R JAGANNATHA Vs. HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first petitioner enrolled as an Advocate on 4th June 1983 is practising at Tumkur Bar and he has completed seven years of practice and he is fully eligible for being appointed as District judge. He claims that he belongs to backward community (Vokkaliga by caste) as prescribed in the relevant Government Order. The second petitioner also is a practising Advocate enrolled himself on 28th November, 1984, practising at Tumkur Bar. He has also completed seven years of practice and is eligible for being appointed to the post of District Judge. He belongs to scheduled Caste (Adi Karnataka ). He has produced the caste certificate evidencing the same.

(2.) THE High Court issued notification dated 19. 12. 1996 inviting applications from eligible canditates to fill up 10 posts of District Judges by direct recruitment, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-C. The main ground on which these notifications are challenged is that the notification issued by the High Court is not in conformity with the Government Order dated 20. 06. 1995, and it is contrary to Article 16 (4) of the Constitution of India. The said notification did not disclose the number of post reserved to Scheduled Caste, Schedule Tribe and other backward Class as per the reservation policy of the Government. As against total number of candidates of 406 only 168 candidates were invited for interview and therefore the selection process is not transparent. Though seats were reserved for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and other Backward Classes, not even a single candidate from OBC/sc/st are recruited and recommended for the High Court for the reasons best known to them. The notification does not contemplate written test. The candidates were to undergo only viva voce test. The introduction of written test is not proper and legal. When the same is not mentioned in the notification and it was introduced in the middle of the process of selection, the notification and the selection conducted in pursuance of the said notification are illegal, arbitrary and vexatious and vitiates the constitutional provisions. Though the first petitioner belongs to OBC group he could not seek reservation in recruitment as advertisement does not disclose number of posts reserved for OBC and other groups. More over the advertisement did not even seek any details and certificates regarding their caste/ groups, consequently, the petitioner has been denied the opportunity of appointment. The respondents have denied the second petitioner a post though totally two posts were to be filled by the Scheduled Caste candidates. As the petitioners had faired very well and they are not selected, their valuable right is affected by these illegal process and therefore, they are seeking quashing of the notification.

(3.) WHEN the petitioners filed writ petition on 16. 06. 1998 challenging the notification the State government issued notification dated 16. 06. 1998 itself appointing 8 District Judges and the High court on the same day issued a notification in haste and hurry posting the District Judges to various places. Therefore, the petitioners withdrew the said writ petitions with liberty to file fresh petitions. Permission was granted by the High Court for withdrawal on 01. 07. 1998. As the writ petitions challenging the validity of the appointment of Districts Judge filed in the year 1991 and 1996 were pending, the petitioners felt it is better to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Hence, they filed the the writ petition before the Supreme Court. After hearing all the parties concerned, the Supreme Court rejected the writ petition directing the petitioners to approach the High Court of Karnataka for exhausting the remedy there. The said order came to be passed on 18. 12. 1998. Immediately thereafter, they have filed the present writ petition.