The Karnataka High Court ruled that a community cannot be placed in two different reserved categories of education and employment. The ruling is in response to a petition filed by v summitra, a former Kollegal Taluk resident in the Mysuru area, who challenged the state’s classification of the Balajiga/Banajiga community.
Judge Suraj Govindaraj recently made a verdict directing the Karnataka government to uniformly classify the Balajiga/Banajiga community as “group B”, both for educational and employment purposes. The court noted that the state’s existing classifications place the community in “group B” education (under Article 15, paragraph 4) and “D”‘d”in of insiment (Article 16(4)) are discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Sumitra was appointed as a primary school teacher in 1993 under OBC quota because she claimed her caste belonged to “Group B”. However, in 1996, she received a notice stating that her community was classified as a “Group D” job, invalidating her caste certificate to retain job-related reservations.
After several failed correction attempts through departmental appeals and Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Sumitra found a 1986 government notice showing this double classification. She believes that the constitutional intentions behind Articles 15 (4) and 16 (4) are consistent and aimed at ensuring social justice for the same vulnerable group, and thus she challenged the state’s classification, calling it ambivalent.
Justice Govindaraj upheld her argument, saying: “The principle of equality before the law under article 14 also covers equal treatment in terms of reservations. The same community cannot be placed in different groups according to different groups.”
The court ruled that any such disparity in treatment violated constitutional protection and that affirmative action must be unified in its application. “If a community is identified as a regression in education, it cannot be different in terms of employment,” the judge noted.
The High Court’s double classification “starts from scratch” revoked the order to reject Sumitra’s claim of ‘B”B’ in employment. It also directed the state to continue as an elementary school teacher and to acknowledge her qualifications under the booking group “B”.
