No cupboards can be kept in different categories for quota in education and jobs, the Supreme Court said it about communities - cabinets cannot be classified into different groups for discussion in education opportunities called Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court ruled that the same community cannot be placed under two separate discussion categories for education and employment. The decision comes on a petition submitted by V. Sumitra, a resident of College Taluk in the then Mysuru district. He challenged the classification of Balajiga/Banjiga community by the state. The Karnataka High Court has called the current classification of the state as discriminatory and unconstitutional. Pti, Bengaluru. The Karnataka High Court ruled that the same community cannot be kept under two separate discussion categories for education and employment. The Supreme Court delivered this ruling on the petition of a woman V. Sumitra. The woman challenged the classification of the Balajiga/Banjiga community in the state and described the classification as contradictory. Justice Suraj Govindraj expressed the first ruling, Justice Suraj Govindraj ordered the Karnataka government in a recently outspoken ruling to classify the Balajiga/Banjiga community for education and employment goals evenly among group ‘B’. The current classification of the state maintained is discriminatory and unconstitutional. Sumitra was appointed teacher in the elementary school under the OBC (other backward classes) discussion in 1993, because she claims that her cabinets are related to the group ‘B’. However, in 1996, he received a notice stating that his community was classified under the group ‘D’ for employment, which caused his caste certificate for work -related discussion. Meanwhile, Sumitra received a notice from the 1986 government in which this double classification was done. He described the classification as contradictory and argued that the purpose of Articles 15 (4) and 16 (4) is to ensure social justice for the deprived groups. He challenged the state classification and described it as contradictory. Partition, of course, discriminatory Govindraj said his argument is correct and said, the principle of equality under Article 14 will also apply to the proviso. The same community cannot be kept in different groups. Such a division is by nature discriminatory. The court also instructed to continue her work as a primary school teacher and to accept her qualifying under the discussion group ‘B’. The Supreme Court canceled the order, Justice Govindraj said: “If a community is considered backwards in terms of education, he cannot be treated separately in terms of employment.” The Supreme Court declared double classifications invalid, and the orders in which Sumitra’s claim for discussion was rejected in terms of group ‘B’ canceled. Every latest news and accurate information from the country and the world, every moment on your phone! Download now- Jagran app