Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 25124
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
ANU SIVARAMAN, MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K, JJ
THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA – Appellant
Versus
SRI. PAVANESH D.S/O LATE SURESH D. – Respondent
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1006 OF 2023 (S-RES) | WRIT APPEAL NO. 1162 OF 2023 (S-RES) | WRIT APPEAL NO. 1312 OF 2023 (S-RES) | W.P. No.4046/2020 (S-RES)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. S.S. NAGANAND, SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, SRI. M.A. APPAIAH, SRI. YESHU MISHRA, SRI. ADITHYA SONDHI, SRI. N.B.N. SWAMY, SRI. K. SHASHIKANTH PRASAD, SRI. G. N. NANJUNDAIAH, SRI. R. BOPPAPPA
For the Respondents: SRI. M.S. BHAGWAT, SRI. GAURAV AGARWAL, SRI. PRADEEP C.S., SRI. M.A. APPAIAH, SRI. ADITHYA SONDHI, SRI. N.B.N. SWAMY
Judicial officers' seniority must be determined based on their substantive appointment dates, not previous adhoc positions, in accordance with prescribed quotas.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1983 and 2004 - Seniority of District Judges - Writ appeals challenging the quashing of Final Seniority List of District Judges and directed to publish afresh according to law in light of uniform quota principles - Direct recruits are entitled to seniority from the date of appointment, and not from prior adhoc appointments. (Paras 2, 6, 20, 60, 68, 106)
Facts of the case:
This appeal arises from the order dated 19.07.2023, where the single judge quashed the seniority list claiming promotion excesses and improper appointments of adhoc judges without following legal quotas. The appellant is the Registrar General of the High Court and the respondents are various District Judges.
Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge correctly identified that seniority cannot be assigned based on prior adhoc promotions, but from substantive appointments. Additionally, the promotions exceeded the allowable quotas.
Issues: The court addressed whether the assignments in the seniority list complied with the quota requirements for appointments and the legitimacy of capturing seniority from prior adhoc appointments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that seniority must be reckoned from appointment dates, following lawful quota rules for recruitment. Excess promotions contravened established parameters.
Result: Appeals dismissed; the prior order upheld. Fresh seniority list mandated incorporating legal recruitment principles.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the case and parties involved (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background leading to the appeals regarding seniority of district judges (Para 6 , 8 , 10) |
| 3. court's observations on procedural aspects and appeals (Para 18 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. legal principles governing seniority and recruitment quotas (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 41) |
| 5. final ruling affirming lower court's decision and directives for action (Para 57 , 59 , 80) |
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
These writ appeals arise from the order dated 19.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.4046/2020 (S-RES).
2. Writ Appeal No.1006/2023 is preferred by the Registrar General of the High Court of Karnataka (for brevity, "the High Court",) being aggrieved by the Order dated 19.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing Writ Petition No.4046/2020 filed by respondents No.1 to 4 (direct recruits) and quashing the Final Seniority List of District Judges published by the High Court during July 2016 (Annexure A to the writ petition) & 16.03.2022 (Annexure N to the writ petition) and further directing the High Court to publish the Seniority List of District Judges in accordance with law.
3. Writ Appeal No.1162/2023 and Writ Appeal No.1312/2023 are preferred by District Judges appointed by promotion against the very same impugned Order dated 19.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.4046/2020.
4. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties are referred to as per their rank in Writ Petition No.4046/2020.
5. We have heard Shri. S.S Naganand, learned senior counsel as instructed by Smt. Sumana Naganand, learned advocate appearing for the High Court and Shri. Pradeep C.S, learned Additional Advocate General along with Smt. Mamatha Shetty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State. Shri. Aditya Sondhi, learned senior counsel as instructed by Shri. Parashuram A.L., learned advocate; Shri M.S.Bhagwat, learned senior counsel as instructed by Smt. Sneha M. Bhagwat, learned advocate, Shri. Gaurav Agarwal, learned senior counsel as instructed by Smt. Urmila Pullat, learned advocate and Shri. M.A. Appaiah, Shri. Yeshu Mishra, Shri. Anoop Haranahalli, Shri. N.B.N. Swamy and Shri. K. Shashikanth Prasad, learned advocates appearing for the contesting parties.
6. The relevant facts leading to these appeals are as under:-
It is the case of the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge that they have been appointed as District Judges by way of direct recruitment on 01.02.2016. As per Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1983 (for brevity, "the 1983 Rules"), the posts of District Judges are to be filled in the quota of 2/3rd by way of promotion from the cadre of Senior Civil Judges and 1/3rd through direct recruitment. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION & OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS (2002) 4 SCC 247 and Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2004, the said quota stood revised to 50% by promotion from the cadre of Senior Civil Judges, 25% by way of promotion through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination ('LDCE' for short) of Senior Civil Judges having not less than 5 years qualifying service and 25% through direct recruitment. In view of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION & OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS (2010) 15 SCC 170, the said quota stood revised to 65% by promotion from the cadre of Senior Civil Judges, 10% by way of promotion through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination of Senior Civil Judges having not less than 5 years qualifying service and 25% through direct recruitment.
7. It is the further case of the petitioners that on 14.09.2012, the High Court published the Final Seniority List of District Judges, wherein adhoc District Judges/Fast Track Court Judges promoted during 2003-04 and regularized in 2009 were placed above the direct
