K PRAKASH Vs. REGISTRAR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a law graduate from the Bangalore university. He has filed this writ petition praying for a direction to the respondent-Registrar general, High Court of Karnataka to allow him to participate in the selection process for the post of Second Division Assistant in the High court as per notification dated 21-3-2006 (Annexure-A ).

(2.) THE High Court of Karnataka issued annexure-A notification dated 21-3-2006 inviting applications from qualified candidates for recruitment to 50 posts of Second Division Assistants. As per the notification, selection of candidates will be made in accordance with the High Court of Karnataka Service (Conditions of Service and Recruitment)Rules, 1973 and the High Court of Karnataka service (Direct Recruitment by Selection)Rules, 1984, as amended from time to time. The minimum qualification for the post is a degree of a recognised University with a minimum of 45 per cent marks in the aggregate for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and a minimum of 55 per cent, marks in aggregate for other candidates. Admittedly the petitioner has got only 52 per cent marks in the qualifying examination i. e. , LL. B. examination. However, the petitioner submitted his application pursuant to Annexure-A notification. As the petitioner does not possess the minimum qualification, he has not been called for interview. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner filed this writ petition.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the pay-scale of Second Division Assistant in the High court and the pay-scale of the Second Division Assistant in the State Government service are the same, but the minimum qualification for the post of Second Division Assistant in the High Court is a degree of a recognized University with a minimum of 55 per cent marks in aggregate for general candidates, whereas, the minimum qualification for the post of Second Division Assistant in the State government service is only S. S. L. C. It is contended that the prescription of such higher qualification for the post of Second Division assistant in the High Court is arbitrary and illegal. Another contention raised by the petitioner is that the Rules prescribe same minimum percentage of marks for the three year degree course and the five year degree course. According to the petitioner, the number of subjects prescribed for three years is 18 subjects and the number of subjects for five years is 33 subjects. Obviously the petitioner might be referring to LL. B. course. The contention is that since a student undergoing the five year course has to study 33 subjects and a student undergoing three years course has to study only 18 subjects, the percentage of marks obtained by the student undergoing five year course must be taken as the double of the actual percentage he obtained. It is contended that in that event, the aggregate marks of the petitioner would be 80 per cent. The third contention of the petitioner is that the selection is based on viva voce without conducting any written test and therefore, the method of selection is arbitrary and illegal.