SHIVAPPA ALAGAWADI Vs. REGISTRAR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are Ex-Servicemen. They applied for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in response to annexure-J, Notification, dated 1st April, 2006. Though they appeared in the written examination, they could not secure the minimum marks required under Rule 5 (II) (l) (axc ). The petitioners do not belong to scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes and hence they were required to secure at least 40 marks in each paper in the written examination. Admittedly, the petitioners did not secure 40 marks in each paper of the written examination and hence they were not called for viva voce. The petitioners claim to have submitted Annexures-G and H representations to the 1st respondent praying that they may be called for viva voce. Since there is no favourable reply to the said representations, they have filed the present writ petition praying for a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Annexures-G and H representations and to call them for viva voce.

(2.) THE petitioners rely on Rule 11 (1) of the Karnataka Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 to support their contention that they are entitled to relaxation in the matter of minimum marks. The contention is that the provisions of Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 apply to the recruitment of the Civil Judges (Junior Division) and that according to sub-rule (4) of Rule 3a of the Karnataka Civil Services (General recruitment) Rules, 1977, for appointment to direct recruitment vacancy reserved for Ex-servicemen, if sufficient number of candidates belonging to the category of Ex-servicemen are not available on the basis of general" standards to fill all such vacancies reserved for them, candidates belonging to such category may be selected under relaxed standards of selection to make up the deficiency in the reserved quota subject to the condition that such relaxation will not affect the level of performance by such candidates. According to the petitioners, in view of the provisions contained in Rule 11 (1) of the Karnataka Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 read with sub-rule (4) of Rule 3-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (General recruitment) Rules, 1977, the 1st respondent should fix relaxed standards of selection for the Ex-servicemen like the petitioners.

(3.) FIRST of all, sub-rule (4) of Rule 3-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 is not applicable to the selection of civil Judges (Junior Division), As per Rule 11 (1) of the Karnataka Judicial service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004, subject to Articles 233, 234 and 235 of the Constitution of India, provisions of Rules 5, 6 (2), 6 (3), 8, 9 and 10 to 13 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 shall, inso far as they are not inconsistent with the Judicial Recruitment Rules, mutatis mutandis apply to recruitment of District Judges, Civil Judges (Senior Division) and Civil Judges (Junior Division) under the Judicial recruitment Rules. Hence Rule 11 (1) of the Karnataka Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 does not make Rule 3a of the Karnataka Civil services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 applicable to the recruitment of Civil Judges (Junior Division ). Secondly, sub-rule (4) of Rule 3a of the karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 is attracted only when sufficient number of candidates belonging to the category of ex-servicemen are not available on the basis of general standards to fill all such vacancies reserved for them. The petitioners have not placed on record any material to show that sufficient number of candidates belonging to the category of Ex-servicemen are not available for appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division ). Hence the claim of the petitioners in annexures-G and H representations is totally without any legal or factual basis. When there is no legal and factual basis for the claim in Annexures-G and H representations, there is no purpose in directing the 1st respondent to consider Annexures-G and H representations and to call the petitioners for viva voce as prayed in the writ petition. Hence the writ petition is dismissed.