PAVANESH D. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, petitioners claim to be working as District and Sessions Judges, having appointed on 1/2/2016 by Direct Recruitment, in terms of Article 233 of the Constitution of India, have challenged the Final Seniority list of District Judges (Annexure-A), issued by the respondent No.3; inter-alia sought for direction to the respondent No.3 to prepare and publish the seniority list in accordance with law.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case are that, the petitioners are the District and Sessions Judges appointed on 1/2/2016 as per Article 233 of the Constitution of India. It is the case of the petitioners that, the Governor of Karnataka in consultation with Karnataka Public Service Commission and High Court of Karnataka promulgated Rules called as Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1983 as per Article 233 and 234 read with Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The said rules was notified as "Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1983" (for short, hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1983). Rule-2 of the said Rules read with Schedule provides for appointment of District Judges. The method of recruitment to the post of District Judges in the quota of two-third by way of promotion and one-third by way of Direct Recruitment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (2002) 4 SCC 247 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS-2002) revised the method of recruitment of District Judges, 50% by promotion from the cadre of Senior Civil Judges on the basis of principle of merit-cum-seniority, 25% by way promotion on the basis of merit through limited competitive examination of Civil Judges (Senior Division), provided candidates have completed five years qualifying service and remaining 25% to be filled up thorough Direct Recruitment. Pursuant to the aforementioned judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, "Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 was promulgated prescribing 50% by way of promotion, 25% by way of promotion through limited competitive examination and remaining 25% by way of Direct Recruitment. In the meanwhile, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (2010) 15 SCC 170 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS- 2010') revised the method of recruitment by 25% by way of Direct Recruitment, 65% by way of promotion from the cadre of Senior Civil Judges and 10% by way of promotion through competitive examination. Following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2011 was brought into force, insofar as recruitment to the post of District Judges is concerned.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioners that, on 14/9/2012, the respondent No.3 published the Final Seniority List in the cadre of District Judges, promoting the Ad-hoc District Judges/Fast Track Court Judges, who were appointed during 2003 and regularized in 2009 and they were placed above the District Judges who were appointed during the year-2008. The said Seniority List dtd. 14/9/2012 was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.41684-91 of 2012 and the said writ petition was allowed on 27/9/2013 (See. ILR 2013 KAR 5650), whereby, direction was issued to re-fix the interse seniority of Direct Recruitees and Promotees in accordance with law. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.3 herein has filed Writ Appeal No.6514 of 2013 and connected matters and the Division Bench of this Court, by order dtd. 3/4/2014 (Annexure-B) (See. ILR 2014 Kar 3571) allowed the writ appeal and set-aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Pursuant to the direction issued by the Division Bench, by order dtd. 3/4/2004 in Writ Appeal No.6514 of 2013 and connected matters, the respondent No.3 published a fresh Provisional Seniority List in the cadre of District Judges on 24/7/2014 (Annexure-C). Thereafter, the Government, by Notification dtd. 26/3/2015, passed the Final Seniority List, promoting the respondents 13 to 47 as District Judges from the cadre of Senior Civil Judges with effect from 1/4/2015. It is the grievance of petitioners that, there was no vacancy available to promote the contesting private respondents under the promotional quota and the said promotion granted to them is in excess of 65% quota meant for promotees as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS-2010 (supra). In the meanwhile, the recruitment process was initiated for selection of District Judges by way of Direct Recruitment and Final Selection List was published on 7/12/2015 and the petitioners were appointed as District Judges in terms of the selection process as per Notification dtd. 21/1/2016 (Annexure-D). It is further stated that, the probationary period of the petitioners have been declared on 1/10/2019 (Annexure-E). It is the grievance of the petitioners that, the impugned Final Seniority list (Annexure-A) was published without publishing the provisional list, for the period insofar as the District Judges appointed/promoted from 3/1/2014 to 26/4/2016. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have presented representation to the respondent No.3 on 11/8/2016, seeking assigning appropriate ranking in the Final Seniority list (Annexure-F). In furtherance of the same, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice was pleased to constitute a Committee on the administrative side to consider the grievance of petitioners and personal hearing was extended to the petitioners and respondents. It is contended by the petitioners that, no decision is taken on the representations of the petitioners till date and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have presented this writ petition.