K BASAVARAJA Vs. REGISTRAR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a practising Advocate. According to the petitioner, he belongs to Lingayath community which is a Backward Community eligible for reservation under category III (B) as per Government Order No. SWD 126 BCA 2002 dated 13-2-2003. He also claims that he is entitled to the benefit of reservation available to rural Candidates as he had completed his education up to S. S. L. C. in a rural area. He further claims that he is also entitled to claim the benefit of reservation available to candidates who have completed their education in Kannada medium.

(2.) THE respondent-Registrar General, High court of Karnataka issued Annexure-F notification dated 1st April, 2006 inviting applications for direct recruitment to 232 posts of civil Judges (Junior Division ). According to annexure-F Notification, the applicant must be holder of a Degree in Law granted by a university established by law in India and must have been enrolled as an Advocate. As on the last date fixed for receipt of applications i. e. 15-5-2006, the applicant must not have completed the age of 38 years in the case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and 35 years in the case of others. The selection of candidates will be on the basis of aggregate marks obtained in a competitive Examination consisting of written Test and Vi va-Voce conducted by the High court. Only candidates who have secured specified minimum marks in the Written Test will be eligible for Viva-Voce.

(3.) AS on 15-5-2006 i. e. the last date for receipt of applications, the petitioner had completed 35 years of age. According to the petitioner, he was aged 36 years 6 months and 10 days. Hence as per Annexure-F Notification, the petitioner was not eligible to apply for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division ). Contending that the maximum age prescribed in annexure-F Notification was in violation of rule-6 (2) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 6607/2006 challenging the Notification. On the basis of an interim order passed in the writ petition, the petitioner was allowed to appear in the written Test on a provisional basis and subject to further orders in the writ petition. Since the petitioner did not obtain the minimum marks in Translation Paper in the Written Test, he was not eligible for Viva-Voce. When the government Advocate submitted in Court that the petitioner did not pass in the Written Test and qualify for viva voce, writ Petition No. 6607/2006 was dismissed.