Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ASHOK S.KINAGI
Devanand Puttappa Nayak – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka Represented By Principal Secretary Revenue Department – Respondent
ORDER :
ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.
1. The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking following prayer:
"To issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ/s directing the respondents to frame appropriate regulations or guidelines for the selection and appointment to the posts of Chairperson, Judicial Member And Revenue Member of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Courts, Bengaluru."
2. The brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ petition are as follow:
3. The petitioner is challenging the arbitrary and non- transparent selection process adopted by the State of Karnataka for appointment to the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court, Bengaluru. The petitioner, a retired District Judge seeks a direction to the respondents to frame appropriate regulations or guidelines for selection and appointments to the post of Chairperson, Judicial Member, and Revenue Member of the said Special Court. The petitioner retired as a second Additional District Concession Judge in March 2023 after an unblemished service record. Following vacancies in the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Code, the Government of Karnataka issued Public Notices on 16.07.2025. Calling
The absence of a defined selection process for judicial appointments undermines fairness and violates constitutional rights to equality and transparency in public employment.
(1) Appointments cannot be made over and above clear and anticipated vacancies which have been advertised even though Public Service Commission may have prepared a longer merit list than it was requi....
The main legal point established is that the reservation policy does not apply to the appointment of Law Officers by the government, as their appointment is not a civil post and the relationship betw....
Appointments must comply with statutory recruitment rules and uphold constitutional rights to equality and opportunity.
The Rules of 2020 were arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as they did not provide for a uniform pattern and transparency in selection, did not prescribe ....
Eligibility criteria for recruitment cannot be altered after the process has commenced, ensuring fairness and adherence to constitutional principles.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
