IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 46965 OF 2011 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. RAMESH S/O. SHANKARRAO DODDAMANI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, CIVIL JUDGE (JR DN), OOD, LEAVE RESERVE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE, R/O. C/O. PRANESH V. KULKARNI, “PADMASHREE”, PLOT NO.2302, VANISHREE NAGAR, SATTUR, DHARWAD-580 009.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANANT P.SAVADI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (ADMN-1), DEPARTMENT OF LAW, JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS, MA NJANNA VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.

E

2. THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed by BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANJANNA E REGISTRAR GENERAL, Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE.

DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.18

10:31:33 +0530 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1;

SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTIO OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.12.2010 MADE IN GOVERNMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT HEREIN BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS & OPPOSED TO LAW, EQUITY AND JUSTICE (ANNEXURE-W), AND EXTEND ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL SERVICE BENEFITS AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has called in question the Government order dated 31.12.2010, whereby, the petitioner, Civil Judge (Junior Division), was discharged from service in exercise of the powers under Rule 5(1)(b) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977 (‘Rules’ for short).

2. The petitioner entered the Karnataka Judicial Service pursuant to a selection process and joined as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the year 1991, subject to probation under the Rules. Owing to non-passing of the Kannada language examination, an order of discharge came to be passed in the year 1998. The said order was challenged and Division Bench of this Court set aside the discharge, holding that the termination was attributable only to non-passing of the language examination not on grounds of merit or integrity.

3. Consequently, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 01.04.2005. However, he continued to be on probation, and his suitability for confirmation was required to be assessed afresh.

4. During the reinstatement period, the petitioner worked at different stations. His performance was assessed through “Annual Confidential Reports” (ACR), disposal statement and other administrative inputs. The petitioner was not confirmed in service. His case was placed before the administrative Committee-III of the High Court, which examined the entire service records and opined that the petitioner was not suitable for confirmation. The recommendation of the administrative Committee was thereafter placed before the Full Court, which, in its meeting dated 08.10.2010, approved the recommendation. Based on the approval of the Full Court, the State Government issued the impugned Government order dated 31.12.2010, discharging the petitioner from service. Aggrieved, the present writ petition has filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that:

i. In substance that the petitioner was kept on probation for inordinately long period, which is impermissible in law.

ii. The impugned discharge, though coached as a probationary discharge, is punitive in substance, being founded on adverse material.

iii. The confidential reports relied upon was never communicated, rendering the action arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.

iv. The earlier Division Bench judgment reinstating the petitioner precluded the respondents from reassessing his suitability.

v. The action violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

6. Reliance is placed on the following decisions:

i. Anoop Jaiswal Vs. Government of India and Others, (1984) 2 SCC 369 (Anoop Jaiswal)

ii. Dipti Prakas