The main legal point established in the judgment is that appointments made on the basis of rural weightage during the pendency of the appeal were unsustainable in law, and the court clarified that its judgment would not debar appointees who were otherwise entitled to be appointed even after excluding the weightage given under Rule 3(B).

ORDER

1.These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners who have been denied their claim for reliefs they were entitled to on the basis ofdecision of this Court in the matter Sreedhara S. v. State of Karnataka. The decision of this Court, so relied upon by the writ petitioners, was in respect of an order passed by the High Court of Kamataka setting at naught an interim order which had been passed by the High Court during the pendency of the appeals before it.

2. The decision of the Karnataka High Court arose out of the writ petitions which had been filed challenging Rule 3(B) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1976 by which weightage was granted in favour ofrural candidate. The writ petitions were allowed and the rule was struck down as being unconstitutional by the learned Single Judge. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was delivered on 11-11-1998. While allowing the writ petitions the Single Judge directed that those appointments which had already been made in accordance with the impugned rule would not be disturbed.

3. The State Government appealed from the decision of the learned Single Judge. During the pendency of the appeal, the Division Bench passed an interim order dated 4-12-1998 staying the operation of the order of the learned Single Judge subject to the following: (1) selections/appointments made thereafter would be subject to the decision in the appeal, (2) the appointing authority before giving the order of appointment tocandidate having rural weightage was required to obtain an undertaking from the candidate that the appointment given would be subject to the decision in these proceedings pending before the High Court, and (3) that the candidate would have no right to the post in the event the order of the learned Single Judge was upheld.

4. During the pendency of the appeal, the appointments were made in compliance with the interim order of the appellate court. All appointees gave undertakings as specified in the interim order and were perfectly aware that their appointments were subject to the decision in the pending appeal. The appeal was ultimately dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court on 26-11-1999. However, while affirming the decision of the learned Single Judge that Rule 3(B) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1976 was ultra wires, the Division Bench directed that those persons who had been appointed during the pendency of the appeal till the date of the Division Benchs decision, namely 26-11-1999, on the basis of their rural weightage, would continue in service.

5. Some of the candidates who had been superseded by the appointees with rural weightage, approached this Court challenging the confirmation of the order passed by the Division Bench insofar as it allowed the appointees with rural weightage whose appointments were subject to the outcome of the appeal, to continue in service. This Court disposed of the appeals including appeal CA No. 7105 of 2001 on ll-1O-200P holding that the directions of the Division Bench of the High Court allowing the appointees with rural weightage to continue in service despite their having been appointed only pursuant to the interim order passed by the Division Bench were unsustainable in law. Those directions of the Division Bench of the High Court in relation to appointments made during the pendency of the appeal and also the conditional selections made on the basis of rural weightage, were accordingly set aside. This Court, however, made it clear that if any of these appointees were otherwise entitled to be appointed even after excludingthe weightage given under Rule 3(B), the judgment of this Court would not operate to debar them from being appointed. In view of this decision, WP (C) No. 365 of 1999 was dismissed as withdrawn.

6. On 5-11-2001, the High Court of Karnataka after having considered this Courts decision dated 11-10-20011 issuednotification showinglist of Civil Judges (Junior Div