J. LATHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though these matters are coming up in the 'Orders' list, with the consent of the learned counsel on both the sides these matters are heard and disposed of finally.

(2.) The petitioners are working as First Division Assistants in the Subordinate Courts in Mysuru District. It is contended that the petitioners are at the fag-end of their services and they are fully eligible and qualified for being appointed as Sheristedars, on promotion. The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned orders at Annexures-A and B passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru. Annexure-A is the order passed by the Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, transferring 51 Sheristedars to various districts, on their own requests. The contention of the petitioners is that their promotional avenues in Mysuru district, for the posts of Sheristedars will be affected by virtue of the transfer of the Sheristedars from other districts to Mysuru district. Annexure-B is the order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, pursuant to the order at Annexure-A, assigning them the posts at Mysuru District.

(3.) Sri A.S. Ponnanna, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State of Karnataka and the High Court of Karnataka submits that the post of Sheristedars is a State-wise cadre and Rule 3 of the Karnataka Subordinate Courts (Ministerial and other Posts) (Recruitment) Rules, 1982, (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1982') empowers the High Court to appoint by transfer to a post in district, any officer holding identical post, in another district. Moreover, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that the apprehension of the petitioners is unfounded. It is submitted that there are at least two vacant posts of Sheristedars in the Mysuru district and petitioners could be considered for promotions. However, it is added that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.K. Pavitra and Others v. Union of India and Others, reported in 2017 (4) SCC 620 , promotions have not been effected, at least from the past one year and no sooner the dispute is settled, the promotions could be considered.