M N DODDAMANI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other order or direction, directing the respondents to include his name at an appropriate place in the cadre of Civil Judges and Chief Judicial Magistrates, and further to direct respondent-1 i.e., the State of Karnataka, to consider his case for promotion to the category of District Judges in the State Judicial Service.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner joined judicial service as a clerk in the year 1948 in the erstwhile State of Bombay. Consequent on the reorganisation of States, he was allotted to the State of Mysore (now Karnataka). He was selected and appointed as Munsiff in the State Judicial Service in the year 1964. He was promoted to the post of Civil Judge in the year 1974 on the basis of seniority. When the petitioner was working as an additional Civil Judge at Shimoga in the year 1976, on the recommendation of the High Court, he was compulsorily retired from the judicial service in accordance with Note-1 to Rule 285 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules 1958 (Rules). On April 13, 1976 the petitioner made a representation to the High Court and the Government seeking review of the said order of compulsory retirement. Upon consideration of the said representation and upon the undertaking given by the petitioner on some conditions, the High Court 'agreed for his reinstatement on certain terms. Thereupon, the Government by order dated June 26, 1979, reinstated the petitioner as Civil Judge and thereby confirmed his re-employment as Special Officer and Ex-Officio Deputy Secretary to Government (Legal Aid Cell), Department of Law and Parliamentary Affairs, with effect from the date of his compulsory retirement i.e., March 25, 1976. His period of absence was treated as leave without pay and he was treated to be as on duty. Further, the petitioner was granted all consequential benefits including payment of back salary to him. This appointment and payment of salary were all without reference or concurrence of the High Court. Upon reinstatement the High Court treated the petitioner as in judicial service. That is the only bone of contention in this writ petition.,

(3.) Mr. Dayananda Karanth, learned counsel for the petitioner urged before us mainly two grounds: (i) that the petitioner having been reinstated as Civil Judge, his name cannot be excluded from the Civil list of the judicial officers of the cadre of Civil list of the judicial officers of the cadre of Civil Judges and Chief Judicial Magistrates, and (2) that once the petitioner has been reinstated as Civil Judge, by the State Government, his lien continues in the cadre of judicial officers, which cannot be discontinued unless he is absorbed in a substantive post in any other department.