M. JAYASHREE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRE CELL, THE TAHASILDAR, BHADRAVATHI TALUK AND THE COMMISSIONER, DEPT. OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court assailing the direction issued by the communication dated 24.03.2009 as at Annexure -D. The brief facts are that the petitioner was selected and appointed as the Head Mistress to the post reserved for Scheduled Caste Category. The petitioner in that regard had produced a caste certificate obtained in the year 1990. At an earlier instance, when certain orders were passed to the prejudice of the petitioner, the petitioner was before this Court assailing the same. Thereafter at present, the impugned communication has been issued by the Police Inspector, CRE Cell. By the said communication, the Police Inspector has directed the Tahsildar to look into the Caste Certificate dated 09.08.1990 issued in favour of the petitioner and to cancel the same. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the same is before this Court.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel, a perusal of the said communication dated 24.03.2009 would disclose that the Police Inspector, CRE Cell, while directing the Tahsildar to do so has referred to the earlier order passed by the District Caste Verification Committee dated 16.01.2001 and also the Circular dated 30.06.2007. In that view, what is necessary to be noticed is that the petitioner was before this Court against the order dated 16.01.2001 by filing a petition in W.P. No. 4546/2003. The said petition was allowed on 19.07.2005 and the order impugned therein which includes the order dated 1.6.01.2001 was quashed. Liberty no doubt had been granted to the respondents to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law. The petitioner was once again before this Court in a circumstance where the Tahsildar had passed the order dated 19.12.1996. Even in the W.P. No. 4482/2006 disposed of on 19.06.2007, the order passed by the Tahsildar was quashed and the competent authority was permitted to initiate fresh action against the petitioner.