judge. However, no question has been formulated for our consideration. Earlier, the writ petition had come up for consideration on 13.01.2009 and was dismissed in default of appearance and for want of prosecution. Thereafter, it appears to have been restored. However, on 1.9.2010, it was once again dismissed for non-prosecution and thereafter it was restored again on 28.10.2010. The petitioner had secured an appointment with the Canara Bank on the basis of a caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar on 3.2.1990. A pseudonymous complaint was received by the Bank which eventually lead to scrutiny and investigation being conducted into the Scheduled Caste status of the petitioner by her employer. The District Caste Verification Committee (in short 'DCVC'), by its order dated 31.12.2003 concluded that the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Udupi on 3.2.1990 was not correct; and the caste certificate was accordingly cancelled. This view was upheld by the first appellate authority on 6.8.2004. WP No. 46548/04 came to be filed thereafter and in the hearings held on 31.10.2006, the learned Single Judge referred the question to a larger Bench in terms of Sec. 9 of the High Court Act, 1961. We have perused the said section and find that it does not contemplate a referral to a larger bench. That power is contained in Section 8 which, however, deals with Revisions. Therefore, as the Rules presently stand, when raised with the writ petition, whenever a learned Single Judge is seized with a writ petition he must decide the lis even though he may find himself in the awkward position of being confronted by disparate dialectics of a Division Bench on the same question.

(2.) The Reference has been found necessary in view of the decision of Single Bench rendered in WP No. 18799/92. However, the learned Single Judge who referred the matter was not entirely correct in assuming that a Reference could be made merely because he was not in agreement with the opinion of another learned Single Judge. WP No. 18799/92 was decided on the premise that the dispute was fully covered by the decision of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 4452/95 along with Writ Appeal No. 4453/95. The learned Single Judge was duty bound to extrapolate the ratio of the Division Bench into the case before him. We have gone into this aspect of the case to emphasize that the law of precedents which every common law system assiduously respects, ordains that the opinion of a larger Bench will invariably prevail on a similar factual matrix. In other words, even if the Referral Bench was ad idem with the reasoning of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 4452/95 it could have done no more than diplomatically and respectfully recording its reasoning and thereafter, follow the ratio set down by the Division Bench. Consistence and discipline in law is far more important than the possibility of an incorrect legal interpretation remaining in force till it is referred to a larger Bench by a co-equal or coordinate Bench, or is set at naught by a larger Bench.

(3.) We shall now move on to the aspect of the other question namely - whether it is legally correct and proper to accept the correctness or genuineness of a Caste Certificate as per conclusions arrived at by the DCVC, or where the caste certificate has been issued by the Tahsildar in accordance with the then prevailing law. Whether it is only Tahsildar to whom it can be reverted to, and whose opinion would then prevail? In this regard, we also have the advantage of a decision of the Full Bench rendered in WP No. 8520-38/1989 pronounced on 19.9.1997 titled Savitha Chandrashekar Shirali vs. State, which is unquestionably relevant for the determination of the present controversy. A perusal of the said Judgment makes it manifestly clear that although the Full Bench had given its imprimatur to the DCVC conclusion, it refrained from going conundrum of whether the decision of DCVC would prevail over that of the Tahsildar. The learned Single Judge in our view, should have extracted the ratio of the said decision rendered by the Full Bench and applied it. This ratio is that the decision of the DCVC prevails over the decision of the Tahsildar, regardless of whether the latter occurred before the statute creating the DCVC was promulgated.