Back
2012 Supreme(Kar) 653
High Court of Karnataka
A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA, J.
V.H. Mahesha & Others
Versus
The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka & Others
Writ Petition No.18428 of 2012 C/W W.P.Nos.6380 of 2012, 11611-11621 of 2012 & 38597-38600 of 2011 (S-RES)
Decided On : 06-12-2012
For the Petitioners:G.S. Aruna for M/s. Kesvy & Co., R. Somasundara, Vikas Rojipura for M/s. Ravivarma Kumar, I.G. Gachchinamath, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Smt. Manjula R. Kamadolli, HCGP, B.V. Acharya, Senior Advocate.
Headnote:LABOUR & SERVICES - Recruitment: [A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J] In-service candidate -Karnataka Judicial Service (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2011 - Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 4 - Rules framed by the Governor of Karnataka in Exercise of Powers conferred by Articles 233 and 234 of the Constitution - Dispute as to the validity of the provision under the heading "B-Recruitment of in-service candidates" - Recruitment of ’In-service candidates’ has been limited to those officers and officials working in the High Court and the Courts subordinate to the High Court - Challenge to the Constitutional validity of the impugned Rule - Exclusive domain of the employer in the matter of prescribing the source/mode of recruitment and qualification, criteria of selection. - Held, The Court has no role in determining the methodology of recruitment or laying down the criteria for selection. Further Held, The object of the Rules is to recruit suitable and proper persons to the Karnataka Judicial Service with a view to secure fair and efficient administration of justice. It is trite that the Competent Authority can prescribe qualifications for eligibility for appointment to the Service. With the said object in view, in the matter of recruitment of in-service candidates, limitation has been placed, since the officers and officials working in the High Court and Courts subordinate to the High Court, would be aware of the procedures and practices followed by the Courts in the matter of efficient administration of justice. On facts, further held, The policy decision taken by the High Court in the matter of limitation placed with regard to the recruitment of in-service candidates is reasonable and does not amount to hostile discrimination. There is rational basis in the matter of placing the limitation with regard to recruitment of in-service candidates is concerned. The impugned Rule meets the above two tests and the impugned Rule cannot be declared as ultra vires. The condition stipulated at Clause B- Recruitment of in-service candidates Sl.No.3 of the Notification CJRC 1/2010 dated 6th August, 2011 is in consonance with the amended Rule 4 of the Rules.
These petitions involve common questions of fact and law in the matter of direct recruitment to the posts of Civil Judges. In substance, petitioners have sought striking down the provision under Sl.No.3, Rule 4 of the Karnataka Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004, as inserted by the Karnataka Judicial Service (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2011, (for short "Rules, 2011"), framed by the Governor of Karnataka in exercise of powers conferred by Articles 233 and 234 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have also sought incidental reliefs.
2. Petitioners in W.P.No.6380/2012 and W.P.Nos.11611-11621/2012 are working as Additional Public Prosecutors-cum-Additional Government Pleaders, having been recruited by the Government of Karnataka. Petitioner in W.P.No.18428/2012, a law graduate and enrolled as an advocate in the Karnataka State Bar Council, having been recruited as FDA in the Revenue Department of Government of Karnataka has joined Karnataka Government service. Petitioners in W.P.38597-38600/2011, being law graduates, after enrolling as advocates in the Karnataka State Bar Council, are now working as Junior Law Officers in Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike as its servants.
3. On 6.8.2011, High Court of Karnataka, invited applications for recruitment to 152 posts of "Civil Judge (the then Civil Judge) (Jr.Dn.)". A Notification bearing No.CJRC 1/2010, Bangalore, dated the 6th August, 2011 was published in the Karnataka Gazette. The qualification prescribed for direct recruitment is that the candidate must be holder of a degree in law and must have been enrolled as an advocate. For recruitment of in-service candidates, the minimum qualification prescribed is degree in law granted by a University and the candidate as on the last date fixed for receipt of applications, must not have crossed 43 years of age in case of he/she belonging to SC/ST and 40 years of age in case of others. It was made clear as per "Sl.No.B(3)-Recruitment of in-service candidates" of the said Notification that, no officer/official in service shall be eligible for appointment as Civil Judge unless he/she is working in the High Court and Courts subordinate to the High Court.
4. Petitioners possessing law degree and having enrolled as advocates, sent their applications as 'in-service candidates'. While scruitinising the applications, it was noticed that the petitioners are not working in the High Court and Courts subordinate to the High Court and hence, the petitioners' applications were rejected i.e., on the ground that they fall outside the condition under the heading "B- Recruitment of in-service candidates" of the said Notification. Assailing the validity of Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 4 of the Karnataka Judicial Service (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2011 and also the aforesaid clause in the recruitment Notification, these writ petitions have been filed.
5. Statement of objections has been filed by the respondents in justification of the impugned Rule, the condition in the recruitment notification and also the decision taken by the Recruitment Committee to reject the applications of the petitioners. It has been stated that the impugned Rule is valid and consequently, the impugned condition in the recruitment Notification is also valid and since the petitioners do not fall within the meaning of 'service' defined under R.2(f) of the Rules, they are not entitled to participate in the recruitment process undertaken as per the Recruitment Notification dated 6.8.2011.
6. Having perused the writ petitions and the counters filed, it is apparent that the dispute is as to the validity of the provision under heading "B - Recruitment of in-service candidates". The said Rule reads as follows:
"B - Recruitment of in-service candidates":-
(1).......................
(2)......................
(3) "No officer/official in service shall be eligible for appointment as Civil Judge unless he/she is working in the High Court and Courts subordinate to the High Court
