C CHANNE GOWDA Vs. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two petitioners herein, who are working as Court officers on the establishment of the 1st respondent, being aggrieved by the notification dated 2/5.9.2003 issued by the 1sl respondent in so far as it promotes Respondents 2 and 3 as Assistant Registrars ignoring the seniority of the petitioners, have presented these two Writ Petitions. Since common questions of law and facts are involved and the relief sought by the petitioners is against a single notification, these two Writ Petitions filed by the two different petitioners are conveniently dealt with together and they are accordingly disposed of by this common order.

(2.) IN exercise of the powers conferred by Article 229(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka with the approval of the Governor of Karnataka has made the High Court of Karnataka Service (Conditions of Service and Recruitment) Rules, 1973 and it is these rules that govern appointments and promotions of employees on the establishment of the 1st respondent. Rule -7 prescribes that recruitment to a post or class of posts shall be made as enumerated in Schedule III to the Rules. Item 6 of Schedule III lays down the method of recruitment for the post of Assistant Registrars and the said method of recruitment reads as under:

(3.) THUS the petitioners are seniors to respondents 2 and 3. Six posts of Assistant Registrars became vacant and these posts were required to be filled by promotion from the cadres of Senior Judgment Writers, Court Officers and Section Officers as per the ratio prescribed in the rules. Two out of six vacancies were to be filled by promotion from the cadre of Court Officers. The petitioners are senior most in the cadre of Court Officers and they do not have any adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Reports. What was required under the rule was consideration of the cases of Court Officers for promotion strictly in accordance with seniority and promote them in accordance with their seniority subject only to the condition that there are no adverse remarks in the last 3 annual Confidential Reports of the concerned Court Officers. Instead of following the rule, which is being consistently followed in respect of every other cadre required to be filled up by promotion on the basis of seniority -cum -efficiency, the 1st respondent by a memo dated 28.8.2003, copy of which is produced as Annexure A, called 10 Senior Judgment Writers, 8 Court Officers and 5 Section Officers for interview before the Hon'ble Chief Justice. Pursuant to the said memo, the petitioners as also the respondents 2 and 3 appeared before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for interview on 2.9.2003. The memo neither stated the number of posts for which the promotions were being considered, nor it stated any rule under which interview was being conducted. However, having regard to the implicit obedience that is expected of the employees in the Judiciary, the petitioners had no choice but to appear for the interview and they appeared for the interview accordingly. Thereafter by a notification dated 2nd September 2003, actually issued on 5.9.2003, original of which is produced an Annexure -B, it has been notified that the Hon'ble Chief Justice is pleased to select and promote temporarily the following officers of this Office as Assistant Registrars (Group -A) in the grade of Rs. 7,400 -200 -8800 -260 -10,880 -320 -13,120 with immediate effect. By the said notification, the respondents 2 and 3 are promoted against the quota reserved for Court Officers and the petitioners who are seniors to them have been denied promotion. On noticing that the petitioners have been denied promotion and their juniors have been promoted, the petitioners made a representation dated 8.3.2003, copy of which is produced as Annexure -C, which is yet to be replied. The Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioners are definitely better or equal to that of the respondents 2 and 3 and therefore the petitioners who are seniors are entitled to be preferred for promotion. Wherever a post is required to be filled by selection, Schedule III to the Rules clearly states so, as could be seen from the posts of Registrar (Administration) and Deputy Registrars. In respect of these posts, the method of recruitment clearly states 'by promotion by selection'. In respect of lower posts such as Assistant Registrars, Court Officers, Senior Assistants, Assistant Court Officers etc., schedule III prescribes the method of recruitment as by promotion on the basis of seniority -cum -efficiency. At all points of time, in respect of every cadre, for which the method of recruitment is promotion on the basis of seniority -cum -efficiency, promotion has strictly been made in accordance with the seniority subject to the absence of adverse remarks in the immediate 3 preceding annual confidential reports. There is no question of applying the norm of selection to these posts as is clear from the language of the rule and this has been correctly understood and followed by the 1st respondent all along. At no point of time, any adverse remark has been communicated to the petitioners and they have maintained a blemishless service record. On these and other averments made in the Writ Petitions, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs: