The Chief Justice possesses the inherent prerogative power under Article 229(2) and the Service Rules to interpret recruitment provisions in the absence of explicit clarity in the rules, and such administrative interpretations fixing quota ratios based on cadre strength rather than vacancy-basis are legally sustainable.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M. NADAF)

The High Court of Karnataka represented by the Registrar General is before us in this appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 challenging the order dated 11.03.2026 passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.34531/2025. The Writ Court under the impugned order allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the impugned Endorsement dated 25.04.2025 (Annexure-A).

2.

The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Writ Court.

3.

Facts germane to file this appeal are as under:

4.

The petitioners were before the Writ Court seeking following reliefs:

a) “Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing Intimation bearing No.HCE 873/2013 (SO & CO) dated 25.04.2025, issued by teh Respondent as being arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the High Court of Karnataka Service (Conditions of Service and Recruitment) Rules, 1973 (Annexure-’A').

b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the Respondent to consider afresh the Representations preferred by the Court Officers on 30.10.2014, 04.03.2020, 24.01.2022, and 20.06.2023, by granting the Petitioners an opportunity of being heard and thereby pass appropriate Orders (Annexures ‘D1’ to ‘D4’); and;

c) Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice and equity.”

5.

The case of the petitioners before the Writ Court is as under:

i) The petitioners are permanent employees of the High Court of Karnataka, working as Court Officers. Their service conditions including promotion to the Cadre of Assistant Registrar and other avenues are governed by the High Court of Karnataka Service (Condition of Service and Recruitment) Rules 1973¹1 for short, '1973 Rules', framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice exercising power under Article 229(2) of the Constitution of India.

ii) It appears that some Court Officers and Assistant Court Officers of this Court have made certain representations to the Registry seeking up-gradation of their pay scale on par with Assistant Registrar and re-designation of their posts as Court Masters. They further sought the pay scale of Assistant Court Officers to the next higher level by re-designating the Assistant Court Masters. Similar sets of representations were submitted on 04.03.2020, 24.01.2022, 20.06.2023 and 06.08.2024 (Annexures-D2, D3, D4 & E). The representations were placed before the High Court Staff Committee for consideration constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The Committee after deliberations found that the working strength of Assisted Registrar is 53 and the working strength of Section Officers is 152 and the Court Officers is 68. In terms of Schedule III of 1973 Rules, the ratio 2:1, is to be maintained in the cadre strength by promotion as Assistant Registrar is 35 from the cadre of Section Officer and 18 from the cadre of Court Officer. However, having found that 22 Court Officers have been promoted as Assistant Registrar as against 31 Section Officers. As stated above, the ratio which should have been maintained is 35:18 since excess Court Officers have been promoted to the post of Assistant Registrar there is a shortfall of 04 promotional avenues from the cadre of Section Officers to the post of Assistant Registrars. In that view of the matter, the Committee after deliberations and having found excess, considered that as and when vacancies arises, the same should be filled first by the Section Officers on the maintained ratio as provided under Schedul