Lingayat, Ganiga not mutually exclusive identities: Karnataka High Court

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has held that a person described as ‘Lingayat’ in ancestral records may, upon proof, establish Ganiga identity within that fold.

“’Lingayat’ and ‘Ganiga’ are not mutually exclusive identities. Ganiga may subsist as a distinct caste group within the broader Lingayat fold,” Justice Suraj Govindaraj said while dismissing the petition filed by a police constable challenging the selection and appointment of another constable as the police sub-inspector.

The petitioner, T N Jagadeesh, a constable working in Mysuru, contended that Rajakumar Y Bilagi, a native of Bagalkot, falsely claimed that he belonged to the Lingayat Ganiga community, which is classified under Category 2A. According to the petitioner, the school records pertaining to the father, sister, cousin-sister, brother, and cousin-brother of Rajakumar uniformly reflect their caste as ‘Hindu Lingayat’. However, only in respect of Rajakumar, the caste entry had been overwritten. According to the petitioner, there was an insertion/correction in the school records, and thus, the caste certificate was issued on the presumption that such a correction must have been made pursuant to a valid order.

On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of Rajakumar that, based on the very caste records, he was appointed as a police constable and subsequently selected and appointed as a Police Sub-Inspector. He produced birth certificate, school admission register, Transfer Certificates from Primary School and class 10, all of which indicate the caste as ‘Ganiga’.

After perusing the material, Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted that the authorities had considered school records and Transfer Certificate, wherein it was mentioned as Ganiga, and caste certificates issued to family members corroborated the same. It further said while certain aspects of enquiry could have been more elaborately recorded, the ultimate conclusion reached by statutory authorities stands substantiated by the material on record. The court cited the judgment of Karnataka HC in Prabhushankar K V vs Selection Committee for Medical Colleges and a couple of other cases and said that mere description of a candidate as ‘Lingayat’ in school records does not justify rejection of a claim that he belongs to Ganiga community. It further said the Apex Court in M V Chandrakanth vs Sangappa expressly endorsed the principles laid down in the Prabhushankar case.

“..‘Lingayat’ and ‘Ganiga’ are not mutually exclusive identities. Ganiga may subsist as a distinct caste group within the broader Lingayat fold. A person described as ‘Lingayat’ in ancestral records may, upon proof, establish Ganiga identity within that fold,” the court said.

The court further clarified that the judgment does not lay down any proposition that a mere assertion of sub-caste identity within the Lingayat fold is sufficient to claim reservation. Each case must turn on its own evidence and must satisfy the statutory requirements of verification.