HALEEMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) on probation as per Government Notification No. LAW 225 LAC 98, dated 02.07.1999 and she joined service on 26.07.1999. On the issue of rural weightate, she was relieved of the post. However, Government having taken a policy decision of absorption of the persons appointed under the rural weightage, by virtue of Karnataka Civil Services (Absorption of the persons appointed to the State Civil Services with the benefit of Rural Weightage) (Special) Rules, 2003 (for short, 'the Absorption Rules '), petitioner was appointed as Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) in the Karnataka Judicial Service as per Government Notification No. LAW 175 LAC 2005 dated 17.11.2005 and was posted to take charge as II Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC -II Court, Gulbarga.

(2.) IN this writ petition the grievance of the petitioner is that though she performed the duty diligently, honestly and sincerely and there was no notice of any query or inquiry, her absorption into service being not as a fresh candidate, she having rendered more than seven years of service, her discharge from service by the respondents, in exercise of the power under Rule 6(1) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977 (for short, 'the Probation Rules ') as per the Notification bearing No. LAW 113 LAC 2008, dated 15.05.2008 vide Annexure -B is arbitrary and illegal.

(3.) SMT . Rafeeunisa, learned HCGP, on the other hand contended that there cannot be a deemed confirmation and the High Court in exercise of its power of superintendence as well as the Government Rules, found the petitioner to be unsuitable for retention in service. She submitted that the discharge of probationer on the ground of unsuitability cannot be termed as punitive and the respondents were not required to issue a notice or grant any opportunity of hearing in the matter of discharge during probation period. She further submitted that the petitioner has rightly been discharged from the service by issue of the Notification, as at Annexure -B and the said action being not stigmatic, no interference in the matter is called for.