AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court assailing the endorsement dated 02.06.2011 at Annexure-G to the petition. The petitioner is also seeking for issue of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and issue caste certificate of the petitioner as ''Jenu Kuruba'' in terms of the caste certificate earlier issued by the Tahsildar, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District as at Annexure-G. The petitioner who is stated to be employed has presently sought for a fresh caste certificate to be issued in her favour. The Tahsildar has issued the impugned endorsement dated 02.06.2011 requiring the petitioner to produce two documents which are stated therein. The petitioner has explained certain circumstances under which she is unable to produce the said documents.
In that regard, the petitioner relying on the documents at Annexures-A to C would contend that at an earlier point of time, the caste certificate has been issued in favour of the petitioner and her father and the same has been verified to be correct. In that regard, the petitioner contends that she is entitled for issue of caste certificate.
Learned counsel for the respondents would point out that the consideration as to whether the earlier caste certificates issued are valid and as to whether the petitioner could be issued a fresh caste certificate is yet to be decided by the Tahsildar as seen from the very endorsement dated 02.06.2011. It is pointed out that the documents which have been sought by the Tahsildar are essential documents which are normally required for issuing a caste certificate and as such, the petitioner cannot plead that she is unable to produce the same.
Be that as it may, since at this juncture, it is noticed that the Tahsildar in fact has neither accepted the request of the petitioner nor declined the request of the petitioner to issue the caste certificate, but has only sought for producing the documents, the other aspects of the matter need not be gone into in the instant petition. However it is to be clarified that when the petitioner has difficulty in producing the documents which have been sought for an appropriate explanation be made to the Tahsildar indicating the reasons, so as to enable the Tahsildar to consider the same.
Further Rule 3-A (3)(d) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment etc.) Rules, 1992, provides that the Tahsildar may require the assistance of any officer for the purpose of satisfying himself regarding the genuineness of the claim made by the applicant. If that be so, even in the absence of the documents being produced by the petitioner, the Tahsildar is required to follow the procedure before considering the case of the petitioner.
Though, I see no reason to quash the endorsement, liberty is however granted to the petitioner to reply to the said endorsement and indicate the inability to produce the said documents. If such reply is made to the Tahsildar the Tahsildar would thereafter take steps to consider the correctness or otherwise of the claim, independent of the same, and in the light of the other documents that are available keeping in view the Rule that has been indicated above and thereafter intimate the petitioner the result of such consideration. In order to enable expeditious consideration, the petitioner shall now file a copy of this order and the reply as also the other documents before respondent No. 2 within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Tahsildar shall intimate the result of the consideration to the petitioner within six weeks thereafter.
The petition stands disposed of accordingly.