PRABHUDEV MALLIKARJUNAIAHversusRAMACHANDRA VEERAPPA AND ANR.

                     PRABHUDEV MALLIKARJUNAIAH                                      A
                                         v.
                  RAMACHANDRA VEERAPPA AND ANR.

                                  APRIL 23, 1996

     [K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.]                           B

          Constitution of India, 1950/Representation of the People Act, 1951-Art,
    341/S. 116-B-Election in constituencies reserved for SC/ST-Presidential
    Notiftcation-'-Courts cannot give any declaration that the status with
    synonimous names of castes claimed by the pmty is confirmable to the names      C
    specified in the Notification-Assistant Municipal Commissioner issuing
    Caste Certificate-He has no jurisdiction to issue the certificate and hence
    cannot be validly acted upon.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4247 of
    1995. .                                                      ])

         From the Judgment and Order dated 27.10.94 of the Karnataka High
    Court in E.P. No. 3 of 1991.

          N.D.B. Raju and G. Prabhakar for the Appellant,,
                                                                                    E
          P. Mahale and S.N. Bhat (NP) for the Respondents.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          This appeal under Section 116-B of the Representation of the People
    Act, 1951 (for short, the 'Act') arise; from the judgment of the High Court     F
    of Karnataka made on October 27, 1994 in Election Petition No. 3/1991.
    The appellant had tiled his nomination as a Scheduled Caste candidate to
•   the Bidar-1 (SC) Parliamentary Con>titucncy for the 9th Lok Sabha on
    April 26, 1991. It was rejected by the Returning Officer by his proceedings
    dated April 27, 1991 finding that he is a Verrashive Jangamma and that,         G
    therefore, he i' not a Beda Jangamma, which is item 19 of the Presidential
    Notification in relation to the State of Karnataka. He filed the election
    petition in the High Court, which was dismissed by the aforesaid judgment.
    Thus this appeal.

          Shri N.D.B. Raju, learned counsel for the appellan~ contended that H
                                      673
    674                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A   the appellant was Beda Jangamma. His father was the President of Beda
    J angamma Association. He had the benefit of contesting the elections as a
    member of Beda J angamma. The finding of the Court that he is not Beda
    Jangamma is not correct. He contends that among the Lingayaths, there
    are various sub-castes. Thought, as a fact, it was found that the appellant's
    sub-caste is Veerashiva, in fact, if it is only a Beda Jangamma. His father
B   used to adopt begging which the Beda Jangamma caste would do. Conse-
    quently, a appellant cannot be denied of the status as a Beda Jangamma.
    He also sought to place strong reliance on the judgment of the civil Court,
    Ex.P-14, in Misc. No 75 of 1987, made on February 26, 1988 in which the
    appellant wherein was held to be Bed a J angamma and that, therefore, the
C   findings of the High Court are incorrect. Having considered the evidence,
    we find that there is no force in the contention.

           It is seen that under Article 34(1) of the Constitution, the Presiden-
    tial Notification is conclusive subject to the amendment under clause (2)
D   of Article 341. In 1976, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes (Amendment)
    Act had been made. Admittedly, under item No. 19, in relation to the State
    of Karnataka, Beda Jangamma or Budaga Jangamma are declared as
    Scheduled Castes. As a fact, the finding recorded by the High Court is that
    the appellant belongs to Veerashiva Lingayath Community and he is a
    Jangamma. The question, therefore, is : whether Veerashiva Lingayath
E   would be considered to be a Scheduled Caste (Beda Jangamma) within the
    notification issued by the President ? It is settled law that the courts cannot
    give any declaration that the status with synonimous names of castes
    claimed by the party is conformable to the names specified in the Presiden-
    tial Notification issued under Article 341 of the Constitution.

F
          The finding recorded by the High Court after exhaustive considera-
    tion of evidence including the .iudgment of the Civil Court on which strong
    reliance was placed, is that the appellant is a Veerashiva Lingayath Jan-
    gamma and that, therefore, he cannot be considered to be a Beda Jangam-
    ma or Budaga Jangamma. It is true that the appellant has placed reliance
G   on the Census Report prepared by the Census Department of the State of
    Karnataka and also the Notification issued by the Legislative Department.
    That evidence also was considered and for valid and diverse reasons, with
    which we agree, the same was rightly rejected.

H         The Civil Court went into the status of the appellant in the Election
                P. MALLIKARJUNAIAH v. R. VEERAPPA                    675

Petition relating to Zilla Parishad election in the jndgment Ex. P-14 on the A
basis of the evidence placed before it in that case. The Civil Court has
pointed out that the contenting candidate had not seriously disputed the
status of the appellant as Beda J angamma. The only contention raised was
that there were no Beda Jangamma in Gulbarga District. That question
was gone into and it was found that there were Beda Jangammas in
Gulbarga District. On th&t basis, the decision was given by the Civil Court.
                                                                             B
The foundation on which the appellant claimed the status was the certifi-
cate issued by the Assistant Municipal Commissioner that he is Beda
Jangamma. The High Court found that the Assistant Commissioner has no
jurisdiction to issue the certificate. Once the status based upon the cer-
tificate issued by the Assistant Commissioner was found to have lacked C
jurisdiction, the basis has been knocked off to bottom. The judgment of
the civil Court is not a judgment in rem nor is the High Court bound by
the said judgment.

      Thus considered, we hold that there is no warrant for finding that
the appellant belongs to Scheduled Castes entitling him to contest the      D
election as Scheduled Caste candidate.

       The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

G.N.                                                    Appeal dismissed.