ANAND Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) heard learned advocates representing different parties. The controversy in this case is limited to one very narrow aspect of the matter. The petitioner is an employee of the k.e.b. and it is his claim that he belongs to the scheduled caste category. In the caste certificate issued to him, his caste has been described as "vodda". The petitioner was treated as a member of the reserved category until about the year 1980 when the question of his promotion came up to the post of accounts officer. At that stage, the board raised the contention that "vodda" is not a caste that would qualify for categorisation as scheduled caste, having regard to the various entries in the schedule and the petitioner was therefore directed, if he still proposed to press his claim for promotion in that category to obtain the requisite certificate. Thereafter the petitioner made various representations to the concerned authorities and at one stage, the director had pointed out to the state government that in his opinion the persons belonging to the "vodda" community effectively belongs to the "bhovi" caste and that consequently, the government should take steps to clarify the position in this regard. The record indicates that the government did not accept this contention and the petitioner who was representing to the various authorities including the state government until the year 1989 did not get any favourable response. The petitioner was claiming promotion in the reserved category and did not qualify for promotion at that point of time because of this categorisation. However, the board took the precaution of informing those of the other candidates who are promoted that their promotion was subject to the claim of the petitioner for being included in the category of scheduled caste. Finally, in the year 1991 the petitioner filed the present petition. As in unfortunately characteristic with many of these cases in this high court, we are in the latter half of the year 1995 and the petition has now come up for consideration at the admission stage.

(2.) the main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the government was in error in having refused to issue the necessary certificate to him that he belonged to the "bhovi" community insofar as according to the petitioner "vodda" community is a sub-categorisation of the "bhovi" community. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance on two cases the first of them in B. Basavalingappa v D. Munichinnappa and others, a five judge bench of the Supreme Court went into this question which basically concerned the "voddar" caste and after considering the matter in some detail held that "vodda" and "voddar" are synonyms with "bhovi". The Supreme Court had also occasion to observe that the different spellings applied to these particular words was inconsequential and therefore upheld the claim that the persons belonging to the subcategories come within the scheduled category of "bhovi". This view has been followed in a subsequent case in P.Seshagiriyappa v State of Karnataka, by this court, after the decision of the Supreme Court referred to supra. The petitioner's learned Advocate therefore submits that the highest court in the country having held that the term "bhovi" includes "vodda", that he is entitled to the grant of the caste certificate with all retrospective benefits.

(3.) on behalf of the board it is pointed out to me that the controversy is of the year 1979-80. This is a dispute in relation to service namely the aspect of promotion. The petitioner admittedly claims his promotion, only on the basis of this categorisation. He was not eligible for promotion on the basis of merit alone. The respondents therefore point out that if at all an error has been alleged on the part of anybody, that the error ought to have been challenged at the earliest point of time because it is not possible to put the clock back as far as service matters are concerned after a long time gap. The learned government Advocate has submitted that the petition was filed in the year 1991, which is virtually 11 years after the controversy first erupted and i need to add to that submission my finding that the litigation has carried on from 1991 to August 1995 at which stage, i find that the petition has not yet been admitted. This is the pace at which the petitioner has agitated his rights. The learned Advocate who represent the board submitted that it is well settled law that even if rights are infringed upon the proceedings must be agitated with a sense of diligence and as far as a remedy by way of a writ petition is concerned that gross delay is absolutely fatal. On this ground alone, he pointed out that the petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned advocate who represent the state government and the union of india have also supported this submission apart from having pointed out to me certain submissions with regard to the other aspects of the matter which i shall deal with separately. Petitioner's learned Advocate puts forward the lame plea that the petitioner was representing to the various authorities until 1989 in the hope that one of them might listen to him and when the petitioner got no reply right up to the year 1991, that he finally moved this court.