KHAZIA MOHAMMED MUZZAMMIL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed against the notification (Annexure-A) dated 24-3-2000 passed by the 1st respondent.

(2.) THE necessary facts are that the petitioner, under the provisions of rule 2 of the Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1983 (for short, 'the 1983 Rules'), was appointed as District Judge on 9-5-1996. He was posted as District Judge, Leave Reserve, High Court of Karnataka on 15-5-1996, on probation for a period of two years. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred as the 1st Additional City Civil and Sessions judge, Bangalore City by Notification No. GOB (I)4 (1)/1996, dated 20-5-1996. The petitioner worked for a period of 3 years 10 months and 10 days. However, the petitioner was discharged from his services, as he was unsuitable to hold the post of District Judge, vide Annexure-A. The same is challenged in this petition.

(3.) SRI KK. Mani for Sri Mohammed Usman Shaikh, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 6 (1) of the Kamataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977 (for short, 'the KCSRs') could not be invoked as the petitioner had completed the probationary period and he could not be discharged. He submits that the petitioner's case falls under Rule 7 of the KCSRs and without considering the same, the order at Annexure-A was passed and it is liable to be set aside. He relied on the Supreme court decision in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and another v S. Manjunath.