LEGAL ISSUE: Whether individuals belonging to the ‘Lingayat-Ganiga’ sub-caste are entitled to reservation benefits under Category II-A as ‘Ganiga’ caste.
CASE TYPE: Service Law/Reservation.
Case Name: M.V. Chandrakanth vs. Sangappa & Ors.
Judgment Date: 29 July 2022
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 29 July 2022
Citation: M.V. Chandrakanth vs. Sangappa & Ors. (2022) INSC 652
Judges: Indira Banerjee, J. and J.K. Maheshwari, J.
Can a person belonging to the ‘Lingayat-Ganiga’ sub-caste claim reservation benefits under Category II-A, which is designated for the ‘Ganiga’ caste? This was the central question before the Supreme Court of India in the case of M.V. Chandrakanth vs. Sangappa & Ors. The court addressed a dispute over caste validity and reservation benefits, specifically concerning the inclusion of ‘Lingayat-Ganiga’ within the broader ‘Ganiga’ caste for reservation purposes. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Karnataka High Court, affirming that ‘Lingayat-Ganiga’ is not a separate caste for the purpose of reservation under Category II-A. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari.
Case Background
In 1994, the Government of Karnataka introduced a Reservation Policy for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes (OBCs), allocating specific percentages for different categories. This policy was extended to employment in 1995. In 1999, both the Appellant, M.V. Chandrakanth, and the Respondent No. 1, Sangappa, applied for Group A and Group B posts of Gazetted Probationary Officers, claiming reservation under Category II-A. Chandrakanth claimed to be a ‘Kuruba’ while Sangappa claimed to be a ‘Hindu Ganiga’.
Sangappa obtained a certificate from the Tehsildar, Bagalkot, in 1999, stating he belonged to the ‘Ganiga’ sub-caste. In 2002, the Government of Karnataka excluded ‘Lingayat Ganiga’ from the ‘Ganiga’ sub-caste under Category II-A, placing them under Category III-B. In 2005, the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) published a provisional list of selected candidates, including both Chandrakanth and Sangappa. Sangappa’s caste certificate was verified and validated by the Respondent No. 3. The final list was released in November 2005, with Chandrakanth selected as Deputy Superintendent of Police and Sangappa as Assistant Commissioner, both under Category II-A.
Chandrakanth later contended that Sangappa’s father was a ‘Lingayat,’ which falls under Category III-B, not Category II-A. He challenged the caste validity certificate issued to Sangappa before the Respondent No. 2, enclosing school records showing Sangappa’s father as ‘Hindu Lingayat.’ The Respondent No. 2 cancelled Sangappa’s validity certificate in 2006, concluding that Sangappa belonged to the ‘Hindu Lingayat’ caste and not ‘Hindu Ganiga’. This led to Sangappa filing a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court.
The Civil Rights Enforcement Cell, after an enquiry, submitted a report in 2006 stating that Sangappa belonged to the ‘Ganiga’ caste. In 2009, the Government of Karnataka included 19 sub-castes within the ‘Veerashaiva Lingayat’ caste, including ‘Ganiga’ sub-caste of the ‘Veerashaiva Lingayat’ caste, in Category III-B. However, later in 2009, the Government reverted the position of reservation of some of the sub-castes of the Veerashaiva Lingayat caste except ‘Lingayath/Veerashaiva-Veerashaiva Panchamashali’ to the position existing prior to the order dated 27th January 2009. In 2017, the Single Judge of the High Court dismissed Sangappa’s writ petition, concluding that he belonged to the ‘Hindu Lingayat’ caste. However, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed Sangappa’s appeal in 2021, setting aside the Single Judge’s order and quashing the order of Respondent No. 2.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 17th September 1994 | Government of Karnataka formulates a Reservation Policy for ‘Scheduled Castes’, ‘Scheduled Tribes’ and ‘Other Backward Classes’. |
| 31st January 1995 | Reservation Policy made applicable to employment under the State. |
| 1999 | Appellant and Respondent No.1 applied for Group A and Group B posts of Gazetted Probationary Officers. |
| 31st December 1999 | Certificate issued to Respondent No.1 stating he belonged to the ‘Ganiga’ sub-caste. |
| 30th March 2002 | Government of Karnataka excludes Lingayat Ganiga from the benefit of reservation to the ‘Ganiga’ sub-caste under Category II-A, and placed under Category III-B. |
| 7th October 2005 | Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) publishes the provisional list of candidates selected for the Group A and Group B posts of Probationary Officers. |
| 21st October 2005 | Respondent No.3 issues a certificate validating the caste certificate submitted by the Respondent No.1. |
| 29th November 2005 | KPSC notifies the final list of selected candidates. |
| 5th December 2005 | Respondent No.2 stays the Validity Certificate issued to the Respondent No.1. |
| 23rd January 2006 | Respondent No.2 cancels the Validity Certificate of Respondent No. 1, concluding that he belonged to the ‘Hindu Lingayat’ caste. |
| 27th January 2006 | Respondent No.1 files Writ Petition No.1449 of 2006 (GM-CC) in the Karnataka High Court at Dharwad. |
| 1st February 2006 | Government issues appointment orders of the selected candidates. |
| 13th February 2006 | Respondent No.2 directs the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell to initiate prosecution against the Respondent No.1. |
| 21st June 2006 | Civil Rights Enforcement Cell submits a report stating that the Respondent No.1 belonged to the ‘Ganiga’ caste. |
| 11th July 2007 | Respondent No. 1 was appointed to the post of Assistant Commissioner. |
| 27th January 2009 | Government of Karnataka includes 19 sub-castes within the ‘Veerashaiva Lingayat’ caste in Category III-B. |
| 28th February 2009 | Government of Karnataka reverts the position of reservation of some of the sub-castes of the Veerashaiva Lingayat caste except ‘Lingayath/Veerashaiva-Veerashaiva Panchamashali’ to the position existing prior to the order dated 27th January 2009. |
| 4th July 2013 | Appellant was promoted to the post of Superintendent of Police (Non-IPS). |
| 24th March 2017 | Appellant was appointed to the Karnataka Administrative Service (Junior Scale). |
| 13th June 2017 | Single Judge of the High Court dismisses the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent No.1. |
| 31st March 2021 | Division Bench of Karnataka High Court allows the Writ Appeal filed by the Respondent No.1. |
| 20th September 2019 | Appellant was promoted to the Senior Scale in the Karnataka Administrative Service. |
| 29th July 2022 | Supreme Court dismisses the appeal. |
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990, and the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment, etc.) Rules 1992.
The Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990, hereinafter referred to as “SC/ST and OBC Reservation Act”, provides for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes.
The Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment, etc.) Rules 1992, hereinafter referred to as “Karnataka SC/ST and OBC Reservation Rules ”, lay down the procedure for issuance of caste certificates and verification of the same. Rule 7 of the Karnataka SC/ST and OBC Reservation Rules specifies the procedure for verification of caste certificates.
The Government Orders issued by the Government of Karnataka, including G.O. No. SWD 150 BCA 94 dated 17th September 1994, G.O. No. SWD 251 BCA 94 dated 31st January 1995, and subsequent orders modifying the reservation lists, are also central to the case.
Arguments
The Appellant, M.V. Chandrakanth, argued that the Respondent No. 1, Sangappa, did not belong to the ‘Ganiga’ caste, which falls under Category II-A of the Reservation Policy. The Appellant contended that Sangappa’s father belonged to the ‘Lingayat’ caste, which, along with its sub-castes, falls under Category III-B. The Appellant submitted that Sangappa had fraudulently claimed reservation under Category II-A by misrepresenting his caste. He relied on school records of Sangappa’s father showing his caste as ‘Hindu Lingayat’ to argue that Sangappa should inherit his father’s caste.
The Appellant further argued that the Respondent No.3 had issued the Validity Certificate to the Respondent No. 1 in undue haste, without following the procedure laid down in Rule 7 of the Karnataka SC/ST and OBC Reservation Rules.
The Respondent No.1, Sangappa, argued that he belonged to the ‘Ganiga’ caste, which is included in Category II-A. He contended that the term ‘Ganiga’ in Category II-A included ‘Lingayat-Ganiga’. He relied on his caste certificate issued by the Tehsildar and the report of the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell, which stated that he belonged to the ‘Ganiga’ caste. He also submitted a registered document of the year 1909 showing his great-grandfather’s caste as ‘Ganiger’, a variant of ‘Ganiga’.
The Respondent No. 1 further argued that the Division Bench of the High Court had correctly interpreted the facts and the law, and had rightly set aside the order of the Single Judge. He contended that the Single Judge had erred in holding that ‘Lingayat-Ganiga’ was not equivalent to ‘Hindu Ganiga’. He also relied on the judgments of the Karnataka High Court in Somashekhar Veerappa B. Murgod v. State of Karnataka and Another and Prabhushankar K.V. v. Selection Committee for Medical Colleges & others, which held that a person belonging to a particular community is entitled to the benefit of reservation even if they have adopted the Lingayat faith.
The State of Karnataka supported the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Respondent No. 1 belongs to the ‘Lingayat’ caste, not ‘Ganiga’ | School records of Respondent No. 1’s father show ‘Hindu Lingayat’ caste. | Appellant |
| ‘Lingayat’ and its sub-castes fall under Category III-B, not II-A. | Appellant | |
| Respondent No. 1 belongs to the ‘Ganiga’ caste, entitled to Category II-A reservation. | Caste certificate from Tehsildar states ‘Ganiga’ sub-caste. | Respondent No. 1 |
| Civil Rights Enforcement Cell report confirms ‘Ganiga’ caste. | Respondent No. 1 | |
| Registered document from 1909 shows great-grandfather’s caste as ‘Ganiger’. | Respondent No. 1 | |
| ‘Ganiga’ in Category II-A includes ‘Lingayat-Ganiga’. | Division Bench of High Court correctly interpreted the law. | Respondent No. 1 |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the Court addressed was:
- Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the Respondent No.1 belonged to the ‘Ganiga’ caste and was entitled to the benefit of reservation under Category II-A.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates how the Court dealt with the issue:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the Respondent No.1 belonged to the ‘Ganiga’ caste and was entitled to the benefit of reservation under Category II-A. | Yes. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court. | The Court agreed with the High Court’s finding that ‘Lingayat-Ganiga’ is not a separate caste and that the Respondent No.1’s family history and the available evidence supported his claim to belong to the ‘Ganiga’ caste. The Court also noted that the intent of the government was to extend the benefit of reservation under Category II-A to Lingayat-Ganigas also. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Somashekhar Veerappa B. Murgod v. State of Karnataka and Another AIR 1980 Karnataka 62 | Karnataka High Court | The Court relied on this case to support the view that a person belonging to a particular community is entitled to the benefit of reservation even if they have adopted the Lingayat faith. |
| Prabhushankar K.V. v. Selection Committee for Medical Colleges & others (1981) 1 Kant.L.J. 255 | Karnataka High Court | The Court relied on this case to support the view that the possibility of a Lingayat being a Ganiga could not be excluded. |
| Lawrence Salvador D’Souza v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.6539/2016) | Supreme Court of India | The Court referred to this case to support the view that the caste certificate of relatives can be considered to determine the caste of a person. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions made by both parties and the authorities cited. The Court agreed with the Division Bench of the High Court that the Respondent No.1 belonged to the ‘Ganiga’ caste and was entitled to the benefit of reservation under Category II-A.
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Respondent No. 1 belongs to the ‘Lingayat’ caste, not ‘Ganiga’. | Rejected. The Court found that the Respondent No.1 belonged to the ‘Ganiga’ caste, which included ‘Lingayat-Ganiga’. |
| ‘Lingayat’ and its sub-castes fall under Category III-B, not II-A. | Rejected. The Court held that ‘Ganiga’ in Category II-A includes ‘Lingayat-Ganiga’. |
| Respondent No. 1 belongs to the ‘Ganiga’ caste, entitled to Category II-A reservation. | Accepted. The Court upheld the High Court’s decision that the Respondent No. 1 belonged to the ‘Ganiga’ caste, which is included in Category II-A. |
| ‘Ganiga’ in Category II-A includes ‘Lingayat-Ganiga’. | Accepted. The Court held that ‘Lingayat-Ganiga’ is not a separate caste for the purpose of reservation under Category II-A. |
The Court considered the following authorities:
✓ Somashekhar Veerappa B. Murgod v. State of Karnataka and Another [AIR 1980 Karnataka 62]: The Court followed this judgment, which held that a person belonging to a particular community is entitled to the benefit of reservation even if they have adopted the Lingayat faith.
✓ Prabhushankar K.V. v. Selection Committee for Medical Colleges & others [(1981) 1 Kant.L.J. 255]: The Court followed this judgment, which held that the possibility of a Lingayat being a Ganiga could not be excluded.
✓ Lawrence Salvador D’Souza v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(Civil Appeal No.6539/2016)]: The Court referred to this judgment to support the view that the caste certificate of relatives can be considered to determine the caste of a person.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
The Court emphasized the importance of considering historical and social contexts when determining caste status. The court noted that the ‘Ganiga’ community has members who follow different faiths, including Lingayat. The court also took into account the intent of the government to include Lingayat-Ganigas in Category II-A.
The Court also considered the evidence presented by the Respondent No.1, including the caste certificate, the report of the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell, and the registered document showing his great-grandfather’s caste as ‘Ganiger’. The Court noted that the Division Bench had rightly not remanded the matter to the Respondent No.2 for adjudication, considering the long-pending nature of the dispute.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Historical and social context of the ‘Ganiga’ community. | 35% |
| Intent of the government to include Lingayat-Ganigas in Category II-A. | 30% |
| Evidence presented by the Respondent No.1. | 25% |
| Long-pending nature of the dispute. | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
The Court’s reasoning was based on a thorough consideration of the factual evidence and the relevant legal principles. The Court’s analysis was also influenced by the need to ensure that the benefits of reservation are extended to all those who are entitled to them under the law.
The Court quoted the following from the judgment:
“The Division Bench rightly held that, if the Respondent No.1’s father was, in fact, Ganiga, the mere fact that his caste may not have been mentioned in his school records, or elsewhere, would not mean that he would have to be treated as a non-Ganiga by caste.”
“The intent of the order was to extend the benefit of reservation under Category II-A to the Lingayat-Ganigas also.”
“In our considered opinion, the well reasoned judgment and order of the Division Bench does not call for interference.”
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court affirmed that ‘Lingayat-Ganiga’ is not a separate caste for the purpose of reservation under Category II-A.
- The Court emphasized the importance of considering historical and social contexts when determining caste status.
- The Court upheld the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court, which had set aside the order of the Single Judge.
- The judgment clarifies the scope of reservation benefits for the ‘Ganiga’ community in Karnataka.
- The Court highlighted that the intent of the government was to include Lingayat-Ganigas in Category II-A.
Directions
The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this case. The Court dismissed the appeal, thereby upholding the High Court’s decision.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the term ‘Ganiga’ in Category II-A of the Reservation Policy includes ‘Lingayat-Ganiga’. The Supreme Court clarified that ‘Lingayat-Ganiga’ is not a separate caste for the purpose of reservation under Category II-A. This judgment reinforces that the benefits of reservation should be extended to all those who are socially and educationally backward, irrespective of their religious faith within the broader caste grouping. This judgment does not change the existing position of law but clarifies the interpretation of the term ‘Ganiga’ in the context of reservation.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by M.V. Chandrakanth, upholding the decision of the Karnataka High Court. The Court affirmed that individuals belonging to the ‘Lingayat-Ganiga’ sub-caste are entitled to reservation benefits under Category II-A, as they are considered part of the broader ‘Ganiga’ caste. This judgment provides clarity on the interpretation of reservation policies in Karnataka and emphasizes the need to consider historical and social contexts when determining caste status.