The Karnataka High Court has held that a particular community cannot be classified for educational purposes under a different group than the classification made for the very same community for employment purposes under a different group.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj said:
“I am of the considered opinion that a particular class or category of persons cannot be said to be socially and educationally backward to classify them in Group-B for reservation under Article 15 (4) and consider the very same class to be more forward and adequately represented for the purpose of employment by classifying the same class in Group-D for purposes of Article 16(4). This dichotomy and the dual standards which have been used is not justified by the State in any manner“.
It thus said that a particular community cannot be classified for educational purposes under a different group than the classification made for the very same community for employment purposes under a different group. Article 15(4) says State can make special provision for advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Article 16(4) pertaining to public employment–states that State can make provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State.
“The community would have to be classified for both educational purposes and employment purposes under the same group. The State having classified the “Balajiga/Banajiga community” as GroupB for education purposes, it is required for the State to classify the very same community as Group-B for employment purposes and not under Group-D…It is declared that the classification of the “Balajiga/Banajiga community” for the purpose of employment, being different from that for the purpose of education, is discriminatory and illegal and void ab-initio and violative to Article 14 of the Constitution of India,” the court added.
Following which it directed the State government to reclassify the “Balajiga/Banajiga community” under Article 16(4) under Group-B instead of Group-D.
The direction was given while allowing the petition filed by a teacher V Sumitra challenging an order passed by the authorities cancelling her caste certificate in 1996. The cancellation was made on the grounds that for the purpose of employment, she would belong to Group-D and not Group-B, and that the Caste Certificate which was issued was not proper or applicable for such reservation.
The petitioner contended that she was always under the impression that there is only one classification for the “Balajiga/Banajiga community”, and it is in that background that she had indicated that she belongs to Group-B, the same always forming part of the records of her educational career.
When it was brought to her notice that the “Balajiga/Banajiga community” is classified under Group-D, the classification having been shown to her, she immediately acceded to the said contention and was agreeable for her to be regarded as a person belonging to Group-D.
Finally it was said there is a dual classification for the “Balajiga/Banajiga community”, one under Group-B for educational purposes under Article 15 (4) and the other under Group-D for employment purposes under Article 16 (4) and that there cannot be such a dual classification.
The Karnataka government opposed the plea submitting that having considered all these aspects on the basis of available information in regard to the social and educational backwardness of the backward communities, castes and tribes and considering the class of poverty of each community, their way of life, standard of living, habits and the placing of the community in the social hierarchy, the government had classified, the “Balajiga/Banajiga community” under Group-B for educational purposes.
The said community is better placed economically. Therefore, the community is classified under Group-D.
Findings:
The bench referred to Article 14 of the Constitution of India (Equality before Law) said, “The term equality before the law in my considered opinion, would also include the reservation to be equal in all respects i.e., both under Article 15(4) and Article 16(4).”
It added “The equal protection of laws would also in my considered opinion include reservation, since the protection by way of affirmative action is for grant of reservation of a particular number of seats in education or particular number of posts in employment. Thus, the protection under Article 14 being subject to Article 15(4) and Article 16(4), there cannot be a discrimination of reservation inter se Article 15(4) and Article 16(4).”
Noting that except for making a statement that all aspects have been considered by the State, there is no data which has been placed by the State as regard what aspects have been taken into consideration while classifying the same community in Group-B in respect of Article 15(4) and in Group-D in respect of Article 16(4).
The bench held “There is nothing which is placed on record to indicate that the “Balajiga/Banajiga community” has been adequately represented in the services under the State, despite sufficient opportunities having been granted.”
It observed that “For a person to be engaged in the services under the State, such person has to be educated and possess the requisite educational qualifications. If a class or community is socially and educationally backward for purposes of education, then the question of such Socially and Educationally Backward Classes being adequately represented in the services under the State, would not arise.”
It emphasized that “Framers of the Constitution firstly introduced Article 15, providing for special provisions to be made for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Of Citizens, and thereafter under Article 16 provided for employment. Since the framers of the Constitution did realize that without education being provided, employment cannot be provided for such class, and it is only after making sufficient provisions for education that necessary provisions could be made for employment.”
Accordingly it allowed the petition and declared that the Petitioner belonging to “Balajiga/Banajiga community” would be entitled to reservation for employment, under Group-B and as such her employment as a primary school teacher is directed to be continued by availing of such benefit.
Case Title: V Sumitra AND State of Karnataka & Others
Appearance: Senior Advocate M S Bhagwath for Advocate L Srinivasa Babu for Petitioner.
AGA Mahantesh Shettar for Respondent.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 147
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 15499 OF 2013
