RAFIA SHAHEEN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common question that arises in these two appeals is whether a student claiming to belong to the Group of 'Darvesu' among Muslims, will be entitled to the benefit of reservation under Article 15(4) of the Constitution provided under Group A of the Government Order No. SWL 66 BCA 86 dated 13-10-1986, only if his parents carry on the occupation denoted by the name 'Darvesu'.

(2.) Admissions to Medical, Engineering and certain other professional courses are regulated by the Karnataka Selection of candidates for admission to Engineering, Medical, Dental, Pharmacy and Nursing Courses Rules, 1993 ('Rules' for short). Rule 12(4) of the said Rules provides that reservations shall be made for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Groups A, B, C, D and E in accordance with the order issued in G.O. No. SWL. 66 BCA 86 dated 13-10-1986 and other related orders issued from time to time. Rule 10(3) of the said Rules provides that no candidate seeking reservation for admission under Rule 12(4) shall be admitted to any institution unless he produces a validity certificate obtained under Rule 7 of Karnataka Schedule Castes, Schedule Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment etc.) Rules, 1992.

(3.) The appellants claim to be muslims belonging to the group 'Darvesu'. They passed the common entrance test held under the said Rules and were selected and provisionally allotted seats in the course of Bachelor of Engineering subject to their obtaining and furnishing caste validity Certificate from the Caste Verification Committee (Second Respondent). The said Committee by endorsement dated 22-9-1993 and 10-9-1993 respectively rejected the claim of the appellants, holding that they did not belong to the group 'Darvesu'. Against the said rejections, the appellants filed appeals before the State Government and the appeals were rejected as per communications dated 18-10-1993 and 19-10-1993. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders, they filed W.P. Nos. 36967/93 and 37365/93 respectively and the learned single Judge rejected the said petitions by order dated 22-10-1993 following the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. Shylaja in 1981 (2) Kar LJ 204 : (AIR 1982 Kant 40) and Syed Noor Fathima v. Selection Committee, reported in 1984 (1) Kar LJ 19 : (AIR 1984 NOC 274 (Kant) holding that mere production of certificates showing that candidates belonging to 'Darvesu' tribe will not entitle them to the benefit of reservation under the Govt. Order dated 13-10-1986 and that to claim benefit thereunder, it is necessary for the members of the family of the candidates to actually follow the vocation or occupation of 'Darvesu' which is begging. As the father of the appellant in W. A. No. 3330/ 1993 was a School Inspector and father of the appellant in W.A. No. 3458/1993 was a State Government employee, it was held that they were not following the occupation of begging and therefore not entitled to claim the benefit of reservation. The said decisions are challenged in these appeals.