Person can be Lingayat by religious affiliation and Ganiga by caste: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a writ petition by a police constable challenging a caste validity certificate issued to a police sub-inspector and upheld the Ganiga caste as a distinct sub-caste group within the Lingayat fold. [TN Jagadeesh v. Chairman Deputy Commissioner]

Justice Suraj Govindaraj examined whether Lingayat-Ganiga was a distinct caste from the Ganiga.

The Court noted that Lingayat and Ganigas are not mutually exclusive. The Lingayat community evolved by incorporating distinct caste-blocks that retained their occupational and social identity while existing in the broader Lingayat denomination. The order reads,

"“Lingayat” and “Ganiga” are not mutually exclusive identities in law, and Ganiga may subsist as a distinct caste group within the broader Lingayat fold."

It clarified Ganiga to be a distinct occupational caste within the broader Lingayat umbrella. Stating that a person may simultaneously be Lingayat by religious affiliation and Ganiga by caste classification, the Court added,

"The fact that Ganigas may exist within the Lingayat fold does not mean that every Lingayat can claim Ganiga identity. The coexistence of identities is a matter of legal possibility; the establishment of such identity in a given case is a matter of proof."

The dispute arose when Rajakumar Y Bilagi, a Lingayat-Ganiga was selected to the post of Police Sub-inspector (PSI) in 2009 pursuant to a government recruitment notice.

The petitioner, TN Jagadeesh, who has been working as a police constable, alleged that Bilagi had secured the post by falsely claiming the Lingayat-Ganiga status in order to avail reservation benefits conferred upon the Lingayat-Ganiga community under Category 2A of the Other Backward Classes.

The Court examined the school and institutional records of Bilagi's father, siblings and other close relatives to determine his caste identity. The Court held that Bilagi's father's school records reflecting only 'Lingayat' did not affect their Lingayat-Ganiga identity.

It also stated that the father's records, though relevant, were not conclusive and that the caste determination would have to be authenticated only upon cumulative and consistent documentary material gathered over time and recognised by statutory verification.

"The law does not elevate paternal school records to the status of irrebuttable proof. Rather, they constitute highly probative but rebuttable evidence. In the present case, that evidentiary presumption stands sufficiently counterbalanced by consistent, corroborated and statutorily recognised documentation establishing Ganiga identity."

Taking into consideration Bilagi's years of service in public employment as a PSI on the basis of his caste certificate, the Court upheld the validity of his appointment.

"Additionally, respondent No.3 has served in public employment for approximately fifteen years on the basis of the caste validity certificate. While length of service cannot create caste identity, it reinforces the necessity of judicial restraint where the documentary evidence substantively supports the claimed identity and no fraud has been demonstrated. To unsettle such long-standing service on the basis of an interpretative dispute regarding evidentiary hierarchy would not advance the cause of justice."

TN Jagadeesh was represented by Advocate Shridhar N Hegde.

State authorities were represented by Additional Government Advocate Mahantesh Shettar.

Advocate SS Halli appeared for Bilagi.

[Read Order]