THE COMMANDANT vs SHRI. VIRUPAXAGOUDA S/O YELLAPPAGOUDA KAREPPAGOUDRA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17609-DB
WA No. 100608 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020196172024



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

AND

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI

WRIT APPEAL NO.100608 OF 2024 (GM-CC)

BETWEEN:

THE COMMANDANT,
TH
CISF, 4 RES BN, SIVAGANGAI,
P.O. SIVAGANGI, TAMIL NADU - 630 301.



…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VENKATESH M. KHARVI, DSGI)

AND:

1. SHRI. VIRUPAXAGOUDA
S/O. YELLAPPAGOUDA KAREPPAGOUDRA,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: CONSTABLE CISF,
TH
R/O: PRESENTLY RESIDING AT CISF, 4 RB QUARTERS,
NO.70, E – BLOCK, TYPE –II, AMARAVATHIPUDUR,
KARIKUDI TALUK, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT,
TAMIL NADU – 630 301,
REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
SHRI. YALAPPAGOUDA
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: ROTTIGWAD, KUNDGOL, DIST: DHARWAD.







Digitally signed
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench

2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DHARWAD – 580 021.

3. DISTRICT COMMISSIONER AND PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CASTE AND INCOME VERIFICATION
COMMITTEE, DHARWAD – 580 021.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSAMANI A/W
MS. VIDYASHRI N. MULIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17609-DB
WA No. 100608 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020196172024

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL FILED
BY THE APPELLANTS THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO. 104460/2022 DATED
19.02.2024 AND THEREBY DISMISS THE SAID WRIT PETITION IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
AND
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI

ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA )


1. The appellant-Commandant, CISF is before the
Court calling in question an order of the learned Single Judge in
Writ Petition No.104460 of 2022, whereby the learned Single
Judge allows the petition and issues certain directions for
compliance.

RD

2. The 3 respondent before the learned Single Judge
has filed the present appeal.


3. Heard the learned DSGI Sri.Venkatesh M Kharvi
appearing for the appellant, learned counsel Sri.Prashant
Hosmani for the respondent No.1 and learned Addl.
Government Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3/State.



4. The facts adumbrated are as follows:

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17609-DB
WA No. 100608 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020196172024

st
4.1 The 1 respondent is issued with a caste certificate
showing his caste to be a “Reddy”. On the strength of the said
st
Caste Certificate, it transpires that the 1 respondent secures
an appointment with the appellant-CISF. In furtherance of the
selection process, an appointment order was issued in favour of
st
the 1 respondent on 23.06.2009, after which the documents
st
of the 1 respondent stood verified. On 07.09.2018, it
st
transpires that the Tahsildar submits a report that the 1
respondent is “Hindu Reddy” and comes under the Category-
3A. It is then the communication is made by the Deputy
Commissioner addressing his letter to the appellant on
08.08.2022. By then, 13 years have passed by after the
st
appointment of the 1 respondent. The impugned action is
called in question before the learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition No.104460 of 2022. The learned Single Judge allows
the petition by setting aside the impugned action on the score
st
of the delay in holding that the Caste Certificate of the 1
respondent was not genuine.

5. Learned DSGI Sri.Venkatesh M Kharvi would
vehemently contend that the appointment is secured on a
st
certificate that was false/bogus, as the 1 respondent does not

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17609-DB
WA No. 100608 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020196172024

come within the definition of “SC/ST” as the case would be, but
is a person belonging to Category-3A, therefore, the
st
appointment of the 1 respondent was erroneous. He would
admit that there has been certain laxity on the part of the
st
officers, who have verified the caste status of the 1
respondent immediately after appointment. But on a complaint
registered by some employee, the caste certificate was re-
verified and the truth is now out. By then, he would admit that
14 years have passed by.


6. Per contra, Sri. Prashant Hosmani, learned counsel
st
appearing for the 1 respondent would refute the submissions
and support the order passed by the learned Single Judge.


7. We have given our anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective
parties and perused the impugned order of the learned Single
Judge.


8. The issue is, whether in this intra-Court appeal, the
order of learned Single Judge warrants appropriate
interference.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17609-DB
WA No. 100608 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020196172024


9. The order of the learned Single Judge reads as
follows:

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the
following reliefs:
i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other
order or direction and quash the letter dated
08/08/2022 bearing No. BCWD/OBC/CR-62/2018-
nd
19/716 issued by the 2 respondent produced at
ANNEXURE-D in the interest of justice and equity.
ii. Grant such other order of orders as this Hon’ble
court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case
in the interest of justice and equity.


2. The petitioner belonged to Hindu-Reddy caste had
applied for and obtained a caste certificate from the
Tahasildar, Kundgol on 04.12.2008 as that belonging
to OBC category-III(A) and thereafter, applied for the
post of constable in the Central Industrial Security
Force (hereinafter referred to as ‘CISF’ for brevity). On
successful completion of selection process, he was
appointed as a constable.

3. The caste certificate submitted by the petitioner were
sent for verification when the Tahasildar, Kundagol
visited the village of the petitioner, caused enquiry and
issued an endorsement that the caste certificate
produced are proper and correct.

4. Subsequently, on 08.08.2022, respondent No.2-District
Commissioner & President District Caste and Income
Verification Committee, Dharwad being of the belief
that caste certificate submitted by the petitioner was
not genuine. Vide his impugned order dated
08.08.2022, wrote a letter to the Commanding Officer
of the petitioner stating that Hindu-Reddy category-
III(A) was not included in the list notified by the
Government of India. It is challenging the same, the
petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid
reliefs.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17609-DB
WA No. 100608 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020196172024

5. Sri. Prashant S.Hosmani, learned counsel for the
petitioner would submit that the caste certificate
having been issued in favour of the petitioner way back
on 04.12.2008 and the petitioner having been
appointed on 23.06.2009, the said certificate having
been sent for verification, the jurisdictional Tahasildar
had submitted a report on 31.08.2018 that the
certificate issued to the petitioner is proper and correct
and the same could not be reviewed by respondent
No.2 vide his order dated 08.08.2022 at Annexure-D
and deprived the petitioner of his employment and in
this regard, he relies upon the decision of Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Dattu S/o Namdeo Thakur
1
Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others , more
particularly para Nos.5 and 7, which are reproduced
hereunder for easy reference.
“5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s),
as well as the State of Maharashtra, we are of the view
that even if we are to accept the findings of the Caste
Scrutiny Committee, as also that of the High Court, we
cannot ignore the various circumstances that have
intervened between the issuance of the 'Caste
Certificates' and the cancellation thereof. In fact,
reference was made to the Caste Scrutiny Committee in
2009, i.e. nine years after the certificates had been
issued, and there is no proper explanation for such
delay. On the other hand, the petitioner in the first writ
petition has been allowed by the respondents to
continue in service and also by virtue of orders passed
by the High Court. Similarly, the petitioners in the other
two writ petitions have continued their studies after
having obtained certain benefits from their 'Caste
Certificates'.
7. In support of the case of the petitioner(s), an order
passed by another Bench of this Court in C.A.No.7411
of 2010 (Swati Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.), on 06-
09-2010, was brought to our notice, wherein in similar
circumstances, the Court while dismissing the civil
appeal, directed that the benefits that had already been
enjoyed by the candidate, and the degree obtained by
her in the BDS course, which she had completed, would

1
(2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 549

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17609-DB
WA No. 100608 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020196172024

continue. The Court further directed that she would not
be entitled to any further benefits under the 'Caste
Certificates' issued to her and that whatever advantage
she may have obtained by way of payment of fees at a
reduced rate, were to be made up by her by paying the
difference.”

6. By relying upon the above decision, he submits that
Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically come to a
conclusion that a long serving candidate who has been
appointed ought not to be disturbed, more so, when
there is no proper explanation of such delay.

7. Sri. Mrutyunjaya Tata Bangi, learned counsel for
respondent No.3 would submits that insofar as Central
Government is concerned for a person to avail
reservation in terms of category-III(A), the caste to
which the person belongs to is required to be contained
in the said central list of OBC issued for the respective
States where employment is effected.

8. In the present case, the Tahasildar has obviously
mislead himself by referring to the State list where
Hindu-Reddy community is indicated in Category-III(A)
and has opinioned that the said mentioning of Hindu-
Reddy category in the Karnataka list will also suffice for
the Central list which is not the case and it is in that
background, he submits that the petitioner not being
entitled for continuation of reservation, necessary
action would be taken by respondent No.3.

9. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for
respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that Annexure-E
issued by respondent No.2 is proper and correct
inasmuch as Hindu-Reddy community is not a part of
Central list. The Tahasildar has obviously mislead
himself is again the submission of learned Additional
Government Advocate.

10. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused
the papers.

11. The question that would arise in the present case is
“ would a candidate appointed in service and
continued in service for a long period of time be
deprived of the service on account of a caste

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17609-DB
WA No. 100608 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020196172024

verification certificate issued after nearly 14
years of service indicating the caste certificate to
be improper?”

12. In the present case, there is no allegation that the
petitioner has either fabricated, forged or concocted
the caste certificate. The petitioner has rightly place on
record that he belongs to Hindu-Reddy category-III(A),
but has claimed benefit of reservation relying on the
State list rather than Central list even though the
employment is for a central service not of the State
service. Since, he was to be appointed with the CISF.

13. Be that as it may, the certificate submitted by the
petitioner and the petitioner being appointed on
23.06.2009, the jurisdictional Tahasildar in the year-
2018 has also confirmed the said certificate though by
referring to the State list rather than Central list, which
he was supposed to do. This aspect is sought to be
corrected by respondent No.2 in the year-2022. In the
meanwhile, the petitioner has worked for nearly 14
years with the CISF. The petitioner’s certificate having
been held to be genuine and the petitioner coming
under category-III(A) by the Tahasildar in the year-
2018, it was required to be explained both by the
employer and Tahasildar as to why there was a delay
of nearly 10 years from the date of appointment of the
petitioner, which has not been so explained.

14. Furthermore, even after the Tahasildar has submitted a
nd
report in the year 2018, the 2 respondent has sought
to correct the same in the year-2022 and the
explanation for the delay of those four years, is also
not place on record. Thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Dattu’s case ( supra ) having held that if there is any
unexplained delay, the benefit of long service cannot
be taken away, I am of the considered opinion that the
said decision would also apply to the present case and
come to the rescue of the petitioner.

15. This is not a stray case, there have been several such
cases, which have been coming up before this Court on
account of the laxity on the part of the officials
concerned being both the employer and the verifying
authority. In that view of the matter, I am of the

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17609-DB
WA No. 100608 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020196172024

considered opinion that general directions would also
have to be issued.
GENERAL DIRECTIONS
i) The Principal Secretary, Social Welfare and
Backward Classes Welfare Department along with
Principal Secretary, e-Government Department
are directed to establish a dashboard and/or a
system so as to enable any employer to upload
the documents submitted by the candidate for
verification.

ii) The Principal Secretary, e-Government
Department shall ensure that the e-office now
available is also integrated with the above
dashboard.
iii) Any employer appointing or wanting to appoint, a
person shall immediately at any rate within 30
days of the receipt of the documents upload the
same on to the above dashboard/system.

iv) The said application/documents to be
electronically forwarded to the District Caste and
Income Verification Committee for verification
with a copy addressed to the jurisdictional
Tahasildar.

v) The District Caste and Income Verification
Committee shall forward the documents for
verification to the jurisdictional Tahasildar with
relevant noting and remarks.
vi) The Tahasildar shall carryout the verification of
the caste certificate both physically and
electronically, prepare a panchanama and upload
the same both on the dashboard and the e-office
which shall be received by the District Caste and
Income Verification Committee within a period of
60 days of such reference.
vii) The District Caste and Income Verification
Committee shall verify the report of the
Tahasildar and issued a certificate within a period

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17609-DB
WA No. 100608 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020196172024

of 30 days thereafter to the employer/prospective
employer.
viii) The Principal Secretary, Social Welfare and
Backward Classes Welfare Department along with
Principal Secretary, e-Government Department is
also directed to get educated the concerned as
regard the difference of the categorization in the
State list and Central list and the requirement
thereof so that these kind of wrong verification is
not made in future.
ix) The setting up of the dashboard and the
implementation of the scheme to be completed
within a period of three months from today.

16. Coming back to the matter in issue, I pass the
following:
ORDER

i) The writ petition is allowed.

ii) A certiorari is issued, the letter dated 08.08.2022
bearing No.BCWD/OBC/CR-62/2018-19/716 issued
nd
by 2 respondent produced at Annexure-D is
quashed.

iii) Though the above petition is disposed, re-list on
03.07.2024 at 2:30 PM for reporting compliance
with general directions.


10. The learned Single Judge follows the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of DATTU S/O NAMDEV THAKUR
2
v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS , which had
clearly held that after delay of 9 years, the State could not
have taken action against the appellant before the Apex Court.

2
(2012) 1 SCC 549

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17609-DB
WA No. 100608 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020196172024

Likewise, in the case at hand, the learned Single Judge holds
that the action could not be taken after 14 years of securing
the employment. Therefore, there is no perversity that can be
found in the case at hand for this Court to interfere in an intra-
Court appeal.


11. It becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the
Apex Court in BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT
3
AUTHORITY v. SCOPE SALES (P) LTD. which observes as
follows:
“ …. …. ….
13. We must also bear in mind the nature
and extent of jurisdiction that an intra-court
appellate Bench of a high court exercise. Such
appellate jurisdiction is conferred either under the
Letters Patent or by the relevant statutory
provisions. It is pertinent to note that both - Single
Bench and Division Bench - exercise the same
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
In our view, the exercise of intra-court appellate
jurisdiction is warranted only where the judgment
or order under challenge is demonstrably
erroneous or suffers from perversity. Such
jurisdiction ought not to be invoked merely
because another view is possible on the same set
of facts, particularly where the view adopted by
the Single Judge is a plausible and reasonable one.
In other words, an intra-court appellate Bench
ought not to substitute its own view, merely
because such Bench considers its view to be better
than the one taken by the Single Bench; so long as

3
2026 SCC Online SC 112

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17609-DB
WA No. 100608 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020196172024

the view taken by the Single Bench is a plausible
one, interference should stay at a distance.
14. We find it profitable to refer to certain
precedents, relevant paragraphs wherefrom are
reproduced below:
14.1 In Baddula Lakshmaiah v. Sri Anjaneya
Swami Temple, it was held:
2. Mr Ram Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellants, inter alia contends that the Letters
Patent Bench of the High Court could not have
upset a finding of fact recorded by a learned
Single Judge on fresh reconciliation of the two
documents, arriving at different results than
those arrived at earlier by the two courts
aforementioned. Though the argument sounds
attractive, it does not bear scrutiny. Against the
orders of the trial court, first appeal lay before
the High Court, both on facts as well as law. It is
the internal working of the High Court which
splits it into different ‘Benches’ and yet the court
remains one. A letters patent appeal, as
permitted under the Letters Patent, is normally
an intra-court appeal whereunder the Letters
Patent Bench, sitting as a Court of Correction,
corrects its own orders in exercise of the same
jurisdiction as was vested in the Single Bench.
Such is not an appeal against an order of a
subordinate court. In such appellate jurisdiction
the High Court exercises the powers of a Court of
Error. So understood, the appellate power under
the Letters Patent is quite distinct, in contrast to
what is ordinarily understood in procedural
language. That apart the construction of the
aforementioned two documents involved, in the
very nature of their import, a mixed question of
law and fact, well within the powers of the
Letters Patent Bench to decide. The Bench was
not powerless in that regard.
(emphasis ours)
14.2 This Court in Narendra & Co. (P) Ltd. v.
Workmen (2016) 3 SCC 340 noted that:
5. … Be that as it may, in an intra-
court appeal, on a finding of fact, unless the
Appellate Bench reaches a conclusion that

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17609-DB
WA No. 100608 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020196172024

the finding of the Single Bench is perverse,
it shall not disturb the same. Merely
because another view or a better view is
possible, there should be no interference
with or disturbance of the order passed by
the Single Judge, unless both sides agree
for a fairer approach on relief.
14.3 On whether a remand could be ordered
in exercise of intra-court appellate jurisdiction, this
Court in Roma Sonkar v. M.P. State Public Service
Commission, (2018) 17 SCC 106, expressed
reservations in the following words:
3. We have very serious reservations
whether the Division Bench in an intra-court
appeal could have remitted a writ petition in
the matter of moulding the relief. It is the
exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. The learned Single Judge as well as
the Division Bench exercised the same
jurisdiction. Only to avoid inconvenience to
the litigants, another tier of screening by
the Division Bench is provided in terms of
the power of the High Court but that does
not mean that the Single Judge is
subordinate to the Division Bench. Being a
writ proceeding, the Division Bench was
called upon, in the intra-court appeal,
primarily and mostly to consider the
correctness or otherwise of the view taken
by the learned Single Judge. Hence, in our
view, the Division Bench needs to consider
the appeal(s) on merits by deciding on the
correctness of the judgment of the learned
Single Judge, instead of remitting the
matter to the learned Single Judge.
14.4 In AAI v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee (2025)
4 SCC 111, while referring to its decision in
Narendra(supra), this Court observed as follows:
41. The position is, thus, settled that
in an intra-court writ appeal, the appellate
court must restrain itself and the
interference into the judgment passed by
the learned Single Judge is permissible only
if the judgment of the learned Single Judge
is perverse or suffers from an error

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17609-DB
WA No. 100608 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020196172024

apparent in law. However, the Division
Bench, in the present case, failed to record
any such finding and rather, proceeded to
delve into extensive reappreciation of
evidence to overturn the judgment of the
learned Single Judge. (emphasis ours)
15. Bearing in mind the larger public interest that
was involved coupled with the fact that the plot of land in
question was sought to be reserved for establishment of
an educational institution, we are of the firm opinion that
dismissal of the writ petition was an available option for
the Single Judge. The view taken by the Division Bench
that BIADA lacked the authority to cancel the allotment
though prima facie may appear to be appealing, yet, the
same is debatable.
15.1 Applying the principles governing the
exercise of intra-court appellate jurisdiction, as laid
down in the aforesaid precedents, to the facts of
the present case, we observe that judicial discipline
demanded due deference to the exercise of
discretion by the court of first instance, particularly
when such discretion was exercised on relevant
considerations. The Single Judge having refused
exercise of discretion on a ground which, in our
opinion, is valid, the Division Bench ought to have
been loath to allow the writ petition, and that too in
exercise of its intra-court appellate jurisdiction. The
judgment and order of the Single Judge was far
from being wholly incorrect or perverse .”
(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court, in the fore-quoted judgment, considering the
entire spectrum of the law, directs that the Division Bench
hearing the appeals against the orders of the learned Single
Judge must not interfere as a matter of course, but only if the
Court could find the order to be perverse.

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17609-DB
WA No. 100608 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020196172024


12. In the light of the elucidation of law by the Apex
Court in BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY supra and the facts obtaining in the case at hand,
finding no warrant to interfere with the order of the learned
Single Judge, the appeal stands rejected .
As a consequence, pending applications, if any, stand
disposed.



Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(HEMA KULKARNI)
JUDGE


JTR
CT: ASC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25