T N MANJULA DEVI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are Advocates practicing at Bangalore. They applied for the posts of Munsiffs in the subordinate/ judicial service the selection of which was regulated by the Karnataka Munsiffs (Special Recruitment) Rules, 1978 (called shortly as "the Rules"). In the selection made by a Committee constituted for the purpose, respondents 4 to 57 were selecced as Munsiffs, but not the petitioners. The petitioners have challenged the legality of of the selection of the said respondents and also the validity of the Rules.

(2.) The circumstances that led to the promulgation of the Rules may now briefly be stated: Art. 234 of the Constitution provides for recruitment of the members of the judicial service of the State, other than District Judges. It states that appointments of persons other than District Judges to the judicial service of a State shall be made by the Governor of the State in accordance with the rules made by him in that behalf after consultation with, the State Public Service Commission and with the High Court. The Governor in exercise of the powers conferred by this article, made the rules called "the Karnataka Munsiffs (Recruitment) Rules, 1975". Under these rules, the candidates have to be selected by the Karnataka Public Service Commission on the basis of the marks secured in the written examination and also at viva voce examination. As per those rules, the Public Service Commission was selecting candidates from time to time. But that selection did not meet the recruitments of the judiciary. In 1976, hardly 5 candidates were selected as against a large number of vacancies. The result was that as many as sixty post in the cadre of Munsiffs had to be kept vacant for want of Presiding Officers. The situation at one stage became almost alarming causing great in convenience to the litigant public and threatening the very existence of those lawyers who were exclusively practising in such Courts. The Law Commission of India after noticing this stale of affairs said in its seventy seventh report on "delay and Arrears in Trial Courts" as follows: (at para 9.11)

(3.) The questions that arise in these petitions can best be understood if the Rules are first set out hereunder: