In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has held that a particular community cannot be classified differently for educational and employment purposes. The court declared that the State’s approach of placing the Balajiga/Banajiga community in Group-B for education-related reservations under Article 15(4) and in Group-D for employment reservations under Article 16(4) is discriminatory, illegal, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj, delivering the judgment, observed, 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.
The court made this observation while allowing a petition filed by a primary school teacher, V Sumitra, whose caste certificate had been canceled by the authorities in 1996. Sumitra had originally obtained her certificate categorizing her as belonging to Group-B, which matched the classification for the Balajiga/Banajiga community under Article 15(4) for educational purposes. However, her employment was challenged on the grounds that for reservation under Article 16(4), the same community was classified under Group-D.
The petitioner contended that throughout her educational journey, she had identified herself as a member of the Group-B category, as per the government classification for educational purposes. It was only after the controversy arose that she learned about the separate classification under Group-D for employment purposes. Once the difference was brought to her attention, she accepted the classification but later challenged the duality itself as being unfair and unconstitutional.
The State, in its defense, submitted that the Balajiga/Banajiga community had been placed in Group-B for educational reservations due to their social and educational backwardness. However, the government argued that for employment purposes, the same community was better placed economically, leading to its classification under Group-D.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj firmly rejected this reasoning, emphasizing that the concept of equality before the law under Article 14 also extends to reservations and should apply consistently in both educational and employment contexts.
"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)," the court noted.
The bench pointed out that there was no material or data on record to support the State's claim that the community was adequately represented in government services to justify the difference in classification. The court held that once a community is declared socially and educationally backward for educational reservations, it naturally follows that the same classification must apply for employment purposes.
The judgment also referred to key rulings from the Supreme Court, including the decisions in K.C. Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka and State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh. Both judgments highlight that the criteria for identifying beneficiaries under Article 15(4) and Article 16(4) are the same, as both aim to uplift socially and educationally backward classes. The court highlighted that when the same community is targeted for affirmative action, the classification should not vary based on the context of education or employment.
It is probably for the same reason that the 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, the court reasoned.
In conclusion, the High Court allowed Sumitra's petition, quashing the orders that had canceled her caste certificate. The court directed the State government to reclassify the Balajiga/Banajiga community as Group-B for employment purposes as well, thus aligning the classification for both education and employment.
"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 declared.
Additionally, the court ordered that Sumitra’s employment as a primary school teacher be continued under Group-B reservation.
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.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 15499 OF 2013
