D. SHIVU Vs. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of the learned Single Judge dated 4-9-2013 in W.P. Nos. 27832 to 27837 of 2013 (S-RES) (Chandrakala B. and Others v. High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore and Another, 2013 6 KarLJ 97) and other connected writ petitions are assailed in these appeals. These matters pertain to the recruitment of Civil Judges (Junior Division) pursuant to notification dated 6-8-2011. The appellants who were the petitioners were unsuccessful in the written examination conducted for the purpose of recruitment of Civil Judges (Junior Division). The appellants had, along with other unsuccessful candidates had inter alia sought a declaration that the holding of viva voce for the selection of post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) without permitting the candidates to peruse their answer scripts was unjust and arbitrary. The petitioners had also sought a direction to the respondents to furnish to them the answer scripts and for re-valuation of the answer papers in the subjects in which they had failed. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions. Against that order these appeals have been filed. Briefly stated, the facts are that the respondents had issued a notification dated 6-8-2011 inviting applications from eligible candidates, in order to fill up 152 posts of Civil Judges (Junior Division). The method of selection was by way of a preliminary examination followed by a written examination and thereafter by conducting viva voce. The appellants had submitted their applications and they appeared for the preliminary examination held on 8-12-2012. Being successful in the preliminary examination, they appeared for the written examination on 13-4-2013 and 14-4-2013. The candidates eligible for viva voce were notified on the website on 10-6-2013. These appellants found that they were not eligible for viva voce test. Under these circumstances, they sought for their answer scripts to be furnished to them and for re-valuation of their scripts.

(2.) Statement of objections was filed on behalf of the respondents contending that there was no lapse or illegality in the selection process. That the Rules did not provide for re-totalling or providing photocopies of the answer scripts or re-valuation. During the pendency of the writ petitions, on the basis of the submissions made on behalf of the second respondent re-totalling of the answer scripts was permitted. Thus, the candidates who applied for re-totalling of the marks, were issued endorsements after the re-totalling process was conducted. These appellants had sought for photocopies of their answer scripts. But their applications were rejected, against which appeals have been filed before the Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and they are pending consideration. In fact, during the pendency of the writ petitions, it was stated on behalf of the respondents that the answer scripts would be shown to the petitioners' Counsel in case they were willing to approach the second respondent (Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka) in that regard. As far as re-valuation of the answer scripts were concerned, learned Single Judge rejected that prayer by holding that the Karnataka Judicial Service (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2011 do not provide for the same. Also there was no allegation of any mala fides, illegality or irregularity in the matter of valuation of the answer scripts. Accordingly, writ petitions were dismissed. Assailing that order, these appeals have been filed.

(3.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the material on record as well as the citations referred to by him.