High Court of Karnataka Reviews Order Granting Liberty for Caste Verification. Review Petition Challenges Applicability of Karnataka Act 1990 to Central Government Undertaking Employee and Locus Standi of Complainant.

Review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC seeking to recall and review the order dated 11.01.2024 in W.P.No.109307/2016, which granted liberty to respondents to initiate caste verification proceedings against the petitioner.

Petitioner sought to recall and review the said order insofar as it relates to liberty granted to the respondents including the District Caste Verification Committee to initiate proceedings in accordance with law, contending that such liberty was wrongly granted.

The petitioner, a retired employee of South Western Railways (a Central Government undertaking), argued that the Karnataka Act 1990 does not apply to Central Government undertakings by virtue of Section 2(3), and therefore the direction to the District Caste Verification Committee was beyond jurisdiction. Additionally, it was argued that the complainant lacked locus standi and that the proceedings were vitiated.

The order dated 11.01.2024 in W.P.No.109307/2016 had reserved liberty to the respondents to initiate proceedings in accordance with law. No prior review had been filed.

Whether the order under review erroneously permitted initiation of caste verification proceedings by the District Caste Verification Committee despite the petitioner being employed in a Central Government undertaking not covered by the Karnataka Act 1990. Whether the complainant had locus standi to challenge the petitioner's caste certificate. Whether the order suffered from error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.

Petitioner submitted that the Karnataka Act 1990, particularly Section 2(3) defining 'establishments in public sector', excludes Central Government undertakings, and hence the District Caste Verification Committee under the Act had no jurisdiction over the petitioner, a South Western Railways employee. Reliance was placed on G. Keshavamurthy v. MMTC Limited, where a co-ordinate bench held that employees of Central Government undertakings fall outside the scope of the 1990 Act and that caste verification should be done by the District Magistrate. It was further argued that the complainant had no locus standi to challenge the caste certificate as he was not a co-applicant nor affected by the petitioner's benefits, relying on M.N. Kalavathi v. State of Karnataka. Reference was made to K. Nirmala v. Canara Bank regarding the effect of ignoring a government circular, suggesting procedural irregularity.

The submission of Sri Vijaykumar, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is working with the South Western Railways, which is a Central Government undertaking and as such, no enquiry could be initiated against the petitioner under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation Of Appointment, etc.) Rules, 1992. His submission is that in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation Of Appointment, etc.) Act, 1990, the said Act of 1990 and consequently the Rules thereof would not be applicable to a Central Government undertaking.

The petitioner filed W.P.No.109307/2016. On 11.01.2024, the writ petition was disposed of, granting liberty to the respondents including the District Caste Verification Committee to initiate proceedings in accordance with law. The petitioner thereafter filed the present review petition, RP No. 100100 of 2024, seeking to recall and review that part of the order.

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 47 Rule 1, Section 114
• Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment, etc.) Act, 1990: Section 2(3)