Consider Applications Of Married Women For Primary Teacher Posts On Basis Of Caste & Income Certificates Of Parents, Not Spouses: Karnataka High Court

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed a batch of petitions and quashed the provisional select list insofar as it relates to the petitioners being brought under the general merit category.

The court directed that the petitioners shall be treated as belonging to the categories to which they had applied for, qua the caste and income certificates appended to the applications. The applicants had appended the certificates issued to the parents by the Tahsidlar.

On 21-03-2022, a notification was issued calling for applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to the posts of Graduate Primary Teachers from 6th standard to 8th standard classes in Government and aided institutions.

The applicants uploaded all the documents while submitting their applications. One such document that was uploaded was the caste and income certificate. All other criteria in the cases of these petitioners were considered by the Deputy Director of Public Instruction (Adm.) of respective districts, to whom the task of selection of Graduate Primary Teachers was entrusted. Every other criteria was accepted by the DDPI, except applications which accompanied caste and income certificates depicting the caste and income of the father of the applicants.

Those applications which accompanied caste and income certificates of the father were all treated to be general merit candidates despite being entitled to reservation under Category 2A, 2B, 3A and 3B, of Other Backward Classes (OBC).

Advocate General Prabhuling K Navadgi defended the action saying the petitioners have to approach the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 as the tribunal is the Court of first instance.

Further, it was submitted that the caste and income certificates are to be taken into consideration in terms of the policy of the State as enunciated in the Government Order dated 12.12.1986, which directs that the caste and income certificate of a married woman shall always relate to the husband and not to the parents. The income of the spouse will have to be taken into consideration.

Findings

The court rejected the argument against maintainability of the petition raised by the state government.

“The number of applicants to the posts of Graduate Primary Teachers in the subject recruitment is close to six thousand and the applicants whose applications have been rejected to come under any of the categories aforesaid and are directed to be brought under general merit are several hundreds. Therefore, this Court would not shirk its responsibility of setting the wrong right. Therefore, these petitions are held to be entertainable only on the solitary issue concerning caste and income certificates and in the peculiar circumstances," it said.

The court added that merely because there exists an alternative remedy as provided under the statute, fetters cannot be laid on court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to remedy any situation which would warrant immediate and necessary inference.

Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of SURINDER SINGH v. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS – (2014) 15 SCC 767, the bench said “The submission of the learned Advocate General is, that the Apex Court in the case of INDRA SAWHNEY (supra) had permitted the State Governments to regulate the procedures providing reservations to other backward classes and therefore, the Government Order dated 12.12.1986 or the Government Order dated 28.10.1993 should be followed, would amount to placing the Government Order on a higher pedestal than that of the judgment of the Apex Court, the Division Bench of this Court and that of the co-ordinate Bench, which can by no stretch of imagination be done, therefore, the said submission is rejected.”

Accordingly it held, “The action of the Selecting authority - DDPI in interpreting and holding that the caste and income of the husband is to be taken into consideration is contrary to law and a direction is to be issued to the respondents to consider the applications of the petitioners on the basis of caste and income certificates of the parents and not their spouse and as belonging to the respective categories against which they have applied for.”

Further the court held that the Selecting Authority – DDPI has no jurisdiction to interpret the caste certificates issued by the competent authorities.

The bench also opined that the State government is time and again repeating the very same mistake and driving the applicants to knock at the doors of the court, despite the declaration of law by the Apex Court and by High Court, by clinging on to a Government Order dated 12.12.1986, which is on the face of it unsustainable.

“It is for the State to direct the selecting authorities to act in tune with law and not contrary to law. It is high time the state sets its house in order, and refrain from generating unnecessary litigation,” said the bench.

Case Title: Akshata Chougala & Others And State of Karnataka & Others.

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 23752 OF 2022

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (kar) 40

Appearance: Senior Advocate K.Shashi Kiran Shetty for Advocate Latha S Shetty for petitioners.

Advocate General Prabhuling K Navadgi a/w AGA Shwetha Krishnappa for R1,R2, R4 to R26.

Advocate Ananda K for R3.