STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 28th March 2001 made in Writ Petition No. 13072 of 1998 by the learned Single Judge of this Court allowing the Writ Petition filed by the respondent challenging the validity of notification dated 13th March 1998, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-E to this appeal passed by the 1st appellant-State discharging him from service during the period of his probation and quashing the said notification.

(2.) THE facts in brief are as follows: the respondent was appointed by the 1st appellant-State Government (hereinafter referred to as the State) as a Civil Judge (Junior Division) by means of notification dated 25th June 1991 issued by the State. Immediately after his appointment, he had reported to duty on 15th July 1991. He also underwent training for two months organised by the 2nd appellant-High Court. The appointing authority of the respondent is the State Government. The period of probation prescribed to a Civil Judge (Junior Division) is two years under the Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to a 'the Recruitment Rules' ). As per the terms and conditions of his recruitment, the respondent was required to pass the Kannada Language examination conducted by the Karnataka Public Service Commission in accordance with the karnataka Civil Services (Service and Kannada Language Examinations) Rules, 1974. The administrative Committee No. III of the High Court while considering the question as to whether the respondent should be declared as having satisfactorily completed the period of probation resolved to recommend to the Full Court of the High Court that he may be discharged from service on the ground that he had not passed the Kannada Language examination by means of its resolution dated 20th August 1997. It is useful to extract the said resolution which reads as hereunder:

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order of discharge-Annexure-E, the respondent filed the Writ Petition challenging the validity of the said Notification. The appellants having been served with the notice of the Writ Petition filed their statement of objections. The substantial contention raised in the statement of objections is that since the performance of the respondent in the discharge of his duties was poor, his service came to be discharged. At paragraph 6 of the statement of objections it was further contended that merely because the respondent had passed the Kannada Language examination and had completed the training he was not entitled for a declaration that his performance was satisfactory so as to enable him to hold the post in a substantive capacity. It is useful to refer to the relevant portion of the statement made in paragraph 6 of the statement of objections which reads as hereunder: