Karnataka High Court
Sri Shantaveer Shivappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1006 OF 2023 (S-RES)
C/W.
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1162 OF 2023 (S-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1312 OF 2023 (S-RES)
IN WA NO.1006 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.S. NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. PAVANESH D.
S/O LATE SURESH D.
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS REGISTRAR
HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI
DELHI - 110 201
2. SRI. H.J. MARULASIDDARADHYA
S/O JAYAMANGALARADAHYA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS
ADDL. REGISTRAR GENERAL
-
2
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH
AT KALABURAGI,
KALABURAGI - 585 103
3. SRI. SUDINDRANATH S.
S/O SAINATH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS XIII ADDL.
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY (MAYO HALL UNIT)
OPPOSITE CENTRAL MALL
M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001
4. SRI. SYED BALEEGUR RAHAMAN
S/O SYED KALEEMULLA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I
BAGALKOT-587 101
5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, JUSTICE
AND HUMAN RIGHTS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
6. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
7. SMT. A.K. NAVEEN KUMARI
RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RESIDING AT K. NARENDRA BABU
MARUTHI SERVICE STATION
No.2621/15, 3RD MAIN
V.V. MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 002
-
3
8. SRI. C. RAJASEKHARA
RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDING AT No.539, 5TH CROSS
3RD MAIN, HEALTH LAYOUT
ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR
NAGARABHAVI
BENGALURU-560 072
9. SRI. K. SUBRAMANYA
RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDING AT No.166
6TH CROSS, NAVILU ROAD
KUVEMPU NAGAR
MYSURU-570 023
10 . SRI. K.R. NAGARAJA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS MEMBER
KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
M.S. BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
11 . SMT. RAJESHWARI N HEGDE
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS PRL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE
DAVANGERE-577 006
12 . SRI. MOHAMED MUJAHID ULLA
RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RESIDING AT SWARNA MERIDIAN APARTMENTS
FLAT No.FT2, 4TH FLOOR
29TH MAIN, BTM 2ND STAGE
N.S. PALYA, BENGALURU-560 076
13 . SMT. B.V. RENUKA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS CHIEF JUDGE
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES
-
4
BENGALURU CITY
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX
K.G. ROAD
BENGALURU-560 009
14 . SMT. B.S. REKHA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS PRL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE
CHITRADURGA-577 501
15 . SRI. SHUBHAVEER B.
RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDING AT "ANI" KAYERMAJAL
NEHRU NAGAR POST, PUTTUR TALUK
DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 203
16 . SMT. MEENAXI M. BANI
RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDING AT RAVIWAR PETH
NEAR LAXMI NARAYAN TEMPLE
DHARWAD-580 004
17 . SRI. S. DESHPANDE GOVINDRAJ
RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RESIDING AT No.704
5A BLOCK OLEANDER
PROVIDENT PARK SQUARE APARTMENT
JUDICIAL LAYOUT, KANAKAPURA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 062
18 . SRI. H. CHANNEGOWDA
RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
RESIDING AT B/O L.N. GOWDA
No.253, 5TH CROSS
13TH MAIN, M.C.M. LAYOUT
MALLATHAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 056
-
5
19 . SRI. NINGAPPA PARASHURAM KOPARDE
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
RAMANAGARA-562 159
20 . SRI. MADHUSUDHAN B.
RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDING AT C/O B. KISHNARAO
ADVOCATE, TEGGINA ONI, KUSHTAGI
TALUK: KUSHTAGI, DISTRICT: KOPPAL-584 121
21 . SRI. SHANTAVEER SHIVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS PRL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE
UDUPI - 576 101
22 . SRI. RAVINDRA M JOSHI
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS PRL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE
D.K. MANGALURU - 575 003
23 . SMT. K.G. SHANTHI
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS PRL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE
DHARWAD - 580 008
24 . SMT. SAVITRI VENKATARAMANA BHAT
RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
RESIDING AT C/O JAYANTH AITHAL
HOUSE No.5-144, CARSTREET
NEAR ANANTA PADMANABHA TEMPLE
PERUDUR, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 124
25 . SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MALKAJAPPA PAWALE
RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
RESIDING AT CITY VILLE VALMARK
-
6
VILLAMENT No.499, BLOCK No.12
TEJASHWINI NAGAR, KAMMANAHALLI
OFF: BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BEGUR HOBLI
HULIMAVU, BENGALURU-560 076
26 . SRI. KRISHNAJI BABURAO PATIL
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS PRL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE
KALABURAGI-585 102
27 . SRI. SUNILDATT ANNAPPA CHIKKORDE
RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
RESIDING AT C/O V. KRISHNA
No.36, 3RD FLOOR, 4TH CROSS
MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU-560 003
28 . SRI. JOSHI VENKATESH
RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE
RESIDING AT C/O KRISHNA V. ASHRIT
ADVOCATE, BEHIND BUS STAND
BUTTI BASAVESHWAR NAGAR
MAIN TEMPLE ROAD, POST KUSHTAGI
DISTRICT: KOPPAL - 583 277
29 . SRI. PATIL MOHAMMAD GHOUSE MOHIDDIN
RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE
AGE ABOUT 62 YEARS
RESIDING AT HOSPET STREET
AT POST AND TALUK: HANGAL
HAVERI DISTRICT - 581 110
30 . SRI. N.R. CHENNAKESHAVA
RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RESIDING AT "PAYASWINI"
No.55, NORTH PARK ROAD
DEEPA NAGAR, BOGADI
MYSURU-570 026
-
7
31 . SMT. USHARANI
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
32 . SRI. G. NANJUNDAIAH
RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RESIDING AT C/O P.M. GOPI
G-1, No.58-59, GAYATRI MEADOWS
CENTRAL EXCISE LAYOUT
SANJAY NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 094
33 . SRI. MARUTI BAGADE
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS PRL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE
RAICHUR-584 101
34 . SRI. SHIVAJU ANANT NALAWADE
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS PRL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIO0N JUDGE
VIJAYAPURA-586 109
35 . SRI. A.D. MAHANTHAPPA
RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT C/O DYAMAPPA A.D.
JANATHA COLONY, GUTTURU
HARIHARA TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 601
36 . SRI. SHUKLAKSHA PALAN
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS PRL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE
KOLAR-563 101
-
8
37 . SRI. H.C. SHAMPRASAD
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS PRL. DISTRICT
AND SESSION JUDGE
KODAGU-MADIKERI-571 201
38 . SRI. G.M. SHEENAPPA
RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT No.11/1, 6TH MAIN
16TH CROSS, LAKKASANDRA
BENGALURU-560 030
39 . SRI. D.T. PUTTARANGASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS MEMBER
KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
M.S. BUILDING
DR. AMBEDAKR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
40 . SRI. D.S. VIJAYA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS PRL. DISTRICT
AND SESSION JUDGE
U.K. KARWAR-581 301
41 . SRI. M. BRUNGESHA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS DIRECTOR
ARBITRATION CENTER-KARNATAKA
(DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL)
III FLOOR, KAHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
42 . SRI. R. BANNIKATTI HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS PRL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE
KOPPAL-583 231
-
9
43 . SRI. MANJUNATH NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS PRL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201
44 . SRI. RAVINDRA HEGDE
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS PRL. JUDGE
FAMILY COURT
BENGALURU-560 027
45 . SMT. SARASWATHI VISHNU KOSNDAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS REGISTRAR (VIGILENCE)
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
46 . SRI. MOHAMMED KHAN M. PATHAN
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS XXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX
K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009
47 . SMT. R. SHARADA
RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
RESIDING AT No.65, RENUKA VIHARA
YELLAMMA TEMPLE STREET
BEHIND K.R. PURAM RAILWAY STATION
VIJINAPURA, BENGALURU-560 016
48 . SRI. NARAHARI PRABHAKAR MARATHE
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS DISTRICT JUDGE
OOD, LEAVE RESERVE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001
-
10
49 . SRI. B. JAYANTHA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
YADGIR-585 201
50 . SRI. M. CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS REGISTRAR (JUDICAL)
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001
51 . SMT. S. NAGASHREE
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS PRL. JUDGE
FAMILY COURT
DHARWAD-580 008
52 . SRI. C. CHANDRASHEKHAR
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS
ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR (ENQUIRIES)
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA
M.S. BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
53 . SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR MARGOOR
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR
(ENQUIRIES)
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA
M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
54 . SRI. G.A. MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
BIDAR-585 401
-
11
55 . SMT. H.R. RADHA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS LXXXIV ADDL.
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX
K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009
56 . SRI. K.C. SADANANDSWAMY @
SADANANDASWAMY KABBINAKANTHIMATH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
HASSAN-573 212
57 . SRI. RON VASUDEV
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS ADDL. REGISTRAR GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH AT DHARWAD
DHARWAD-580 011
58 . SRI. M. JAGADEESWARA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS PRL. JUDGE
FAMILY COURT
RAICHUR-584 101
59 . SRI. B. VENKATESHA
RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT. MIG-7, SRI. BHAIRAVESHWARA NILAYA
10TH CROSS, NEAR OXFORD SCHOOL
KHB 2ND STAGE, (KUVEMPU NAGARA)
2ND STAGE, BEERANAHALLI TANK BED
HASSAN - 573 211
60 . SRI. KUDAVAKKALIGAR MAHADEVAPPA
GANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS I ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE
BELAGAVI - 590 001
-
12
61 . SRI. KIRAN SIDDAPPA GANGANNAVAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE
FTSC-I, HASSAN - 573 212
62 . SRI. HOSAMANI PUNDALIK
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS I ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
BENGALURU CITY
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX
K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009
63 . SRI. SADANANDA M. DODDAMANI
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS LIII ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX
K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009
64 . SMT. HEMAVATHI
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS PRL. JUDGE
FAMILY COURT
KALABURAGI - 585 102
65 . SRI. MAHAVARKAR D. GULZARLAL
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS I ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE
RAMANAGARA-562 159
66 . SRI. N. BIRADAR DEVENDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS V ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
(TO SIT AT DEVANAHALLI)
DEVANAHALLI-562 110
-
13
67 . SRI. A. VIJAYAN
SINCE DECEASED
No.14, BEHIND SAINT ANDREW ECI CHURCH
VIRIHCHIPURAM POST, SEDUVALAI
VELLORE DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU-632 104
68 . SRI. KASANAPPA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS SECRETARY
TO THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
69 . SRI. PATIL NAGALINGANAGOUDA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE
RESIDING AT No.4
JAYA NILAYA, 19TH CROSS
BHUVANESHWARI NAGARA
DASARAHALLI MAIN ROAD
H.A. RARM, HEBBALA, KEMPAPURA
BENGALURU-560 024
70 . SRI. S. GOPALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS
ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR (ENQUIRIES)
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA
M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
71 . SMT. VELA DAMODAR KHODAY
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS PRINCIPAL JUDGE
FAMILY COURT
MYSURU - 570 014
72 . SRI. G.L. LAKSHMINARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS I ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE
HAVERI - 581 110
-
14
73 . SMT. G. PRABHAVATHI
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS V ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
SHIVAMOGGA, (TO SIT AT SAGAR)
SAGAR - 577 401
74 . SMT. NAGAVENI
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS II ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
CHIKKABALLAPURA
(TO SIT AT CHINTAMANI)
CHINTAMANI-563125
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.S. BHAGWAT, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. SNEHA M BHAGWAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 & C/R3;
SRI. GAURAV AGARWAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. URMILA PULLAT, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. PRADEEP C.S., AAG A/W.
SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R5 & R6;
SRI. M.A. APPAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R43, R49, R55, R56,
R66 & R72;
SRI. ADITHYA SONDHI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PARASHURAM A.L., ADVOCATE FOR R8, R11, R13, R14,
R23 & R31;
SRI. N.B.N. SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R71;
R7, R9, R10, R12, R15, R16, R17, R18, R19, R20, R21, R22,
R23, R24, R25, R26, R27, R28, R29, R30, R31, R32, R33,
R34, R35, R36, R37, R38, R39, R40, R41, R42, R44, R45,
R46, R47, R48, R50, R51, R52, R53, R54, R57, R58, R59,
R60, R61, R62, R63, R64, R65, R68, R69, R70, R73, R74 -
SERVED UNREPRESENTED.
V/O. DATED 21.08.2024, THE PRESENT APPEAL QUA R67
SHALL NOT SURVIVE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
19.07.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.
No.4046/2020 (S-RES) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT
PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
-
15
IN WA No.1162 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SHANTAVEER SHIVAPPA
S/O SRI. SHIVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE
UDUPI DISTRICT
UDUPI-574 118
E-MAIL: [email protected]
MOB: 9448391372
2. SRI. MANJUNATHA NAYAK
S/O SRI. NARASIMHA NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
SHIVAMOGA
E-MAIL: [email protected]
MOB: 9741831772
3. SRI. RAVINDRA HEGDE
S/O SRI. SHANTHARAM HEGDE
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
PRINCIPAL JUDGE
FAMILY COURT, NYAYA DEGULA
H. SIDDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU-560 027
E-MAIL: [email protected]
MOB: 9449686728
4. SMT. SARASWATHI VISHNU KOSANDAR
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
W/O DR. MADIVALAPPA MATOLLI
REGISTRAR (VIGILANCE)
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
E-MAIL: [email protected]
MOB: 9481631837
-
16
5. SRI. MOHAMMED KHAN M. PATHAN
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
S/O SRI. MOHAMMAD KHAN PATHAN
PRESIDING OFFICER
WAKF TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU
E-MAIL: [email protected]
MOB: 9663921397
6. SRI. NARAHARI PRABHAKAR MARATHE
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
S/O SRI. PRABHAKAR MARATHE
DISTRICT JUDGE, ODD LEAVE RESERVE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001
E-MAIL: [email protected]
MOB: 9008280327
7. SRI. B. JAYANTHA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
S/O SRI. B. RAMANATH BANGERA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE
YADGIR DISTRICT
YADGIR - 585 202
E-MAIL: [email protected]
MOB: 9449540600
8. SMT. S. NAGASHREE
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
W/O SRI. K.N. NAGARAJAN
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE
KALABURAGI-585 101
E-MAIL: [email protected]
MOB: 9741762459
9. SRI. C. CHANDRASHEKHAR
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
S/O LATE SRI H.V. CHANNAPPA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
KOPPAL DISTRICT
KOPPAL-583 231
E-MAIL: [email protected]
-
17
MOB: 9480180801
10 . SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR MARGOOR
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
S/O SRI. VIRUPAXAPPA
ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
M.S. BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
E-MAIL: [email protected]
MOB: 9886993052
11 . SRI. G.A. MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
S/O SRI. ANJANEYULU
I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
BIDAR, BIDAR DISTRICT-584 401
E-MAIL: [email protected]
MOB: 9448909898
12 . SMT. H.R. RADHA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
W/O SRI. M.A. APPAIAH
LXXXIV ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE
COMMERCIAL COURT
BSNL BUILDING
RAJ BHAVAN ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
E-MAIL: [email protected]
MOB: 9449987145
13 . SRI. K.C. SADANANDASWAMY
@ SADANANDASWAMY KABBINAKANTHIMATH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
S/O LATE SRI. CHANDRASHEKHARAYYA
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
HASSAN-573 201
E-MAIL: [email protected]
MOB: 9448536405
-
18
14 . SRI . RON VASUDEV
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
S/O SRI. GURUNATH
DISTRICT JUDGE OOD
ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD-580 001
E-MAIL: [email protected]
MOB: 8095321047
15 . SRI. M. JAGADEESWARA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
S/O SRI. A. MALLAPPA
PRINCIPAL JUDGE
FAMILY COURT
RAICHUR DISTRICT
RAICHUR-584 101
MOB: 7760463700
16 . SRI. KIRAN SIDDAPPA GANGANNAVAR
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
S/O SRI. S.G. GANGANNAVAR
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
HASSAN-573 201
E-MAIL: [email protected]
MOB: 944874082
17 . SRI. HOSMANI PUNDALIK
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
S/O SRI. SHANKARAPPA
I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
BENGALURU-585 101
E-MAIL: [email protected]
MOB: 9482315258
18 . SMT. HEMAVATHI
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
W/O SRI. K.R. CHANDRASHEKHAR
PRINCIPAL JUDGE
FAMILY COURT
KALABURAGI
-
19
E-MAIL: [email protected]
MOB: 9448544277
19 . SRI. MAHAVARKAR D. GULZARLAL
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O SRI. DATTURAO
I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
RAMANAGARA-562 159
E-MAIL: [email protected]
MOB: 9448033371
20 . SRI. N. BIRADAR DEVINDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O SRI. NEELKANTAPPA
V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
BEGNALURU RURAL DISTRICT
SITTING AT DEVANAHALLI
E-MAIL: [email protected]
MOB: 7259034600
21 . SRI. KASANAPPA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
S/O LATE SRI. TIPPANNA NAIK
DISTRICT JUDGE OOD AND
SECRETARY TO HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001
E-MAIL: [email protected]
MOB: 9481904055
22 . SRI. S. GOPALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
S/O SRI. C. SANJEEVAIAH
ADDL. REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
E-MAIL: [email protected]
MOB: 8277563949
23 . SMT. G. PRABHAVATHI
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
-
20
W/O SRI. NAGARAJU N.
V ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE
SHIVAMOGGA
SITTING AT SAGAR-577 401
E-MAIL: [email protected]
MOB: 63666704260
24 . SMT. NAGAVENI
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
W/O SRI. K. SHIVAPRASAD
II ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE
CHIKKABALLAPURA
SITTING AT CHINTAMANI-563 125
E-MAIL: [email protected]
MOB: 8861429393
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. M.A. APPAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR A1 TO A11 &
A13 TO A24;
SRI. YESHU MISHRA, ADVOCATE &
SRI. ANOOP HARANAHALLI, ADVOCATE FOR A12)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPT. OF LAW, JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPT. OF PERSONNEL AND ADMIN. AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
3. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
-
21
4. SRI. PAVANESH D.
S/O LATE SRI. SURESH D.
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
KOLAR (SITTING AT KGF)
KOLAR GOLD FIELDS-563 115
5. SRI. H.J. MARULASIDDARADHYA
S/O SRI. JAYAMANGALARADHYA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
RAMANAGARAM-562 159
6. SRI. SUDINDRANATH S.
S/O SRI. SAINATH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
VII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
TUMAKURU-572 101
7. SRI. SYED BALEEGUR RAHAMAN
S/O SRI. SYED KALEEMULLA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
(SITTING AT ANEKAL)
ANEKAL-562 106
8. SMT. A.K. NAVEEN KUMARI
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
BAGALKOT (SITTING AT JAMKHANDI)
COURT COMPLEX
JAMKHANDI-587 301
(RETIRED FROM SERVICE ON ATTAINING
SUPERANNUATION)
9. SRI. C. RAJASEKHARA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL)
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
(RETIRED FROM SERVICE ON ATTAINING
-
22
SUPERANNUATION)
10 . SRI. K. SUBRAMANYA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
LXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COMPLEX
BENGALURU
(RETIRED FROM SERVICE ON ATTAINING
SUPERANNUATION)
11 . SRI. K.R. NAGARAJA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
RAICHUR
(RETIRED FROM SERVICE ON ATTAINING
SUPERANNUATION)
12 . SMT. RAJESHWARI N. HEGDE
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
DAVANAGERE
13 . SRI. MOHAMED MUJAHID ULLA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
V ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE
FAMILY COURT, NYAYA DEGULA
H. SIDDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU
(RETIRED FROM SERVICE ON ATTAINING
SUPERANNUATION)
14 . SMT. B.V. RENUKA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
PRINCIPAL JUDGE
SMALL CAUSES COURT
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU
-
23
15 . SMT. B.S. REKHA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
CHITRADURGA
16 . SRI. SHUBHAVEER B.
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
XLIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU
(RETIRED FROM SERVICE ON ATTAINING
SUPERANNUATION)
17 . SMT. MEENAXI M. BANI
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
XXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU
(RETIRED FROM SERVICE ON ATTAINING
SUPERANNUATION)
18 . SRI. S. DESHPANDE GOVINDARAJ
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
COURT COMPLEX
TUMAKURU
(RETIRED FROM SERVICE ON ATTAINING
SUPERANNUATION)
19 . SRI. H. CHANNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU
(RETIRED FROM SERVICE ON ATTAINING
SUPERANNUATION)
20 . SRI. NINGAPPA PARASHURAM KOPARDE
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
-
24
RAMANAGARA
21 . SRI. MADHUSUDHAN B.
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
VIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
MYSURU (SITTING AT HUNSUR)
COURT COMPLEX
HUNSUR-571 105
(RETIRED FROM SERVICE ON ATTAINING
SUPERANNUATION)
22 . SRI. RAVINDRA M. JOSHI
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
PRINCIPAL DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
MANGALORE - 575 003
23 . SMT. K.G. SHANTHI
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
DHARWAD DISTRICT
DHARWAD
24 . SMT. SAVITRI VENKATARAMANA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
I ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE
FAMILY COURT
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
COURT COMPLEX
MANGALURU-575 003
(RETIRED FROM SERVICE ON ATTAINING
SUPERANNUATION)
25 . SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MALKAJAPPA PAWALE
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU
(RETIRED FROM SERVICE ON ATTAINING
SUPERANNUATION)
-
25
26 . SRI. KRISHNAJI BABURAO PATIL
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
VI ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE
FAMILY COURT, NYAYA DEGULA
H. SIDDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU
(RETIRED FROM SERVICE ON ATTAINING
SUPERANNUATION)
27 . SRI. SUNILDATT ANNAPPA CHIKKORDE
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
PRESIDING OFFICER
LABOUR COURT
BENGALURU-560 022
(RETIRED FROM SERVICE ON ATTAINING
SUPERANNUATION)
28 . SRI. JOSHI VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE
DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
VIJAYAPURA-586 109
(RETIRED FROM SERVICE ON ATTAINING
SUPERANNUATION)
29 . SRI. PATIL MOHAMMAD GHOUSE MOHIDDIN
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
TUMAKURU (TO SIT AT MADHUGIRI)
COURT COMPLEX
MADHUGIRI
(RETIRED FROM SERVICE ON ATTAINING
SUPERANNUATION)
30 . SRI. N.R. CHENNAKESHAVA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
HASSAN
(RETIRED FROM SERVICE ON ATTAINING
SUPERANNUATION)
-
26
31 . SMT. USHARANI
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
32 . SRI. G. NANJUNDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
BELAGAVI
(RETIRED FROM SERVICE ON ATTAINING
SUPERANNUATION)
33 . SRI. MARUTI BAGADE
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
RAICHUR DISTRICT
RAICHUR
34 . SRI. SHIVAJI ANANT NALAWADE
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT
VIJAYAPURA
35 . SRI. A.D. MAHANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
VII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
BELAGAVI
(RETIRED FROM SERVICE ON ATTAINING
SUPERANNUATION)
36 . SRI. SHUKLAKSHA PALAN
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
KOLAR DISTRICT
KOLAR
-
27
37 . SRI. H.C. SHAMPRASAD
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
KODAGU DISTRICT
MADIKERI
38 . SRI. G.M. SHEENAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
XXXIII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT
BENGALURU-560 009
(RETIRED FROM SERVICE ON ATTAINING
SUPERANNUATION)
39 . SRI. D.T. PUTTARANGASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
JUDICIAL MEMBER
K.A.T.
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU
40 . SRI. D.S. VIJAYA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT
KARWAR
41 . SRI. M. BRUNGESHA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
DIRECTOR
ARBITRATION CENTRE
KHANIJA BHAVANA
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
42 . SRI. R. BANNIKATTI HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
JUDICIAL MEMBER
K.A.T.
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU
-
28
43 . SMT. R. SHARADA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
LXIV ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU
(RETIRED FROM SERVICE ON ATTAINING
SUPERANNUATION)
44 . SRI. M. CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
REGISTRAR JUDICIAL
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
45 . SRI. B. VENKATESHA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
LXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU
(RETIRED FROM SERVICE ON ATTAINING
SUPERANNUATION)
46 . SRI. KUDAVAKKALIGAR MAHADEVAPPA
GANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
IST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
BELGAUM
47 . SRI. SADANANDA M. DODDAMANI
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
XXV ADDL. CITIY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU
48 . SRI. A. VIJAYAN
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
IV ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE
DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
MYSURU
(RETIRED FROM SERVICE ON ATTAINING
SUPERANNUATION)
-
29
49 . SRI. PATIL K. NAGALINGANAGOUDA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
II ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE
FAMILY COURT
DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
MYSURU-570 002
(RETIRED FROM SERVICE ON ATTAINING
SUPERANUUATION)
50 . SMT. VELA DAMODAR KHODAY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
PRINCIPAL JUDGE
FAMIL COURT, MYSURU
51 . SRI. G. LAKSHMINARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
IST ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRADEEP C.S., AAG A/W.
SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. S.S. NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. M.S. BHAGWAT, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. SNEHA M. BHAGWAT, ADVOCATE FOR R4, R5 & C/R6;
SRI. K. SHASHIKANTH PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R31;
SRI. N.B.N. SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R50;
SRI. GAURAV AGARWAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. URMILA PULLAT, ADVOCATE FOR R7;
V.C.O. DATED 11.10.2023, NOTICE TO R8, R12 TO R14,
R16, R19, R20, R22 TO R24, R26, R30, R33, R38, R40 &
R42 ARE DISPENSED WITH;
V.C.O.DATED 21.08.2024; NOTICE TO R10, R17, R21, R25,
R39, R45 & R49 ARE DISPENSED WITH.
R9, R11, R15, R18, R19, R20, R27, R28, R29, R32, R34,
R35, R36, R37, R41, R43, R44, R46, R47, R48, R51 -
ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO (a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
19.07.2023 PASSED IN WP No.4046/2020 (S-RES) BY THE
-
30
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTLY, DISMISS THE
WRIT PETITION WITH EXEMPLARY COST AND ETC.
IN WA NO.1312 OF 2023:
BETWEEN:
1 . SRI. C. RAJASEKHARA
SON OF LATE SRI SIDDALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
WORKING AS REGISTRAR
ENQUIRIES
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
BENGALURU
2 . SMT. RAJESHWARI N HEGDE
WIFE OF SRI. NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
WORKING AS
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE
DAVANGERE
3 . SMT. B.V. RENUKA
WIFE OF SRI. NAGENDRA PRASAD
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
WORKING AS
PRINCIPAL JUDGE
SMALL CAUSES COURT
BENGALURU
4 . SMT. B.S. REKHA
WIFE OF SRI. SATISH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
WORKING AS PRINCIPAL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE
CHITRADURGA
5 . SMT. K.G. SHANTHI
WIFE OF SRI KURUVATTI
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
WORKING AS
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
-
31
DHARWAD
6 . SMT. USHARANI
WIFE OF SRI SHASHIKANTH PRASAD
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
WORKING AS REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
BENGALURU
7 . SRI. MARUTI BAGADE
SON OF SRI. SHIVAJI BAGADE
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
WORKING AS
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE
RAICHUR
8 . SRI. M. BRUNGESH
SON OF SRI. R. MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
WORKING AS DIRECTOR
ARBITRATION CENTER-KARNATAKA
(DOMESTIC ADN INTERNATIONAL)
BENGALURU
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. ADITHYA SONDHI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. PARASHURAM A.L., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, JUSTICE
AND HUMAN RIGHTS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
AND ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
-
32
3. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
4. SRI. PAVANESH D.
SON OF LATE SRI. SURESH D.
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE
KOLAR (TO SIT AT KGF)
KOLAR GOLD FIELDS-563 115
5. SRI. H.J. MARULASIDDARADHYA
SON OF SRI. JAYAMANGALARADHYA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
RAMANAGARA-562 159
6. SRI. SUDINDRANATH S.
SON OF SRI SAINATH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WORKING AS VII ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
TUMAKURU-572 101
7. SRI. SYED BALEEGUR RAHAMAN
SON OF SRI. SYED KALEMULLA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
(TO SIT AT ANEKAL)-562 106
8. SRI. MANJAPPA HANAMANTAPPA ANNAYYANAVAR
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
WORKING AS III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
BELAGAVI DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
BELAGAVI-590 001
-
33
9. SMT. VINEETHA PREMNATH SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
WORKING AS PRESIDING OFFICER
LABOUR COURT
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101
10 . SRI. M. DEVARAJA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
WORKING AS MEMBER
KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
M.S. BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
11 . SRI. JERALD RUDOLPH MENDONCA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
WORKING AS II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
MYSURU DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
MYSURU-570 005
12 . SRI. K.M. RAJASHEKHAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
WORKING AS III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
BALLARI TO SIT AT HOSAPETE COURT COMPLEX
HOSAPETE - 583 201
13 . SRI K.L. ASHOK
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
WORKING AS I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
COURT COMPLEX
CHIKKAMAGALUR-577 101
14 . SRI. BASAPPA BALAPPA JAKATI
AGED A BOUT 49 YEARS
WORKING AS LIX ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COMPLEX
BENGALURU - 560 009
-
34
15 . SRI. SIDDALINGA PRABHU
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
WORKING AS III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
RAMANAGARA COURT COMPLEX,
RAMANAGARA - 562 159
16 . SRI. N. KRISHNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
WORKING AS VI ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
TUMKUR COURT COMPLEX
TUMKURU-572 101
17 . SMT A.K. NAVEEN KUMARI
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
WORKING AS I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
BAGALKOT (TO SIT AT JAMKHANDI) COURT COMPLEX
JAMKHANDI- 587 301
18 . SRI. K. SUBRAMANYA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
WORKING AS LXVII ADDITIONAL
CITY AND SESSIONS JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COMPLEX
BENGALURU - 560009
19 . SRI. K.R. NAGARAJA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
WORKING AS I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
RAICHUR-574 101
20 . SRI. MOHAMED MUJAHID ULLA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
WORKING AS V ADDITIONAL
PRINCIPAL JUDGE
FAMILY COURT
NYAYA DEGULA
H. SIDDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027
-
35
21 . SMT. MAHESHWARI S HIREMATH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
WORKING AS XXII ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU-560 009
22 . SRI. SHUBHAVEER B.
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
WORKING AS XLIII ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU-560 009
23 . SMT. MEENAXI M BANI
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
WORKING AS XXIV ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU-560 009
24 . SRI. S. DESHPANDE
GOVINDARAJ
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
WORKING AS I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
TUMKUR COURT COMPLEX
TUMKUR-572 101
25 . SRI. H. CHANNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
WORKING AS XXXVII ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU-560 009
26 . SRI. NINGAPPA PARASHURAM KOPARDE
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
WORKING AS IV ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
KALABURAGI (TO SIT SEDAM)
COURT COMPLEX
SEDAM-585 222
-
36
27 . SRI. MADHUSUDHAN B.
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
WORKING AS VIII ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
MYSURU (TO SIT AT HUNSUR)
HUNSUR COURT COMPLEX
HUNSUR-571 105
28 . SRI. SHANTAVEER SHIVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
WORKING AS I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE
UTTARA KANNADA KARWAR (TO SIT AT SIRSI)
COURT COMPLEX
SIRSI-581 401
29 . SRI. RAVINDRA M JOSHI
AGED ABOUT 53 TYEARS
WORKING AS XL ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU - 560 009
30 . SMT. SAVITRI VENKATARAMANA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
WORKING AS I ADDITIONAL
PRINCIPAL JUDGE
FAMILY COURT
DAKSHINA KANNADA
MANGALURU
DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
MANGALURU - 575 003
31 . SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MALKAJAPPA PAWALE
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
WORKING AS I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU - 560 009
32 . SRI. KRISHNAJI BABURAO PATIL
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
WORKING AS VI ADDITIONAL
-
37
PRINCIPAL JUDGE
FAMILY COURT
NYAYA DEGULA, H. SIDDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027
33 . SRI. SUNILDATT ANNNAPPA CHIKKORDE
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
WORKING AS PRESIDING OFFICER
LABOUR COURT
BENGALURU-560 022
34 . SRI. JOSHI VENKATESH
WORKING AS I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
VIJAYAPURA - 586 109
35 . SRI. PATIL MOHAMMADGHOUSE MOHIDDIN
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
WORKING AS IV ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
TUMAKURU (TO SIT AT MADHUGIRI)
COURT COMPLEX
MADHUGIRI - 572 175
36 . SRI. N.R. CHENNAKESHAVA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
WORKING AS ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
HASSAN DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
HASSAN-573 201
37 . SRI. G. NANJUNDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
WORKING AS III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT SESSIONS JUDGE
BELAGAVI DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
BELAGAVI-590 001
38 . SRI. SHIVAJI ANANT NALAWADE
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
WORKING AS PRESIDING OFFICER
-
38
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL HUBBALI
HUBBALLI-580 001
39 . SRI. SADANANDA MALLESHAPPA KALAL
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
WORKING AS PRESIDING OFFICER
LABOUR COURT,
HUBBALLI
HUBBALLI-580 001
40 . SRI. A.D. MAHANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
WORKING AS VII ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
BELAGAVI DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
BELAGAVI-590 001
41 . SRI. SHULAKSHA PALAN
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
WORKING AS I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT SESSIONSAL JUDGE
KALABURAGI DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
KALABURAGI-585 103
42 . SRI. H.C. SHAMPRADAS
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
WORKING AS III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
DHARWAD DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
NEAR KALABHAVAN JUBLI CIRCLE
DHARWAD-580 008
43 . SRI. G.M. SHEENAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
WORKING AS XXXIII ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX
BENGALRUU-560 009
44 . SRI. D.T. PUTTARANGASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
WORKING AS I ADDITIONAL
-
39
PRINCIPAL JUDGE
FAMILY COURT
TUMAKURU COURT COMPLEX
TUMAKURU-572 101
45 . SRI. D.S. VIJAYA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
WORKING AS XXVI ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU-560 009
46 . SRI. R. BANNIKATTI HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
WORKING AS II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
CHITRADURGA-577 501
47 . SRI. MANJUNATHA NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
WORKING AS REGISTRAR
(RECRUITMENT)
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
48 . SRI. RAVINDRA HEGDE
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
WORKING AS V ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
HASSAN DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
HASSAN-573 201
49 . SMT. SARASWATHI VISHNU KOSANDAR
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
WORKING AS VII ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
MYSURU DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
MYSURU-570 005
-
40
50 . SRI. MOHAMMED KHAN M PATHAN
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
WORKING AS VII ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
MYSURU DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
MYSURU-570 005
51 . SMT. R. SHARADA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
WORKING AS LXIV ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU-560 009
52 . SRI. NARAHAHARI PRABHAKAR MARATHE
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
WORKING AS ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
UDUPI (SITTING AT KUNDAPUR)
DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
KUNDAPUR-576 001
53 . SRI. B. JAYANTHA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
WORKING AS III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
SHIVAMOGGA- 577 201
54 . SRI. M. CHADNRASHEKHAR REDDY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
WORKING AS REGISTRAR
(INFRASTRUCTURE AND MAINTENANCE)
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
55 . SMT. S. NAGASHREE
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
WORKING AS III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
DAVANGERE DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
DAVANAGERE-577 006
-
41
56 . SRI. C. CHANDRASHEKHAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
WORKING AS IV ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
DODDABALLAPURA DISTRICRT
COURT COMPLEX
DODDABALLAPURA-561 203
57 . SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR MAGROOR
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
WORKING AS III ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT SESSIONS JUDGE
HASSAN DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
HASSAN-573 201
58 . SRI. G.A. MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
WORKING AS XXV ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU-560 009
59 . SMT. H.R. RADHA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
WORKING AS PRESIDING OFFICER
LABOUR COURT
KALABURAGI DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
KALABURAGI-585 103
60 . SRI. K.C. SADANANDSWAMY
@ SADANANDASWAMY
KABBINAKANTHIMATH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
WORKING AS I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
HAVERI DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
HAVERI-581 110
61 . SRI. RON VASUDEV
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
WORKING AS LXXVI ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU-560 009
-
42
62 . SRI. M. JAGADEESWARA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
WORKING AS LXXXII ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU-560 009
63 . SRI. B. VENKATESHA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
WORKING AS LXIII ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU-560 009
64 . SRI. KUDAVAKKALIGAR MAHADEVAPPA
GANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
WORKING AS II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201
65 . SRI. KIRAN SIDDAPPA
GANGANNAVAR
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
WORKING AS ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR
(ENQUIRES)
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA
M.S. BUIDLINGS
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
66 . SRI. HOSAMANI PUNDALIK
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
WORKING AS ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
MYSURU DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
MYSURU-570 002
67 . SRI. SADANANDA M. DODDAMANI
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
WORKING AS XXV ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
-
43
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU-560 009
68 . SMT. HEMAVATHI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
WORKING AS IV ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
BHADRAVATHI DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
BHADRAVATHI-577 302
69 . SRI. MAHAVARKAR D.
GULZARLAL
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
WORKING AS II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
VIJAYAPURA-586 109
70 . SRI. N. BIRADAR DEVENDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
WORKING AS I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
DHARWAD (SITTING AT HUBBALLI)
HUBBALLI DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
HUBBALLI-580 008
71 . SRI. A. VIJAYAN
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
WORKING AS IV ADDITIONAL
PRINCIPAL JUDGE
MYSURU DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
MYSURU-570 002
72 . SRI. KASANAPPA MAIK
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
WORKING AS XLI ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU-560 009
73 . SRI. PATIL NAGALINGANAGOUDA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
-
44
WORING AS II ADDITIONAL
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT
MYSURU DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
MYSURU-570 002
74 . SRI. S. GOPALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
WORKING AS II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
KALABURAGI DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
KALABURAGI-585 103
75 . SRI. VELA DAMODAR KHODAY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
WORKING AS PRINCIPAL JUDGE
FAMILY COURT
BELAGAVI DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
BELAGAVI-590 001
76 . SRI. G.L. LAKSHMINARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
WORKING AS ADDITIONAL
SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
LAW DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
77 . SMT. G. PRABHAVATHI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
WORKING AS II ADDITIONAL
PRINCIPAL JUDGE
FAMILY COURT
NYAYA DEGULA, H. SIDDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU-560 027
78 . SMT. NAGAVENI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
WORKING AS PRINCIPAL JUDGE
FAMILY COURT
HASSAN DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
HASSAN-573 201
...RESPONDENTS
-
45
(BY SRI. PRADEEP C.S., AAG A/W.
SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. S.S. NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. M.A. APPAIAH, ADVOCATE &
SRI. YESHU MISHRA, ADVOCATE FOR R28, R47 TO R50, R52,
R53, R55 TO R62, R65, R65 TO R70;
SRI. M.S. BHAGWAT, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. SNEHA M BHAGWAT, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6;
SRI. GAURAV AGARWAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. URMILA PULLAT, ADVOCATE FOR R7;
R8, R9, R10, R11, R12, R13, R14, R15, R16, R17, R18, R20,
R21, R22, R23, R25, R26, R29, R31, R32, R33, R34, R35,
R36, R37, R40, R41, R42, R43, R45, R46, R54, R64, R66,
R67, R73, R76, R77, R78 ARE SERVED;
R63 ARE SERVED THROUGH E-MAIL)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO (i) CALL FOR THE
RECORDS IN WRIT PETITION No.4046/2020 AND (ii) SET ASIDE
ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 19.07.2023 IN
WRIT PETITION No.4046/2020 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS
WRIT PETITION No.4046/2020 FILED BY RESPONDENTS No.4-
7/PETITIONERS AND ETC.
THESE WRIT APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 10.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-
46
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
These writ appeals arise from the order dated
19.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition No.4046/2020 (S-RES).
2. Writ Appeal No.1006/2023 is preferred by the
Registrar General of the High Court of Karnataka (for brevity,
"the High Court",) being aggrieved by the Order dated
19.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing
Writ Petition No.4046/2020 filed by respondents No.1 to 4
(direct recruits) and quashing the Final Seniority List of
District Judges published by the High Court during July 2016
(Annexure A to the writ petition) & 16.03.2022 (Annexure N
to the writ petition) and further directing the High Court to
publish the Seniority List of District Judges in accordance
with law.
3. Writ Appeal No.1162/2023 and Writ Appeal
No.1312/2023 are preferred by District Judges appointed by
promotion against the very same impugned Order dated
-
19.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition No.4046/2020.
4. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the
parties are referred to as per their rank in Writ Petition
No.4046/2020.
5. We have heard Shri. S.S Naganand, learned
senior counsel as instructed by Smt. Sumana Naganand,
learned advocate appearing for the High Court and Shri.
Pradeep C.S, learned Additional Advocate General along with
Smt. Mamatha Shetty, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the State. Shri. Aditya Sondhi,
learned senior counsel as instructed by Shri. Parashuram
A.L., learned advocate; Shri M.S.Bhagwat, learned senior
counsel as instructed by Smt. Sneha M. Bhagwat, learned
advocate, Shri. Gaurav Agarwal, learned senior counsel as
instructed by Smt. Urmila Pullat, learned advocate and Shri.
M.A. Appaiah, Shri. Yeshu Mishra, Shri. Anoop Haranahalli,
Shri. N.B.N. Swamy and Shri. K. Shashikanth Prasad,
learned advocates appearing for the contesting parties.
-
6. The relevant facts leading to these appeals are as
under:-
It is the case of the writ petitioners before the learned
Single Judge that they have been appointed as District
Judges by way of direct recruitment on 01.02.2016. As per
Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1983 (for
brevity, "the 1983 Rules"), the posts of District Judges are to
be filled in the quota of 2/3rd by way of promotion from the
cadre of Senior Civil Judges and 1/3rd through direct
recruitment. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION &
OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS (2002) 4 SCC
247 and Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules,
2004, the said quota stood revised to 50% by promotion
from the cadre of Senior Civil Judges, 25% by way of
promotion through Limited Departmental Competitive
Examination ('LDCE' for short) of Senior Civil Judges having
not less than 5 years qualifying service and 25% through
direct recruitment. In view of the direction of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of ALL INDIA JUDGES
-
ASSOCIATION & OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA &
OTHERS (2010) 15 SCC 170, the said quota stood revised
to 65% by promotion from the cadre of Senior Civil Judges,
10% by way of promotion through Limited Departmental
Competitive Examination of Senior Civil Judges having not
less than 5 years qualifying service and 25% through direct
recruitment.
7. It is the further case of the petitioners that on
14.09.2012, the High Court published the Final Seniority List
of District Judges, wherein adhoc District Judges/Fast Track
Court Judges promoted during 2003-04 and regularized in
2009 were placed above the direct recruits of the year 2008.
The said Final Seniority List was assailed by the direct
recruits of the year 2008 before this Court in Writ Petition
No.41684-691/2012. The said Writ Petitions were allowed on
27.09.2013, by holding that the actual date of appointment
of direct recruits of the year 2008 and date of confirmation of
Fast Track Court Judges as District Judges during the year
2009 should be considered while fixing their inter-se
seniority. The High Court and promotee District Judges
-
preferred Writ Appeal No.6514/2013 and connected cases
before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. By judgment
dated 03.04.2014 (Registrar General, High Court of
Karnataka v. Department of Law & Justice,
Government of Karnataka and Others ILR 2014 KAR
3571), the said Writ Appeal was allowed by setting aside the
Order of learned Single Judge. It is declared that the
seniority of direct recruits be reckoned from the date of their
appointment. In respect of promotees, their seniority is to be
reckoned from the date they were appointed to the
substantive vacancies i.e., from the date vacancies arose
under the promotional quota prescribed under the 1983
Rules and not from the date of the Notifications appointing
them as Fast Track Court Judges, where the vacancies arose
subsequent to their appointment. In the event, vacancies
occurred prior to their appointment as Fast Track Court
Judges, then their seniority should be reckoned from the date
they were appointed as Fast Track Court Judges.
8. It is further stated that pursuant to the directions
of the Co-ordinate Bench, a fresh Provisional Seniority List in
-
the cadre of District Judges was published on 24.07.2014, for
the period from 15.05.1996 to 03.01.2014. Respondents
No.13 to 47 were promoted as District Judges from the cadre
of Senior Civil Judges on 01.04.2015. On 08.06.2015,
another batch of five (5) District Judges were appointed by
way of direct recruitment, pursuant to the Notification issued
during the year 2012. On 30.6.2015, a notification was
issued by the High Court for recruitment to 50 posts of
District Judges under the 25% quota earmarked for direct
recruitment, pursuant to which the writ petitioners have been
appointed on 01.02.2016. In the meanwhile, respondents
No.48 to 82 were promoted as District Judges from the cadre
of Senior Civil Judges on 21.08.2015. Thereafter,
respondents No.4 to 12 (deleted during pendency of writ
petition) were promoted as District Judges from the cadre of
Senior Civil Judges on 26.04.2016.
9. Based upon the provisional Seniority List dated
24.07.2014, the High Court published the Final Seniority List
during July 2016 for the period 01.05.2003 to 26.04.2016
(Annexure A to the writ petition). The names of officers at Sl.
-
No.287 to 392 were included in the Final Seniority List
without any provisional Seniority List insofar as they are
concerned. In the said Seniority List, respondents No.13 to
47 who were promoted on 01.04.2015 were shown at Sl.No.
287, 290 to 302, 304 to 310, 312 to 315, 317 to 322 and
324 to 327; Respondents No.48 to 82 who were promoted on
21.08.2015 were at Sl. No.303, 316, 330 to 336, 338 to 344,
346 to 357 and 359 to 365; respondents No.4 to 12 (deleted
during pendency of writ petition) who were promoted on
26.04.2016 were at Sl.No.366, 372 to 377, 379 and 380 and
direct recruits who were appointed on 01.02.2016 were
placed at Sl.No.381 to 388.
10. It is the case of the petitioners that respondents
No.4 to 12 who were promoted on 26.04.2016, subsequent
to the appointment of the writ petitioners on 01.02.2016,
could not have been placed above them. It is also contended
that though respondents No.13 to 47 were promoted on
01.04.2015 and respondents No.48 to 82 were promoted on
21.08.2015, they were liable to be pushed down and
assigned ranking in the Seniority List below the petitioners
-
who were appointed on 01.02.2016, since such promotions
were in excess of 65% quota earmarked for promotion under
the Recruitment Rules.
11. Pursuant to representations being made by the
petitioners and four others, they filed Writ Petition
No.4046/2020 before this Court assailing the Final Seniority
List of District Judges (Annexure A to the writ petition) and
sought for a direction to the High Court to publish the
Seniority List in accordance with law, by placing them above
respondents No.4 to 82.
12. In the meanwhile, during the pendency of Writ
Petition, based upon the representations made by the direct
recruits of 2016 and others, the then Hon'ble Chief Justice
constituted a Committee of three (3) learned Judges of this
Court on the administrative side, which provided an
opportunity of personal hearing to all Judicial Officers.
Pursuant to the recommendations made by the said
Committee in its Report and the Resolution of the Full Court,
the Final Seniority List which was published during July 2016
(Annexure A to the writ petition) was withdrawn and a fresh
-
Seniority List was directed to be prepared in accordance with
law, after providing opportunity to the aggrieved to persons
to file objections. Pursuant thereto, a provisional Seniority
List was published on 30.09.2021 (Annexure K to the writ
petition). Upon considering the objections filed by the writ
petitioners and other aggrieved persons, the Final Seniority
List was published on 16.03.2022 (Annexure N to the writ
petition).
13. The grievance of the writ petitioners was partly
considered by placing respondents No.4 to 12, who were
promoted on 26.04.2016, below the writ petitioners/direct
recruits, who were appointed on 01.02.2016.
W.P.No.4046/2023 came to be amended with an additional
prayer to quash the Final Seniority List published on
16.03.2022 (Annexure - N to the writ petition) and to direct
the High Court to publish Seniority List in accordance with
law, by placing them above respondents No.13 to 82.
14. It is the contention of the writ petitioners that the
assignment of seniority to respondents No.13 to 82 in
Annexure 'N', Seniority List is contrary to direction No.(ii)
-
contained in the judgment dated 03.04.2014 passed by the
co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 6514/2013
(Annexure B to the writ petition) that the quota rule
prescribed under the Recruitment Rules for three different
sources of recruitment to the post of District Judges is
required to be strictly adhered to, implemented and followed;
that the posts of District Judges as a result of "increase in
cadre strength" was not apportioned as per the quota
prescribed under the Recruitment Rules and 26 Officers were
promoted in excess of 65% quota earmarked for promotion;
that since respondents No.13 to 82 were promoted in excess
of 65% promotional quota, they were required to be pushed
down and placed below the petitioners/direct recruits of 2016
in the Seniority List; that the Final Seniority List commences
from Sl.No.38 and names of officers from Sl.No.1 to 37 were
not shown; that the High Court has failed to maintain
seniority in the cadre of District Judges based on roster as
per the decision in the case of All India Judges
Association and Others (supra); that the assignment of
seniority to Fast Track Court Judges, who were appointed on
-
adhoc basis during 2003-04 and substantively appointed as
District Judges vide notifications dated 01.06.2009 and
29.07.2009, from the dates on which vacancies occurred
under 65% promotional quota under the Recruitment Rules is
illegal, since they were entitled to count their seniority only
from the date of their substantive appointment as District
Judges during the year 2009, in view of the decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Gupta
and Others v. High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan
and Others (2020) 19 SCC 604 and in the case of C.
Yamini v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (2023) 19 SCC
479; that as a consequence, there will be a cascading effect
and respondents No.13 to 82 would have to be further
pushed down within their 65% promotional quota for want of
sufficient vacancies.
15. The High Court/Respondent No.3 contested the
Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge by filing
objections and sur-rejoinder, denying the contentions of the
writ petitioners. The promotees respondents No.13 to 82
were neither served, nor represented and they did not file
-
any objections to the Writ Petition. It is therefore clear that
what has to be considered is not Annexure 'A' which already
stands withdrawn for Annexure 'N', which is the finalised
Seniority List in force. We notice that it was the specific case
of the petitioners themselves that 139 posts were available
since the year 2003 and 90 posts would be liable to be
allocated against 65% promotional quota. They contend that
116 Senior Civil Judges who were promoted as District
Judges have been adjusted against the post available on
account of increase in cadre strength and that as on
01.10.2010, only 20 vacancies were available under the
promotional quota.
16. According to the objections filed by the High
Court, the details of the cadre strength of District Judges
were furnished. It is stated that as on 09.09.2005, the cadre
strength was 172; the working strength as on 01.10.2005
was 114 and as on 25.02.2008 was 93; the cadre strength as
on 26.07.2014 was 258; as on 18.07.2016 it was 340 and as
on 16.03.2022 it was 374.
-
17. It is contended that as on the date of
appointment of the writ petitioners, the sanctioned strength
of District Judges was 314, out of which 204 posts belong to
65% promotional quota under the Rules; however, as on that
date, there were only 193 promotees working in the cadre of
District Judges and thus, there were 11 vacancies available
under the 65% promotional quota; that no promotions have
been made in excess of 65% promotional quota as contended
by the writ petitioners; that the High Court has published the
Seniority List in terms of the directions issued by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court (Annexure B to the writ petition)
and hence, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Dinesh Kumar Gupta and Others (supra), which is
relied upon by the petitioners is not applicable to this case. It
is specifically contended in paragraph No.34 that the Final
Seniority List was prepared according to the date of entry
into service and date of promotion as District Judges.
18. The writ petitioners have filed Rejoinder
Statement contending that the posts of District Judges
providing for three (3) different sources of recruitment were
-
not classified by considering Block periods as per the quota
prescribed under the Rules and no records were produced by
the High Court in this regard; that there were no sufficient
vacancies under 65% promotional quota when respondents
No.13 to 82 were promoted and the position indicated by the
High Court is only the 'working strength' as against
'sanctioned strength'; that the High Court has admitted in
paragraph No.34 of its objections that the dates of
appointment to the post of District Judges is the basis for
preparing the Seniority List which shows that the quota rule
has not been followed. It is further contended that the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Dinesh Kumar Gupta and Others (supra) is binding upon
the High Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India;
that the writ petitioners or private respondents were not
parties to the decision of the Division Bench (Annexure - B to
the writ petition) and hence, the said decision would not bind
any of them; that by virtue of publication of the Final
Seniority List (Annexure-A to the writ petition), the directions
of the Division Bench stood complied; that subsequently, the
-
said Final Seniority List (Annexure-A to the writ petition) was
withdrawn and a fresh provisional Seniority List dated
30.09.2021 (Annexure-K to the writ petition) and thereafter
Final Seniority List dated 16.03.2022 (Annexure-N to the writ
petition) were published; that the High Court is bound to
follow the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India to the extent it is contrary to the directions issued by
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court; that an earlier ruling of
a smaller Bench stands overruled, when a subsequent larger
Bench lays down law to the contrary; that therefore, all Fast
Track Court Judges appointed during 2003-04 were entitled
to count their seniority only from the date of their
substantive appointment as District Judges as per
notifications issued during the year 2009 and not prior
thereto; that as forthcoming from the Final Seniority List
(Annexure-A to the writ petition), since the year 2003, there
are 139 posts of District Judges as a result of "increase in
cadre strength", out of which only 90 posts could be allocated
under 65% promotional quota, but however, 116 Senior Civil
Judges, who were promoted as District Judges have been
-
adjusted against such posts as a result of "increase in cadre
strength"; that the High Court had produced a Statement in
the earlier litigation (Annexure-P to the writ petition) wherein
the classification of posts of District Judges up to 01.10.2010
was indicated and only 20 vacancies were available under the
promotional quota as on that day; that the High Court has
not produced any Statement relating to the period after
01.10.2010 to show that there has been no breach of the
quota rule; that the Final Seniority List does not disclose the
vacancy positions as per quota rule and fresh reasons cannot
now be supplemented by filing an affidavit; that the
contention of the High Court that since there was no dispute
regarding seniority of District Judges from Sl.No.1 to 37,
their names were not shown in the Seniority List is not
proper; that the High Court is required to re-do the Seniority
List as per law and assign appropriate rankings to the
petitioners.
19. In the Sur-Rejoinder filed by the High Court, the
cadre strength of District Judges as on 01.03.2015,
26.03.2015, 01.08.2015 and 21.01.2016 were furnished and
-
it is contended that clear vacancies in 65% promotional
quota existed at the time of promotion of respondents No.13
to 82; that the petitioners have not challenged the
appointment of respondents No.13 to 82 and hence, they
cannot claim seniority over them; that since Articles 233 &
234 of the Constitution of India provides a complete code in
itself for recruitment to the Judicial Services of a State and
Articles 245, 309 and 16 have to be read subject to Articles
233 and 234, the Rules applicable to the Government
Servants i.e., Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority)
Rules, 1957, would have no application; that the writ
petitioners have no locus to challenge the issue relating to
seniority of Fast Track Court Judges pertaining to the years
prior to 2010, since they are only appointed in the year
2016; that the decision of the Division Bench (Annexure- B to
the writ petition) has attained finality and cannot be
challenged / reconsidered / reopened in any parallel
proceeding at the instance of the writ petitioners.
20. The learned Single Judge considered the rival
contentions and by the impugned Order dated 19.7.2023,
-
has proceeded to quash the Final Seniority Lists (Annexures -
A and N to the writ petition) and directed the High Court to
publish the Seniority List in accordance with law, in the light
of the observations made therein. The learned Single Judge
has allowed the Writ Petition mainly on two grounds. Firstly,
it is held that Senior Civil Judges promoted as adhoc District
Judges / Fast Track Court Judges were entitled to count their
seniority only from the date on which they were substantively
appointed as District Judges i.e., on 01.06.2009 and
29.07.2009 and not from any anterior date since the year
2003-04. It is clarified that the service rendered as Fast
Track Court Judges would be considered only for purposes of
fixation of pay and pension, but not seniority. In this regard,
the learned Single Judge has mainly relied upon the decisions
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dinesh Kumar
Gupta and Others (supra) and C. Yamini and Others
(supra). Secondly, it is held that the promotions were given
in excess of 65% promotional quota under the Recruitment
Rules as against the substantive post of District Judges in
respect of "increase in cadre strength" and therefore, the
-
High Court has failed to classify the Block period in the Final
Seniority List. Being aggrieved, the High Court and the
promotees have preferred these intra-Court Appeals before
this Court.
21. Shri. S.S.Naganand, learned Senior Counsel,
assailing the impugned judgment, contended that the learned
Single Judge has misdirected himself in allowing the Writ
Petition without proper reasons. The learned Single Judge
has erred in only considering the contention of the writ
petitioners regarding the number of posts of District Judges
and come to the conclusion that promotions were given in
excess of 65% promotional quota. He has failed to notice the
cadre strength of District Judges which had been placed on
record by the High Court in its Sur-Rejoinder, which clearly
shows that sufficient vacancies existed in the 65%
promotional quota. The exact number of vacancies,
sanctioned strength, working strength and promotions made
at different points of time were clearly set out. The finding of
the learned Single Judge in this regard is therefore contrary
to the material on record and without any basis and that no
-
promotion was given by the High Court in excess of the 65%
promotional quota under the Rules. The Memo filed by the
High Court with regard to "increase in cadre strength" along
with relevant notifications support the facts stated by the
High Court in its Sur-Rejoinder. Insofar as seniority assigned
to Fast Track Court Judges, the same has already been
determined in Writ Appeal No.6514/2013 and connected
cases (Annexure B to the writ petition). The issue pertains to
the years prior to 2010 and the writ petitioners who were
appointed in the year 2016 cannot be permitted to re-agitate
this issue. None of the affected Fast Track Court Judges were
made as parties to the writ petition and they all have retired
prior N to the writ to publication of the Seniority List
(Annexure petition). The writ petitioners do not have locus
standi to question the seniority of Fast Track Court Judges
under 65% promotional quota. As sufficient vacancies existed
under 65% promotional quota when respondents No.13 to 82
were promoted, this question also did not arise. The learned
Single Judge has unsettled the findings of the Division Bench
against judicial propriety and the said decision of the Division
-
Bench cannot be challenged/re-opened in a collateral
proceeding. Admittedly, respondents No.13 to 82 were
appointed as District Judges earlier to the writ petitioners and
their appointment orders were not challenged. The Karnataka
Government Servant (Seniority) Rules, 1957, which is
applicable to Government Servants do not apply to District
Judges in view of Articles 233 and 234 of the Constitution of
India.
22. The Seniority List was published pursuant to the
decisions of the Administrative Committee and Full Court of
this Court. The impugned Order passed by the learned Single
Judge is totally erroneous and liable to be set aside. He
therefore prays for allowing the appeals by setting aside the
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
23. The learned senior counsel appearing for the High
Court has relied on the following decisions:-
• Nawal Kishore Mishra and Others v. High
Court of Judicature of Allahabad through its
Registrar General and Others reported in
(2015) 5 SCC 479;
-
• Union of India and Others v. Kali Dass Batish
and Another reported in (2006) 1 SCC 779;
• C V Chitra v. State of Karnataka reported in
2008 (4) KCCR 2686;
• State of Punjab and Others v. Gurdev Singh
reported in (1991) 4 SCC 1; and
• Neelima Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh
and Others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC
610.
24. Shri. Aditya Sondhi, learned Senior counsel
appearing for promotees in Writ Appeal No.1312/2023, while
adopting the said submissions of Sri. S.S. Naganand made on
behalf of the High Court, further contended that in absence
of challenge to the promotion Orders of the promotees by the
writ petitioners, they cannot be permitted to challenge the
seniority assigned to such officers who are appointed much
prior to the date of appointment of direct recruits. The
learned Single Judge has not appreciated the position of law
in the right perspective and erred in quashing the Seniority
List. He also therefore prays for allowing the Writ Appeals.
25. The learned senior counsel has relied on the
decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar
-
and Another v. Bal Mukund Sah and Others reported in
(2000) 4 SCC 640.
26. Shri. M.S. Bhagwat, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the writ petitioners / direct recruits, contended
that the learned Single Judge has rightly quashed the Final
Seniority List of District Judges as it has been published
without following the quota rule prescribed under the
Recruitment Rules. The quota rule should be strictly followed
while determining the inter-se seniority among three sources
of recruitment. The High Court has admitted in paragraph
No.34 of its objections that the Seniority List is prepared
according to the date of entry into service and date of
promotion of District Judges. Thus, the Seniority List is
published without following the quota rule. The Division
Bench of this Court has held that when promotion is made
outside the quota, seniority would be reckoned from the date
of vacancy within the quota rendering the previous service
fortuitous. Thus, such of those promotees who have been
promoted in excess of 65% promotional quota will have to be
pushed down and adjusted in later vacancies within their
-
quota and such service outside the promotional quota cannot
be counted for seniority. Respondents No.13 to 82 have been
promoted in excess of 65% promotional quota under the
Recruitment Rules and hence, they were liable to be pushed
down and placed below the writ petitioners though they were
promoted earlier to the date of appointment of the
petitioners. The Fast Track Court Judges have been assigned
seniority since 2003-04, which is anterior to the date of their
substantive appointment as District Judges on 01.06.2009
and 29.07.2009 to which they were not entitled. If such Fast
Track Court Judges are pushed down and assigned seniority
from the date of their substantive appointment in the year
2009, there will be a cascading effect and respondents No.13
to 82 would be further pushed down within their 65% quota.
The learned Single Judge has rightly followed the decisions of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dinesh Kumar
Gupta and Others (supra) and C. Yamini and Others
(supra) and held that Fast Track Court Judges are entitled
to seniority only from the date of their substantive
appointment as District Judges in the year 2009. The ratio
-
laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court
stands impliedly over-ruled by virtue of these subsequent
decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same are binding
on the High Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of
India.
27. All the Fast Track Court Judges have retired from
service and hence they are not made as parties to the writ
petition. These persons will not be affected in any manner if
their rankings in the Seniority List are revised as their pay
and pension is protected. Neither the writ petitioners nor
respondent No.13 to 82 were parties to the earlier decision of
the Division Bench and, the High Court is bound to give effect
to the change of law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The posts of District Judges created due to increase in cadre
strength are not allocated and filled up by following the quota
earmarked for 3 sources of recruitment under the
Recruitment Rules. The statistics given by the High Court in
the Sur-Rejoinder is not accurate in view of the alleged cadre
strength notifications produced by them. The posts
mentioned in most of these Notifications / Orders / Circulars
-
are not published by the State Government in the Official
Gazette to include the same in the cadre of District Judges.
They are all posts in other Establishments or being filled up
temporarily through deputation of District Judges among
other sources of recruitment under the relevant Rules
governing the said posts. The Objections filed by the writ
petitioners to the Statement of Cadre Strength furnished by
the High Court would clearly show that 32 posts cannot be
considered as part of the cadre strength of District Judges. If
this position is considered along with re-assignment of
rankings to Fast Track Court Judges resulting in further
pushing down of subsequent promotees under the 65%
promotional quota, it is clear that the respondent No. 13 to
82 are required to be pushed down and placed below the writ
petitioners for want of vacancies within 65% promotional
quota. The learned Single Judge has considered all these
aspects and rightly directed the High Court to re-do the
Seniority List in accordance with law. Hence, по interference
is called for by this Court and these appeals are liable to be
dismissed.
-
28. The learned senior counsel has placed reliance on
the following decisions:-
• V.B. Badami and Others v. State of Mysore and
Others reported in (1976) 2 SCC 901;
• Gonal Bihimappa v. The State of Karnataka
and Others reported in (1987) Supp SCC 207;
• All India Judges Association and Others v.
Union of India and Others reported in (2002) 4
SCC 247;
[
• All India Judges Association and Others v.
Union of India and Others reported in (2010)
15 SCC 170;
• Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka v.
Department of Law, Justice and Human Rights
and Others reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Kar
2725;
• Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at
Chandigarh v. State of Punjab and Others
reported in (2019) 12 SCC 496;
• Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal and Others v.
Dossibai N. B. Jeejeebhoy reported in (1970) 1
SCC 613;
• Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot
v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited
reported in (2008) 14 SCC 171;
• Union of India and Others v. Arviva Industries
India Limited and others reported in (2014) 3
SCC 159;
-
• Dinesh Kumar Gupta and Others v. The High
Court of Judicature of Rajasthan and Others
(2020) 19 SCC 604;
• C Yamini and Others v. The High Court for the
State of Andhra Pradesh at Amravathi and
Another dated:23/02/2023 in Writ Petition
(Civil) No.49/2022;
• Bihar State Electricity Board and Others v.
Dharmdeo Das dated 23.07.2024 in Civil
Appeal No.6977/2015;
• Rajendra Kumar Shirvas v. State of Madhya
Pradesh and Others reported in (2023) 5 SCC
364;
• Registrar General v. The Department of Law,
Justice and Human Rights and Others dated
03.04.2014 in Writ Appeal No.6514/2013.
• Arvinder Singh Bains v. State of Punjab and
Others reported in (2006) 6 SCC 673;
• Opto Circuit India Limited v. Axis Bank and
Others reported in (2021) 6 SCC 707;
• Sri. Vikram R.N and Others v. State of
Karnataka and Others dated 26.05.2023 in Writ
Petition No.5453/2022, and
• Dr. Kavita Kamboj v. The High Court of Punjab
and Haryana and Others reported in (2024) 7
SCC 103.
-
29. Shri. Gaurav Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for petitioner No.4, while adopting the submissions
of Sri. M.S. Bhagwat, further contended that the only issue to
be considered is whether any of respondents No.13 to 82 are
promoted in excess of the 65% promotional quota under the
Recruitment Rules. The Objections filed to the Statement
showing increase in cadre strength of the High Court would
show that the actual cadre strength as on the date of
appointment of the writ petitioners on 01.02.2016 is not 314,
but only 282, since 32 posts were created for other
Establishments and not notified by the State Government as
part of the cadre strength of District Judges. If the same is
considered, there were only 183 posts under the 65%
promotional quota whereas, 193 promotee officers were
admittedly working as on that date. This shows that there
are 10 promotees who are in excess of 65% quota and they
are liable to be pushed down and assigned rankings below
the writ petitioners in the Seniority List. This is
notwithstanding the other finding of the learned Single Judge
relating to Fast Track Court Judges. Therefore, from the
-
material on record, the conclusion of the learned Single
Judge that promotions are given in excess of 65%
promotional quota is proper and consequently, the High
Court is required to re-do the Seniority List. Thus, the
impugned Order does not require any interference in the
hands of this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
30. Upon hearing the learned Senior Counsels
appearing for the parties, the short point that arises for our
consideration is:
"Whether the impugned Order dated 19.07.2023
passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
No.4046/2020 calls for any interference by this Court in
these intra-Court Appeals?"
31. Having considered the contentions advanced, we
notice that at the relevant time, the method of appointment
to the post of District Judges in the State of Karnataka was
as follows:-
i) 25% by way of Direct Recruitment;
ii) 65% by way of promotion from the cadre
of Senior Civil Judges; and
iii) 10% by way of promotion through
competitive examinations.
-
32. There is no serious dispute with regard to the
question that a challenge against the seniority list can be
raised by the direct recruits. In case, the promotee District
Judges are accommodated in excess of the quota set apart
by the Rules; now, it is also not in dispute that the promotee
District Judges are entitled to seniority only from the date on
which there are substantive vacancies available within their
quota and not the dates on which adhoc appointments had
been granted as adhoc Fast Track Court Judges.
33. In All India Judges Association and Others v.
Union of India and Others reported in (2002) 4 SCC
247, the Apex Court had clearly held that the quota in
recruitment is to be applied against the fixed cadre strength
and not against arising vacancies as is done in many States.
The Apex Court in paragraph No.29 has clearly held as
follows:-
"29. Experience has shown that there has been a
constant discontentment amongst the members of the
Higher Judicial Service in regard to their seniority in
service. For over three decades a large number of cases
have been instituted in order to decide the relative
seniority from the officers recruited from the two
-
different sources, namely, promotees and direct recruits.
As a result of the decision today, there will, in a way, be
three ways of recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service.
The quota for promotion which we have prescribed is 50
per cent by following the principle "merit-cum-seniority",
25 per cent strictly on merit by limited departmental
competitive examination and 25 per cent by direct
recruitment. Experience has also shown that the least
amount of litigation in the country, where quota system
in recruitment exists, insofar as seniority is concerned, is
where a roster system is followed. For example, there is,
as per the rules of the Central Government, a 40-point
roster which has been prescribed which deals with the
quotas for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Hardly, if ever, there has been a litigation amongst the
members of the service after their recruitment as per the
quotas, the seniority is fixed by the roster points and
irrespective of the fact as to when a person is recruited.
When roster system is followed, there is no question of
any dispute arising. The 40-point roster has been
considered and approved by this Court in R.K.
Sabharwal v. State of Punjab [(1995) 2 SCC 745]. One
of the methods of avoiding any litigation and bringing
about certainty in this regard is by specifying quotas in
relation to posts and not in relation to the vacancies.
This is the basic principle on the basis of which the 40-
point roster works. We direct the High Courts to suitably
amend and promulgate seniority rules on the basis of the
roster principle as approved by this Court in R.K.
Sabharwal case as early as possible. We hope that as a
result thereof there would be no further dispute in the
fixation of seniority. It is obvious that this system can
-
only apply prospectively except where under the relevant
rules seniority is to be determined on the basis of quota
and rotational system. The existing relative seniority of
the members of the Higher Judicial Service has to be
protected but the roster has to be evolved for the future.
Appropriate rules and methods will be adopted by the
High Courts and approved by the States, wherever
necessary by 31-3-2003."
34. Paragraph No.29 of All India Judges
Association's case (supra), has been extracted and quoted
by the learned Single Judge in paragraph No.15 of the order
under appeal. However, thereafter the learned Single Judge
has relied on the decisions in V.B. Badami's case (supra)
and Gonal Bihimappa v. State of Karnataka and others
reported in 1987 supp. SC 207. It is clear that the
discussion in V.B. Badami's case (supra) and Gonal
Bihimappa's case (supra), was in a situation where the
recruitment rules in question that is the Mysore Government
Servants (Probation) Rules, 1957 and the Mysore
Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers Rules, 1959,
specifically provided for applying the ratio against arising
vacancies and not to the strength of the cadre. It was in the
said circumstances that the Apex Court held that the quota
-
has to be worked out against the vacancies arising during a
block period and that the working out of the seniority
without consideration of the quota as applied against the
vacancies arising during a block period is erroneous.
35. The finding of the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.4046/2020 at paragraphs No.33 and 34, is as
under:-
"33. Applying the aforementioned ratio to the facts on
record, the Judicial Officers promoted on Adhoc
basis as Additional District and Sessions Judges and
their seniority has to be considered only on which
date they are appointed substantively as against
the vacant post and not from their initial date of
appointment as Adhoc District Judges. On careful
examination of the impugned Final Seniority List,
nothing is stated by the respondent No.3, regarding
their ranking as against the substantive post /
vacant post and therefore, I am of the view that,
the impugned Final Seniority List is required to be
set aside in terms of the observations made above.
34. Nextly, having heard the learned counsel appearing
for the parties, there are 139 posts, of District
Judges are created during years 2003 and 2016
and their cadre strength is increased, however, in
terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, promotion could be given to an extent of
65%, however, the impugned Final Seniority List
-
consisting of more than 65% and further,
promotion is made in excess of 65% as against the
substantive / vacant post and therefore, the
respondent No.3, has failed to classify the block
period in the seniority list, hence, I am not
convinced with the arguments advanced by the
learned Senior counsel appearing for the
respondent No.3 that the petitioners have not
challenged the appointment of respondent Nos.13
to 82. Having taken note of the observations made
above, I have arrived at a conclusion that,
reckoning the seniority of the promotees from an
anterior date (date of entry) would amounts to
violation of Article 14 and 16 of the constitution of
India and contrary to rota-quota rule and same is
in excess of their quota."
36. The later decisions which are relied on in the
judgment itself would make it clear that in the case of
appointment of District Judges, the Apex Court had directed
uniformity to be maintained and that the quota in question
was liable to be applied as against the cadre strength and
not against arising vacancies. The Rules specifically provided
for filling up 65% of the "total posts" by promotion. It
further provided that 10% of the posts shall be filled up by
promotion from the cadre of Senior Civil Judges on the basis
of the merit through LDCE held in accordance with the
-
guidelines issued by the High Court. The amended Rule also
provided that if any of the post is not filled up under this
category, the same shall be filled up by promotion under
Item 1. The substitution was effective from 01.01.2011.
These aspects are clear from a reading of the Karnataka
Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules 2004 as amended by
Karnataka Judicial Service (Recruitment) (Amendment)
Rules, 2011. The promotee District Judges can count their
seniority only from the date when they are substantially
appointed against vacancies available in their quota.
Therefore, the question of applying the ratio as against the
vacancies which arose during a block period would be
irrelevant and would not arise at all in the instant case.
37. In the nature of the challenge raised by the direct
recruits, the only question which requires to be answered is,
whether the private respondents were promoted in excess of
their quota. If not, the writ petitioners who were appointed
by direct recruitment on 01.02.2016 would not have any
right to claim a revision of seniority on the ground that the
promotees are in excess of the quota. It is an admitted fact
-
that the Direct Recruits can, at best claim seniority only
from the date of their appointment.
38. The question therefore is what was the cadre
strength in the post of District Judge as on 01.02.2016?
39. The first question which requires an answer is,
what is the meaning of the expression 'Cadre' and what
constitutes 'Cadre Strength'. In service law 'Cadre' means a
designated group of officers group together. The Karnataka
Civil Services Rules defines "Cadre" as follows:-
"Rule 8(7) "Cadre" means the strength of a service
or part of a service sanctioned as a separate unit."
40. The Apex Court in the case of Baleshwar Dass
and others v. State of U.P. and others reported in
(1980) 4 SCC 226, held at paragraphs No.9 and 24, as
under:-
"9. So, the order of appointment to the Service is
decisive of seniority and the service horoscope of
each Assistant Engineer has to be cast with
reference to his appointment order. The next
question then, is, when is an engineer appointed to
the Service? When, under the Rules, he becomes a
member of the Service. For, until he gains entry
-
into the Service he cannot claim to be appointed to
it. To hover around with prospects of entry is not
the same as actual entry. Therefore, we have to
examine when an engineer becomes a member of
the Service under the Rules. Clause (b) of Rule 3
defines "Member of the Service" to mean a
government servant "appointed in a substantive
capacity under the provisions of these rules ... to a
post in the cadre of the Service". What, then, is the
cadre of the Service? What do we mean by
appointment in a substantive capacity to a post in
the cadre? Can there be a temporary post included
in the cadre? Here, Rule 4 becomes relevant. Rule
4 prescribes the sanctioned strength of the cadre.
It provides that the Government may, subject to
the provisions of Rule 40 of the Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930
"increase the cadre by creating permanent or
temporary posts from time to time as may be found
necessary". So a cadre post can be permanent or
temporary and if an engineer were
appointed substantively to a temporary or
permanent post he becomes a member of the
Service. The touchstone then, is the substantive
capacity of the appointment. Here we get into
service jargon with slippery semantics and
flavoured officialese"
24. We are free to confess that the Rules, striking
divergent notes, like ill-tuned cymbals, have vexed
us a while. The touchstone of valid interpretation
being the Constitution and harmonisation of rules
-
with fundamental rights being the proper path we
have tried to sensitize the provisions to do equal
justice under the law, refusing to petrify Rule 23 or
the other relevant rules we have referred to. Rule 4
of the 1936 Rules clearly contemplates a cadre, as
covering "permanent or temporary posts". So, a
cadre takes in temporary posts. Once we cease to
be allergic to "temporary posts" as a component of
a cadre we reach the next step that a cadre is, as it
were, a layer in the Service. Rule 4 itself, while
dealing with the strength of the cadre, speaks of a
holder of a post in a cadre as a member of the
Service may be the holder of a temporary or a
permanent post."
40. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India v.
Pushpa Rani and Others reported in (2008) 9 SCC 242,
has held in paragraphs No.23 to 26, as follows:-
"23. In the service jurisprudence which has developed in
our country, no fixed meaning has been ascribed to
the term "cadre". In different service rules framed
under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution as
also rules framed in exercise of the powers of
delegated legislation, the word "cadre" has been
given different meaning.
24. In A.K. Subraman v. Union of India [(1975) 1 SCC
319 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 36] a three-Judge Bench of
this Court while interpreting the provisions
contained in Central Engineering Service, Class I,
-
Recruitment Rules, 1954, observed in paragraph
No.20 as under:
"20. ... The word 'grade' has various
shades of meaning in the service
jurisprudence. It is sometimes used to
denote a pay scale and sometimes a cadre.
Here it is obviously used in the sense of
cadre. A cadre may consist only of
permanent posts or sometimes, as is quite
common these days, also of temporary
posts."
25. In Chakradhar Paswan (Dr.) v. State of
Bihar [(1988) 2 SCC 214 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 516 :
(1988) 7 ATC 104] it was observed in paragraph No.
16 as under:
"In service jurisprudence, the term 'cadre' has
a definite legal connotation. It is not synonymous
with 'service'. It is open to the Government to
constitute as many cadres in any particular service
as it may choose according to the administrative
convenience and expediency and it cannot be said
that the establishment of the Directorate constituted
the formation of a joint cadre of the Director and the
Deputy Directors because the posts are not
interchangeable and the incumbents do not perform
the same duties, carry the same responsibilities or
draw the same pay. x x x x x
26. In State of Maharashtra v. Purshottam [(1996) 9
SCC 266 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1225] it was held that
"cadre" means unit of strength of a service or a part
of it as determined by the employer."
-
41. The appellant, High Court had taken a specific
stand that the cadre strength was 314. The notifications and
orders issued by the Government on the basis of which such
a contention was raised have now been placed before this
Court by respondent No.3. It is clear that vacancies which
are permanent in nature or which have continued from year
to year on the basis of extensions duly granted by the State
Governments and which form a part of the cadre have to be
taken into account while working out the ratio set apart for
promotion. A Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in
its judgment dated 29.06.2017 in W.A.No.1224/2017,
dealing with an identical situation, held at paragraphs No.10
and 11, which reads as follows:-
"10. The second ground taken was that temporary posts
cannot be included in the permanent cadre. The
learned single Judge upheld the said contention.
Respectfully, we think that is a wrong proposition of
law. A cadre is a designated group of officers who
are grouped together. Cadre means strength of a
service or part of a service sanctioned as an
independent unit. It may have posts of different
grades. It may even include temporary posts, work
charged posts, supernumerary posts, shadow posts
created in different grades to constitute cadre. That
is the prerogative of the State. In this connection
-
we would refer to judgments of the Supreme Court
in the case of Baleshwar Dass And Others v. State
of U.P. And Others (1980 (4) SCC 226) and Union
of India and Others v. Pushpa Rani and Others
(2008 (9) SCC 242) and several other cases
wherein it has clearly been held that it is open to
the Government to include temporary posts in the
cadre to be defined by them. The learned single
Judge was clearly wrong in holding that temporary
posts could not be included in the cadre.
11. Lastly, the learned single Judge was of the view
that the power of declaring the cadre strength was
that of the State and the State could not have
delegated it to the High Court, in the sense, left it
to the High Court to quantify the same. The learned
single Judge was of the opinion that not only the
post but the numerical strength have to be declared
by the State. We are unable to accept the same. It
is for the State in consultation with the High Court
to declare the cadre and its strength. Its strength is
to be calculated on the basis of the posts which are
brought in the cadre. Once the posts are indicated,
then it is only a ministerial work that is required to
be done by the High Court."
42. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondents has placed on record, a compendium of all the
Service Rules with regard to recruitment of District Judges in
Karnataka from 1962 onwards. It is submitted that in the
-
Rules, the application of the other Rules which govern
Government Servants in the State of Karnataka are
specifically mentioned. Rule 7 of the Mysore District Judges
(Recruitment) Rules, 1962 ('1962 Rules' for short) reads as
under:-
"7. Application of other rules. - Except in respect of
matters for which provision is made in these rules,
the Mysore Civil Services Rules, 1958, the Mysore
Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1957, the
Mysore Goverment Servants' (Probation) Rules,
1957, the Mysore Government Servants'
(Seniority) Rules, 1957, the Mysore Government
Servants' (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1957 and
the Mysore Civil Services (Classification, Control
and Appeal's) Rules, 1957, for the time being in
force, and all other rules and orders regulating the
conditions of service of the Officers of the State
Civil Services made from time to time under the
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution shall be
applicable to District Judges appointed by direct
recruitment under these rules."
43. Similarly, the Karnataka Judicial Services
(Recruitment) Rules, 1983, provides that 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, in so far
-
as they are not inconsistent with these rules, mutatis
mutandis apply to recruitment of District Judges, Civil
Judges and Munsiffs.
44. The Karnataka Judicial Service (Recruitment)
Rules, 2004, notified on 09.09.2005 also provided at Rule 11
as follows:-
"11. Application of other rules:-
(1) 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,
in so far as they are not inconsistent with these
rules, mutatis mutandis apply to recruitment of
District Judges, Civil Judges (Sr.Dn.) and Civil
services (Jr.Dn.) under these rules.
(2) All rules regulating the conditions of
service of the members of the State Civil Services
made from time to time under any law or the
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India
shall, subject to Articles 233, 234 and 235 be
applicable to the Civil Judges (Jr.Dn), Civil Judges
(Sr.Dn.) and the District Judges recruited and
appointed under these rules."
45. The amendment notified on 11.07.2011. The
amended quota has 65% provided in Rule 4 of the
-
Karnataka Judicial Civil Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004,
the language used is specifically as follows:-
"2. Amendment of Rule 4- In the Karnataka
Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules 2004, (hereinafter
referred as the said rules) in rule 4. In the Table.-
(a) in the entries relating to the category of
posts of District Judges at serial number 1,
in column (3)
(i) in serial number (1), for the figures
and words "50% of the total posts the
figures and words "65% of the total
posts shall be deemed to have been
substituted, with effect from
01.01.2011.
(ii) For Sl.No.(2), the following shall be
deemed to have been substituted with
effect from 01.01.2011, namely;
(2) 10% of the posts in the service shall
be filled by promotion from the cadre
of Senior Civil Judges who have put in
not less than five years of service as
Senior Civil Judge/Civil Judge (Senior
Division) and who are within the age
group of 35 years and 45 years,
strictly on the basis of merit through
limited departmental competitive
examination held in accordance with
the guidelines issued by the High
-
Court. If any of the post is not filled up
under this category. the same shall be
filled by promotion under item (1)."
46. It is therefore clear that the rules relating to
reservation in appointment are made applicable to
recruitments under the Karnataka Judicial Services as well.
However, since the specific rules which are made applicable
are specified in the Judicial Services Recruitment
themselves, the reliance on the rules which are specifically
not applicable, the Circulars and the Government Orders
rendered on the basis of those rules which provided for
applying the quota against the arising vacancies are not
applicable to the appointment to the post of District Judges.
It is clear that such appointment is primarily governed by
Articles 233, 234 and 235 of the Constitution of India and
the Judicial Services Recruitment Rules which are in force at
the relevant time. It is pertinent to note here that some
Recruitment Rules governing fixation of seniority provide for
the fixation of the cadre strength by the Governor or the
Government specifically. However, this also is not the case
in the instant Rules since there is no such provision that the
-
cadre strength has to be fixed by the Government.
Therefore, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. Veena Verma
and another reported in (2009) 14 SCC 734, would also
not be applicable to the facts of this case since the
Rajasthan Rules specifically provided power in the
Government, from time to time, in consultation with the
High Court, to vary the cadre strength in judicial posts. In
the absence of such a provision in the Rules that are under
consideration in the instant case, it was open to the High
Court to fix the cadre strength on the basis of the
Notifications issued by the Government. Further, it is also
clear that the Recruitment Rules do not specify the fixed
numerical cadre strength for the posts of District Judges.
Therefore, the cadre strength would include all those
sanctioned posts in the cadre of District Judges and all the
posts which are to be or manned by officers in the cadre of
District Judges.
47. The contention that there has to be a specific
notification by the State Government declaring the strength
-
of the cadre of District Judges cannot be accepted since the
High Court, on the administrative side has calculated the
number of posts available in the cadre of District Judges,
taking note of the Notifications issued by the Government
and has enumerated and stated that the cadre strength is
314 at the relevant time. The Rules in question specifically
provide for applying the ratio to the "total posts" which
denotes the cadre strength. Further, the Rules also provide
that if the posts available through limited filling up by
assessment of merit through LDCE are not filled up the
same shall be filled up by promotion.
48. A perusal of Annexure 'N' dated 16.03.2022
would show that the list starts at Sl.No.38 and takes into
account all persons, who have entered service since
07.03.1983 and who have been promoted as District Judges
w.e.f. 26.05.2003. The appellants contend that the seniority
of the officers at Sl.No.38 and 39 is fixed by reckoning it
from the date of their appointment as Fast Track Court
Judges since there were vacancies available in the quota for
promotion as applied against the substantive posts as on the
-
date when they were appointed as Fast Track Court Judges.
Further, the seniority of officers at Sl.No.40 to 105 is fixed
on different dates and it is stated in the list that their
seniority is reckoned from the date they were appointed to
the substantive vacancies under the quota mentioned in the
1983 Rules and not from the date of the notifications
appointing them as Fast Track Court Judges. It is true that
the seniority list shows only the dates from which their
seniority has been reckoned and not the specific posts or
vacancies against which they have been adjusted. However,
with regard to the officers at Sl.No.40 to 105, they were
appointed and their promotions were adjusted till
01.01.2008 and the writ petitioners who had entered service
only on 01.02.2016 can have no complaint with regard to
the same. The same is true of those officers, who have
been appointed before the dates on which the private
respondents in the writ petition have been appointed. The
contention that some of the promotees were promoted and
posted as Fast Track Court Judges only because there were
no vacancies in the regular cadre to accommodate them also
-
cannot be accepted. Since respondent No.3 has specifically
stated that they were appointed and posted to the Fast
Track Courts because the Fast Track Courts had to be set up
and their services were required.
49. The only point on which a challenge can be raised
by the directly recruited District Judges is with regard to the
promotees exceeding their quota. In case, there are no
such promotions in excess of the quota applied as against
the cadre strength, the direct recruits would have no claim
as against the promotee District Judges.
50. In the instant case, a perusal of Annexure 'N',
final seniority list would show that the seniority of the
promotee District Judges was fixed by reckoning their
seniority from the date when they were appointed to
substantive vacancies and not from the date of their
appointment as Fast Track Court Judges. It is pertinent to
note that the specific dates on which the private
respondents in the Writ Petition have been appointed are
stated in Annexure N - seniority list.
-
51. It is worth mentioning that apart from stating
that the promotees are in excess of the quota fixed against
the cadre strength, the writ petitioners do not have a
consistent case as to how many of the promotee officers are
in excess of the quota as applied cadre strength. Further,
the contention appears to be that several of the posts which
are included by the High Court in the cadre strength are not
posts which are permanent in nature and that therefore
those posts should not have been included in the cadre
strength. The details of the posts which have been included
in the cadre strength having been made available, there is a
further contention raised that the cadre strength should be
declared separately and specifically.
52. It is not possible to accept these contentions.
Once it is accepted that posts of District Judges have been
created or that posts have been created which are as a
matter of fact being manned by District Judges, then the
contention that specific notifications of cadre strength have
not been effected cannot stand in the way of promotions
-
being made to the quota as applied against the cadre
strength. It is only if the petitioners can specifically point out
that the promoted District Judges are occupying posts which
are meant to be filled up by direct recruitment that they
could have succeed in the writ petition filed by them.
53. Further, the rules as well as the orders of the
Apex Court has clearly provide that where necessary
candidates are not available for filling up by LDCE, the said
vacancies have also to be filled up by promotion.
54. The objection raised by the writ petitioners in the
representations filed by them to Annexure 'K' was
specifically that the officers at Sl.No.288 to 329 and 355 to
372 are promoted in excess of the available vacancies under
65% quota earmarked for promotees and are required to be
given seniority from the date on which the vacancy arises
within the 65% promotional quota as prescribed by the
Rules.
55. It is the specific case of respondent No.3 that the
date of assigning seniority to promotee District Judges is not
-
reckoned on the basis of adhoc appointments given to them
in Fast Track Courts but with regard to the date of
occurrence of vacancies within their quota. Further, the
party respondents, whose seniority was specifically under
challenge in the writ petition had not been put on notice by
the learned Single Judge nor were their contentions
considered before the seniority list was set aside.
56. Having considered the contentions advanced on
all sides and having given anxious consideration to the
earlier judgments of this Court and the authorities relied on,
it is clear that the finding of the learned Single Judge at
paragraphs No.33 and 34 of the order under appeal requires
interference. In the absence of substantiation of the
contentions raised by the writ petitioners, the writ petition
could not have been allowed.
57. In the result:
i) The Writ Appeals are allowed.
ii) The order dated 19.07.2023 passed by the
learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
No.4046/2020, is set aside.
-
iii) Writ Petition No.4046/2020 passed by the
learned Single Judge shall stand dismissed.
All pending interlocutory applications shall stand
dismissed in all the appeals.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
CP
-
PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K.,
58. I have gone through the judgment prepared by
my esteemed sister ladyship, but I have not found myself in
entire agreement with the conclusion reached by her
ladyship. I need to hardly say that it is only with great
respect to her ladyship, I venture to express a divergent
opinion on the conclusion arrived in these matters by her
ladyship for the following reasons:
59. Since her ladyship has already in detail dealt with
the facts of the case, it is not necessary to reiterate the
same to avoid repetition of facts. Nonetheless, I am in
agreement with the view taken by her ladyship in respect of
the question that a challenge against the seniority list can be
raised by the direct recruits and also in respect of the
question that the promotee District Judges are entitled to
seniority only from the date on which there are substantive
vacancies available within their quota and not the dates on
which adhoc appointments had been granted as adhoc Fast
Track Court Judges. Thus, the divergent opinion is only with
-
regard to "cadre strength and the consequential
promotion" in the post of District Judges as on 01.02.2016
as also "the final seniority list dated 16.03.2022".
60. The undisputed facts forthcoming from the
material on record are that on 14.09.2012, the High Court
published a Final Seniority List in the cadre of District
Judges. In the said Seniority List, 82 Senior Civil Judges,
who were promoted on adhoc basis as District Judges to
man the Fast Track Courts vide Notifications dated
15.02.2003, 19.03.2003, 15.11.2003 and 20.03.2004 and
later on, substantively appointed as District Judges on
01.06.2009 and 29.07.2009, were shown above the direct
recruits appointed on 25.02.2008. The direct recruits
challenged the said Final Seniority List dated 14.09.2012
before this Court in Writ Petition Nos.41684-691/2012. The
said Writ Petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judge
on 27.09.2013, holding that the direct recruits of 2008
should be placed above the Fast Track Court Judges by
considering the date on which they were appointed as
-
District Judges on substantive basis i.e., 01.06.2009 and
29.07.2009.
61. The High Court preferred Writ Appeal
No.6514/2013 before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
apart from other appeals preferred by the promotees, who
had earlier worked as Fast Track Court Judges. On
03.04.2014, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed the
said appeal, by holding that the seniority of such Fast Track
Court Judges shall be reckoned from the date of their actual
promotion, if vacancies exist within the quota earmarked for
promotees under the Recruitment Rules as on that day and
if not, from such date on which vacancy arises within such
quota. It is further held that the seniority of direct recruits
would be reckoned from the date of their appointment.
62. In compliance of the directions issued by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.6514/2013, a
Provisional Seniority List in the cadre of District Judges was
published by the High Court on 24.07.2014. It is pertinent
to mention here, as on that date, neither the writ petitioners
-
(direct recruits) nor respondent Nos.13 to 82 (promotees)
were born in the cadre of District Judges. Respondent
Nos.13 to 49 were promoted as District Judges from the
cadre of Senior Civil Judges on 01.04.2015. On 08.06.2015,
five District Judges were appointed by way of Direct
Recruitment pursuant to the recruitment notification issued
during the year 2012. Subsequently, respondent Nos.50 to
82 were promoted as District Judges from the cadre of
Senior Civil Judges on 21.08.2015. Later the writ petitioners
along with four others were appointed as District Judges on
01.02.2016 pursuant to the selection process held under
notification dated 30.06.2015. Further respondent Nos. 4 to
12 (subsequently deleted during pendency of writ petition
before the learned Single Judge) were promoted as District
Judges from the cadre of Senior Civil Judges on 30.05.2016.
63. Based on the aforesaid Provisional Seniority List
dated 24.07.2014, the High Court published a Final Seniority
List of District Judges during 2016 (Annexure - A to the writ
petition) in which the names of subsequently appointed
District Judges were also included. However, the writ
-
petitioners were placed below respondent Nos.13 to 82 as
well as respondent Nos.4 to 12. Aggrieved by the same,
after making representations, Writ Petition No.4046/2020
came to be filed by the petitioners challenging the Final
Seniority List.
64. During the pendency of the writ petition, by
considering the representations made by the petitioners and
several other District Judges, both direct recruits and
promotees, the then Hon'ble Chief Justice constituted a
Committee consisting of three Hon'ble Judges. The said
Committee extended opportunity of personal hearing to all
aggrieved persons and submitted a Report during the year
2021. The Full Court of this Court, while accepting the said
Report of the Committee, resolved to withdraw the Final
Seniority List (Annexure - A to the writ petition) and
directed publication of a fresh Seniority List. Pursuance
thereof, the High Court published a Provisional Seniority List
on 30.09.2021 (Annexure - K to the writ petition), calling
for objections from all concerned. After considering the
objections filed by the petitioners and other aggrieved
-
Judicial Officers, the Final Seniority List dated 16.03.2022
(Annexure - N to the writ petition) came to be published. In
the Final Seniority List (Annexure - N to the writ petition),
the petitioners (appointed on 01.02.2016 and assigned
ranking at Sl.Nos. 373 to 380) were placed above
respondent Nos.4 to 12 (promoted on 30.05.2016 and
assigned rankings at Sl.Nos.381 to 390), but below
respondent Nos.13 to 49 (promoted/deemed to be promoted
on 01.04.2015 and assigned rankings at Sl.Nos.288 to 329)
and respondent Nos.50 to 82 (promoted on 26.8.2015 and
assigned rankings at Sl.Nos.335 to 372). Hence, the prayer
in the pending W.P.No.4046/2020 was amended seeking to
quash the Final Seniority List dated 16.03.2022 (Annexure -
N to the writ petition).
65. The learned Single Judge has proceeded to quash
the Final Seniority List of District Judges dated 16.03.2022
(Annexure - N to the writ petition) on the ground that the
Senior Civil Judges promoted on adhoc basis as Fast Track
Court Judges during the year 2003-04 were entitled to count
their seniority only from the date on which they were
-
substantively appointed as District Judges i.e., on
01.06.2009 and 29.07.2009. It is further held by the
learned Single Judge that the promotions were given in
excess of 65% promotional quota under the Recruitment
Rules as against the substantive post of District Judges in
respect of "increase in cadre strength". On these two
grounds, the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners was
allowed by quashing the Final Seniority List of District
Judges with a direction to the High Court to re-do the
Seniority List.
66. In terms of Karnataka Judicial Services
(Recruitment) Rules, 1983, the posts of District Judges are
to be filled in the quota of 2/3rd by way of promotion from
the cadre of Senior Civil Judges and 1/3rd through direct
recruitment. Thereafter, as per the Karnataka Judicial
Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2004, the said quota stood
revised to 50% by way of promotion from the cadre of
Senior Civil Judges, 25% through Limited Departmental
Competitive Examination of Senior Civil Judges having not
less than 5 years qualifying service and 25% through direct
-
recruitment. Subsequently, in terms of the directions issued
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ALL INDIA
JUDGES ASSOCIATION & OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA &
OTHERS - (2002) 4 SCC 247, the said quota stood revised
to 65% by way of promotion from the cadre of Senior Civil
Judges, 10% through Limited Departmental Competitive
Examination of Senior Civil Judges having not less than 5
years qualifying service and 25% through direct recruitment.
67. It is well settled that when appointments to any
post are made from more than one source, it is permissible
to fix the ratio for recruitment from the different sources and
if Rules are framed in this regard, they must be followed and
implemented strictly. The quota prescribed under the
relevant Rules for different modes of recruitment is
sacrosanct and cannot be breached.
68. The preliminary objection raised by the learned
Senior counsel appearing for the High Court and promotees
that in absence of promotion Orders of respondent Nos.13 to
82 being challenged, the petitioners cannot claim seniority
over them, is without any substance. The further contention
-
that the petitioners do not have any locus standi to
challenge the promotions given to respondent Nos.13 to 82
as both were appointed under different modes of
recruitment prescribed under the Recruitment Rules to the
post of District Judges is also untenable. The Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of YOGANAND H.G. AND
OTHERS V. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS - (2013) 4
Kar.L.J. 201 has reiterated the position of law that when
promotion is made outside the quota, seniority should be
reckoned from the date on which vacancy arises within the
quota rendering the previous service fortuitous. It is further
held that the excess promotees will have to be pushed down
and adjusted in later vacancies within their quota and such
service outside the promotee quota cannot be counted
for the purpose of seniority. Thus, without there being any
challenge to the promotion orders of respondent Nos.13 to
82, the petitioners are entitled to challenge the inter-se
seniority between direct recruits and promotees to be
determined as per the quota prescribed under the Rules.
-
69. Sri. S.S. Naganand, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the High Court has also contended that the
Karnataka Government Servant (Seniority) Rules, 1957,
which is applicable to Government Servants, do not apply to
the District Judges in view of Articles 233 and 234 of the
Constitution of India. It is to be noticed that Article 233 of
the Constitution of India provides that appointments of
persons to be, and the posting and promotion of, District
Judges in any State shall be made by the Governor of the
State in consultation with the High Court exercising
jurisdiction in relation to such State. Further, Article 234 of
the Constitution of India relates to appointment of persons
other than District Judges to the judicial service of a State.
Both Rule 3(2) of the Karnataka Judicial Services
(Recruitment) Rules, 1983 as well as Rule 11(2) of the
Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2004,
provide that all Rules regulating the conditions of service of
the members of State Civil Services made under any law or
the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India shall
be applicable to the District Judges recruited and appointed
-
under these Rules, subject to Articles 233, 234 and 235 of
the Constitution of India. There is nothing mentioned in
Articles 233, 234 and 235 of the Constitution of India with
regard to the method of determining the seniority of District
Judges. Thus, in the absence of any Rules framed by the
High Court governing the seniority of District Judges in
furtherance of Article 233 of the Constitution of India read
with its Rule making power, the corresponding Rules
applicable to the members of State Civil Services would
apply. Further, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ
Appeal No.6514/2013 dated 03.04.2014 (Annexure - B to
the writ petition), has already held that Karnataka
Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957, is applicable
in the State of Karnataka and has considered the provisions
contained in the said Rules. Thus, it cannot be said that the
Karnataka Government Servant (Seniority) Rules, 1957, are
not applicable for determining seniority of District Judges
appointed in the State of Karnataka in view of absence of
any specific Rules promulgated by the High Court in this
regard.
-
70. The question of rankings assigned to the Fast
Track Court Judges is concerned, the learned Senior counsel
for the High Court contended that, the same has already
been determined in Writ Appeal No.6514/2013 and
connected cases (Annexure - B to the writ petition) and the
petitioners cannot be permitted to re-agitate this issue.
71. The learned Single Judge has mainly relied upon
the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
DINESH KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS V. HIGH COURT OF
JUDICATURE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS - (2020) 19 SCC
604 and C. YAMINI V. HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH -
(2023) 19 SCC 479 in support of his finding in this regard.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar
Gupta and Others (supra) has held thus:
"40.1. (A) Whether the judicial officers
promoted on ad hoc basis as Additional
District and Sessions Judges to man the Fast
Track Courts in the State and who were
substantively appointed to the cadre of the
District Judge, are entitled to seniority from
the date of their initial ad hoc promotion?
xxxxx
-
41. As regards Question 40.1.(A), the
law on the point is well settled and though
the learned counsel advanced submissions
based on various decisions of this Court and
the principles emanating therefrom, the
following decisions in the context of ad hoc
appointments as Additional District and
Sessions Judges to man Fast Track Courts in
the country, are sufficient to address the
issue:
41.1. In Debabrata Dash v. Jatindra
Prasad Das [(2013) 3 SCC 658 : (2013) 1
SCC (L&S) 751], a Bench of three Judges of
this Court considered the case wherein
Respondent 1 was initially appointed as
Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) on
ad hoc basis and later his service was
regularised in the Senior Branch Cadre in
Orissa Superior Judicial Service. His claim
that service rendered as Judge of the Fast
Track Court ought to be reckoned for seniority
was accepted by the Orissa High Court
[Jatindra Prasad Das v. State of Orissa, 2011
SCC Online Ori 62]. This Court, however, set
aside the decision of the High Court. The
question that came up for consideration was
posed in para 28 as under : (SCC p. 667)
-
"28. The crucial question that
arises for consideration in this appeal
is:
Whether promotion of the writ
petitioner as an ad hoc Additional
District Judge vide Notification dated 5-
1-2002 to the Senior Branch of the
Superior Judicial Service for being
posted in the Fast Track Court
established out of the Eleventh Finance
Commission recommendations can be
said to be an appointment in the Senior
Branch Cadre of Superior Judicial
Service?
The fate of the appeal depends
upon the answer to this question. If the
answer to this question is found in the
affirmative, the appeal must fail. On the
other hand, the appeal must succeed if
the answer is in the negative."
This Court thereafter considered the
effect of 2001 Rules which were made to
regulate the recruitment of judicial officers in
the State to man Fast Track Courts on ad hoc
basis. Para 35 considered the effect of the
Rules as under : (SCC p. 669)
"35. As noted earlier, 72 posts of
ad hoc Additional District Judges were
-
created under the 2001 Rules to meet
its objectives. These posts were not
part of cadre strength of Senior Branch
Service in the 1963 Rules nor by
creation of these posts under the 2001
Rules, the cadre strength of the Senior
Branch of service got increased. The
writ petitioner's promotion as an ad hoc
Additional District Judge vide
Notification dated 5-1-2002 pursuant to
which he joined the post of ad hoc
Additional District Judge, Bargarh on
26-4-2002 is traceable wholly and
squarely to the 2001 Rules. Merely
because the writ petitioner was
adjudged suitable on the touchstone of
the 1963 Rules, we are afraid, it cannot
be said that he was given appointment
to the post of ad hoc Additional District
Judge under the 1963 Rules. As noted
above, there was no vacancy to be filled
by promotion in the cadre strength of
Senior Branch of the service under the
1963 Rules on that date."
The decisions of this Court in Direct
Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Assn. [Direct
Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Assn. v. State
of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 SCC 715 : 1990
SCC (L&S) 339] and Rudra Kumar
-
Sain [Rudra Kumar Sain v. Union of India,
(2000) 8 SCC 25 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 1055] as
well as in Brij Mohan Lal [Brij Mohan
Lal v. Union of India, (2002) 5 SCC 1 : 2002
SCC (L&S) 615] were also considered as
under : (SCC pp. 671-73, paras 41-44)
41. A five-Judge Bench of this
Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engg.
Officers' Assn. [Direct Recruit Class II
Engg. Officers' Assn. v. State of
Maharashtra, (1990) 2 SCC 715 : 1990
SCC (L&S) 339] was concerned with a
question of seniority in service between
the direct recruits and promotees
amongst Deputy Engineers in the State
of Maharashtra. This Court considered
previous decisions of this Court,
including S.B. Patwardhan v. State of
Maharashtra [S.B. Patwardhan v. State
of Maharashtra, (1977) 3 SCC 399 :
1977 SCC (L&S) 391] and Baleshwar
Dass v. State of U.P. [Baleshwar
Dass v. State of U.P., (1980) 4 SCC 226
: 1980 SCC (L&S) 531] and in para 47
of the Report summed up the legal
position. Clauses (A), (B) and (C) of
para 47 are relevant for the present
purpose which read as follows : (Direct
Recruit Class II Engg. Officers'
-
Assn. [Direct Recruit Class II Engg.
Officers' Assn. v. State of Maharashtra,
(1990) 2 SCC 715 : 1990 SCC (L&S)
339], SCC p. 745, para 47)
'(A) Once an incumbent is
appointed to a post according to rule,
his seniority has to be counted from the
date of his appointment and not
according to the date of his
confirmation.
The corollary of the above rule is
that where the initial appointment is
only ad hoc and not according to rules
and made as a stopgap arrangement,
the officiation in such post cannot be
taken into account for considering the
seniority.
(B) If the initial appointment is
not made by following the procedure
laid down by the rules but the
appointee continues in the post
uninterruptedly till the regularisation of
his service in accordance with the rules,
the period of officiating service will be
counted.
(C) When appointments are made
from more than one source, it is
permissible to fix the ratio for
-
recruitment from the different sources,
and if rules are framed in this regard
they must ordinarily be followed
strictly.'
The essence of direction in Clause
(A) is that the seniority of an appointee
has to be counted from the date of his
appointment and not according to the
date of his confirmation once a
recruitee is appointed to a post
according to the rules. In other words,
where initial appointment is only ad hoc
and not according to the rules and
made as a stopgap arrangement, the
officiation in such post cannot be taken
into account for considering the
seniority. The writ petitioner's
appointment as an ad hoc Additional
District Judge is not traceable to the
1963 Rules. The simple reason leading
to this consequence is that there was
no vacancy available which was to be
filled up by promotion on that date in
the Superior Judicial Service (Senior
Branch).
42. In Rudra Kumar Sain [Rudra
Kumar Sain v. Union of India, (2000) 8
SCC 25 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 1055] a five-
Judge Bench of this Court was again
-
concerned with the inter se seniority
between the promotees and direct
recruits in the Delhi Higher Judicial
Service. The contention was whether
the guidelines and directions given by
this Court in O.P. Singla [O.P.
Singla v. Union of India, (1984) 4 SCC
450 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 657] have been
followed or not. The Court considered
the 3 terms "ad hoc", "stopgap" and
"fortuitous" in the context of the service
jurisprudence and in para 20 of the
Report held as under : (Rudra Kumar
Sain case [SCC p. 45])
'20. In service
jurisprudence, a person who
possesses the requisite
qualification for being appointed
to a particular post and then he is
appointed with the approval and
consultation of the appropriate
authority and continues in the
post for a fairly long period, then
such an appointment cannot be
held to be "stopgap or fortuitous
or purely ad hoc". In this view of
the matter, the reasoning and
basis on which the appointment of
the promotees in the Delhi Higher
-
Judicial Service in the case in
hand was held by the High Court
to be "fortuitous/ad hoc/stopgap"
are wholly erroneous and,
therefore, exclusion of those
appointees to have their
continuous length of service for
seniority is erroneous.'
The Division Bench in the
impugned order [Jatindra Prasad
Das v. State of Orissa, 2011 SCC Online
Ori 62] has quoted the above paragraph
from Rudra Kumar Sain [Rudra Kumar
Sain v. Union of India, (2000) 8 SCC 25
: 2000 SCC (L&S) 1055] but applied it
wrongly.
43. In Brij Mohan Lal [Brij Mohan
Lal v. Union of India, [(2002) 5 SCC 1 :
2002 SCC (L&S) 615] a three-Judge
Bench of this Court, inter alia,
considered the Fast Track Courts
Scheme. In para 10 of the judgment,
this Court gave various directions.
Direction 14 in that paragraph is
relevant which can be paraphrased as
follows : (SCC p. 10)
(i) No right will be conferred on
judicial officers in service for claiming
-
any regular promotion on the basis of
his/her appointment on ad hoc basis
under the Scheme.
(ii) The service rendered in the
Fast Track Courts will be deemed as
service rendered in the parent cadre.
(iii) In case any judicial officer is
promoted to higher grade in the parent
cadre during his tenure in Fast Track
Courts, the service rendered in Fast
Track Courts will be deemed to be
service in such higher grade.
44. The learned Senior Counsel
for the writ petitioner heavily relied
upon the third part of Direction 14. As a
matter of fact, this part has been relied
upon in the impugned judgment
[Jatindra Prasad Das v. State of Orissa,
2011 SCC Online Ori 62] as well. It is
submitted on behalf of the writ
petitioner that on promotion to the
Senior Branch Cadre of Superior Judicial
Service during his tenure in the Fast
Track Courts, the writ petitioner is
entitled to the counting of the service
rendered by him in the Fast Track Court
as a service in Superior Judicial Service
(Senior Branch). The submission
-
overlooks the first two parts of Direction
14, one, no right will be conferred in
judicial service for claiming any regular
promotion on the basis of his/her
appointment on ad hoc basis under the
scheme; and two, the service rendered
in Fast Track Courts will be deemed as
service rendered in the parent cadre. In
our opinion, until the vacancy occurred
in the cadre of Superior Judicial Service
(Senior Branch) which was to be filled
up by promotion, the service rendered
by the writ petitioner in the Fast Track
Court cannot be deemed to be service
rendered in the Superior Judicial
Service (Senior Branch). Rather until
then, he continued to be a member of
the parent cadre i.e. Superior Judicial
Service (Junior Branch). The third part
of Direction 14, in our view, does not
deserve to be read in a manner that
overrides the 1963 Rules."
41.2. In V. Venkata Prasad v. High
Court of A.P. [(2016) 11 SCC 656 : (2016) 2
SCC (L&S) 698], a Bench of two Judges of
this Court considered the case which arose in
almost identical fact situation. The claim of
the judicial officer concerned for reckoning
the service rendered as Additional District
-
Judge (Fast Track Courts) on ad hoc basis was
rejected. Reliance was placed on the decision
of this Court in Debabrata Dash [Debabrata
Dash v. Jatindra Prasad Das, (2013) 3 SCC
658 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 751] and the ratio
in that decision was followed.
41.3. In C. Yamini v. State of
A.P. [(2019) 17 SCC 228 : (2019) 10 Scale
834] a Bench of three Judges of this Court
considered the issue where the candidates
from the Bar were appointed on ad hoc basis
and after their consideration, claim was raised
to reckon their seniority from the date of
initial ad hoc appointment. The relevant
observations are : (SCC pp. 234-36, paras
12-15)
"12. While rejecting the claim for
their absorption and challenge to the
notification issued for the recruitment in
the regular cadre posts, certain
directions were issued in Brij Mohan
Lal [Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India,
(2012) 6 SCC 502 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S)
177] for considering the claims of ad
hoc Judges appointed to Fast Track
Courts into regular cadre posts.
Following the directions only, the
second respondent has issued
notification inviting applications for
-
appointments to the regular cadre of
District Judges and the appellants and
others responded to such notification
and totally 12 of them were selected for
regular vacancies. In the appointment
issued by Law (LA & J-SC.F)
Department, they were put on
probation for a period of two years and
after the declaration of successful
probation and nearly after four years of
appointment, the present claim is made
claiming seniority from the date of their
initial appointment, as ad hoc District
Judges.
13. The claim of the appellants
that they were appointed as ad hoc
District Judges by following the
procedure which is similar to the
procedure for appointments to the
sanctioned posts in the regular cadre, is
no ground to accede to their request to
reckon their seniority in the permanent
cadre of District Judges, from their
initial appointment as the District
Judges for the Fast Track Courts. The
appointments which came to be made
for selecting District Judges for Fast
Track Courts sanctioned under the 11th
-
Finance Scheme are totally different
and distinct, compared to appointments
which are to be made for regular vacant
posts of District Judges covered under
A.P. Higher Judicial Service. If a person
is not appointed to any post in the
cadre, such person cannot claim any
seniority over the persons who are
appointed in vacant posts in the cadre.
The Fast Track Courts which were
sanctioned initially for five years from
the grants of 11th Finance Commission,
were continued in some States beyond
such period with the assistance, from
States and such Fast Track Courts were
discontinued in some other States.
Merely on the ground that they were
selected by following the same
procedure akin to that of regular
selections, is no ground to consider
their claim for grant of seniority from
the date of initial appointment. When
their claim for regularisation/absorption
and challenge to notification issued in
the year 2004 for making selections to
the vacant regular posts of District
Judges is rejected by the High Court
and confirmed by this Court, we are of
the view that the appellants have no
-
basis to claim seniority from the date of
initial appointment. In any event,
having applied in response to the
notification issued by the High Court in
the year 2013 after availing the benefit
of appointment, it is not open to the
appellants to question the conditions
imposed in the order which is in
conformity with rules. Undisputedly, the
appellant was appointed as ad hoc
District Judges to preside over the Fast
Track Courts only. Initially when she
was not appointed to a post or category
of posts, forming part of cadre strength
in such category, the appellant cannot
claim any seniority over the persons
regularly appointed in the category of
posts forming part of cadre strength.
There is yet another ground to reject
the claim of the appellant. Though the
appellant claims seniority over the
persons who are appointed in regular
vacant posts forming part of cadre
strength but they are not even made
parties. On this ground also, the claim
of the appellants deserves rejection.
14. We have perused the
judgment relied on by the appellant
party in person, in Rudra Kumar
-
Sain v. Union of India [Rudra Kumar
Sain v. Union of India, (2000) 8 SCC 25
: 2000 SCC (L&S) 1055]. In the
aforesaid case, issue relates to claim of
seniority between direct recruits and
promotees. The learned Senior Counsel
Sri Venkataramani, has also relied on
the judgments of this Court in Brij
Mohan Lal v. Union of India [(2002) 5
SCC 1 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 615]; in
Debabrata Dash v. Jatindra Prasad
Das [(2013) 3 SCC 658 : (2013) 1 SCC
(L&S) 751] ; in V. Venkata
Prasad v. High Court of A.P. [(2016) 11
SCC 656 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 698]
and in Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of
India [(2012) 6 SCC 502 : (2012) 2
SCC (L&S) 177]. We have looked into
the judgments referred above by the
learned Senior Counsel Sri
Venkataramani and the party in person.
Having regard to issue involved in the
present appeals, we are of the view that
the ratio decided in the aforesaid cases
would not render any assistance in
support of their claim in these cases.
The claim of seniority will depend upon
several factors, nature of appointment,
rules as per which the appointments are
-
made and when appointments are
made, were such appointments to the
cadre posts or not, etc. When the
appellants were not appointed to any
regular posts in the A.P. Judicial
Service, the appellants cannot claim
seniority based on their ad hoc
appointments to preside over Fast Track
Courts. We are of the view that the
ratio decided in the said judgments
relied on by the appellants would not
render any assistance in support of
their case.
15. On the other hand, the
judgment in V. Venkata Prasad v. High
Court of A.P. [(2016) 11 SCC 656 :
(2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 698], this Court
has, in clear terms, while considering
A.P. State Higher Judicial Service
Special Rules for Ad Hoc Appointments,
2001 held that such appointments in
respect of Fast Track Courts are ad hoc
in nature and no right accrues to such
appointees. The aforesaid view of this
Court clearly supports the case of the
respondents. Para 25 of the said case
which is relevant for the purpose of
these cases reads as under : (SCC p.
667)
-
'25. From the aforesaid two
authorities, it is quite clear that the
appointments in respect of Fast Track
Courts are ad hoc in nature and no right
is to accrue to such recruits
promoted/posted on ad hoc basis from
the lower judiciary for the regular
promotion on the basis of such
appointment. It has been categorically
stated that FTC Judges were appointed
under a separate set of rules than the
rules governing the regular
appointment in the State Higher Judicial
Services.'"
42. The decisions in Debabrata
Dash [Debabrata Dash v. Jatindra Prasad Das,
(2013) 3 SCC 658 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S)
751], and V. Venkata Prasad [V. Venkata
Prasad v. High Court of A.P., (2016) 11 SCC
656 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 698] were in the
context where serving judicial officers were
granted ad hoc promotions as Fast Track
Court Judges, while in C. Yamini [C.
Yamini v. State of A.P., (2019) 17 SCC 228 :
(2019) 10 Scale 834] the members of the Bar
were appointed as Fast Track Court Judges
and these decisions thus completely conclude
the issue. As has been held in the said
decisions, the reckonable date has to be the
-
date when substantive appointment is made
and not from the date of the initial ad hoc
appointment or promotion. Question 40.1.(A)
is, therefore, answered in the negative."
72. It is to be noted that Review Petitions and
Miscellaneous Applications filed in the aforesaid case were
also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
DINESH KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS V. HIGH COURT OF
JUDICATURE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS - (2021) 19 SCC
271.
73. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
C. Yamini and others (supra) has held as under:
"7. The question which has been
raised in the instant petition at the instance
of the present petitioners has been examined
by this Court in C. Yamini v. State of
A.P. [(2019) 17 SCC 228] wherein the three-
Judge Bench of this Court, after examining
their nature of appointment as a District &
Sessions Judge Fast Track on ad hoc basis
under the 2001 Rules and later appointed by
order dated 2-7-2013 on regular basis and
becoming members under the 2007 Rules
-
held that the petitioners are not entitled to
claim benefit of seniority from the date of
their initial appointment as District &
Sessions Judge Fast Track and other
consequential reliefs prayed for. At the same
time, limited benefit of service rendered as
Fast Track Court Judges was granted to them
only for the purpose of pensionary and other
retiral benefits.
xxxxx
9. Since the services rendered by
the petitioners as Fast Track Court Judges
have not been recognised by this Court for
the purpose of seniority except for
pensionary and other retiral benefits, the
plea raised by the petitioners to consider
their service rendered as Fast Track Court
Judges as a judicial service for the purpose
of Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution, in
light of the judgment of this Court what is
being prayed for, is not legally sustainable."
74. It is thus noticed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Dinesh Kumar Gupta and Others (supra-
2020) has framed a specific issue in paragraph No.40.1 (A)
and it is held that the Judicial Officers promoted on adhoc
-
basis as Additional District and Sessions Judges to man the
Fast Track Courts in the State and who were substantively
appointed to the cadre of District Judge are not entitled to
count their seniority from the date of their initial adhoc
promotion. It is thus concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in paragraph No.42 that the reckonable date has to
only be the date when substantive appointment is made and
not from the date of the initial adhoc appointment or
promotion as Fast Track Court Judges.
75. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.
Yamini and others (supra) has categorically held that the
service rendered by Fast Track Court Judges cannot be
considered as regular judicial service for the purpose of
Article 217(2) of the Constitution of India since such service
was not reckoned for the purpose of seniority, but would
count only for pensionary and retiral benefits.
76. Thus, the law is no longer res-integra with regard
to this issue. The Fast Track Court Judges can be assigned
seniority only from the date on which they are substantively
appointed as District Judges and not from any anterior date
-
i.e., from the date of their adhoc promotion as Fast Track
Court Judges or otherwise. The service rendered as Fast
Track Court Judges cannot be considered as a judicial
service for the purpose of Article 217(2)(a) of the
Constitution of India.
77. However, it is to be examined if the petitioners
can be permitted to raise such a ground in view of the
earlier decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
(Annexure - B to the writ petition) as contended by the
learned Senior counsel appearing for the High Court.
78. I have no hesitation to say that under Article 141
of the Constitution of India, the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court would prevail over the earlier directions
issued by the Division Bench of this Court. The contention
of the petitioners that when the Final Seniority List of
District Judges (Annexure - N to the writ petition) was
published on 16.03.2022, the High Court was bound to
follow the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
prevailing as on that day and that an earlier Division Bench
-
decision cannot be relied upon to the extent it is contrary to
the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is
justified.
79. It is well settled law relating to precedents that
an earlier ruling of a smaller Bench stands overruled, either
expressly or by necessary implication, when a subsequent
larger Bench or higher Forum lays down the law to the
contrary, though the earlier ruling of a smaller Bench would
bind the parties inter-se. In this case, neither the
petitioners nor respondent Nos. 13 to 82 were even
appointed as District Judges when the decision was rendered
by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 03.04.2014
(Annexure - B to the writ petition) and none of them were
parties to the said case. Further, the determination of
seniority with regard to Fast Track Court Judges, pursuant to
the decision rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
on 03.04.2014 (Annexure - B to the writ petition) has never
become final. The Final Seniority List (Annexure - A to the
writ petition) published by the High Court in the year 2016
was withdrawn based upon the Report of the Committee
-
constituted on the administrative side of the High Court in
the year 2021 and thereafter, the Final Seniority List dated
16.3.2022 (Annexure - N to the writ petition) was
published. It cannot therefore be said that the issue relating
to assignment of seniority to Fast Track Court Judges is
settled or has become final.
80. As discussed above, all Fast Track Court Judges
have retired from service long back and they would not be
affected in any manner if their rankings in the Seniority List
are revised in consonance with the law declared by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. They would always be entitled to
count their service as Fast Track Court Judges for the
purpose of protection of their pay and pensionary benefits.
It is the duty of this Court, which is also a Constitutional
Court, to give effect to the law declared by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, especially where none of the parties to the
earlier litigation would be affected, in any manner, if the
rankings in the Seniority List are revised as per the law that
existed when the Final Seniority List dated 16.03.2022
(Annexure - N to the writ petition) was published. Thus, in
-
the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the
opinion that the contention of the petitioners that the Fast
Track Court Judges should be assigned seniority as per the
law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is tenable.
81. The learned Single Judge has rightly relied upon
the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and held that Senior
Civil Judges appointed as Fast Track Court Judges are only
entitled to count their seniority from the date they are
substantively appointed as District Judges and not prior to
such date. The said conclusion of the learned Single Judge
cannot be said to be bad in law.
82. In view of the aforesaid declaration, 82 Senior
Civil Judges who were promoted on adhoc basis as District
Judges to man the Fast Track Courts vide notifications dated
15.02.2003, 19.03.2003, 15.11.2003 and 20.03.2004 and
substantively appointed as District Judges on 01.06.2009
and 29.07.2009, cannot be given seniority prior to the date
of their substantive appointment. As could be seen from the
Final Seniority List (Annexure - A to the writ petition), the
Fast Track Court Judges at Sl. Nos. 38 to 105 and 113 to
-
126 in the Seniority List (Annexure - A to the writ petition)
cannot be assigned seniority from 26.05.2003 to 01.01.2009
and their seniority will have to be reckoned from the date of
their substantive appointment as District Judges on
01.06.2009 and 29.07.2009. In such an event, there will be
a cascading effect and the subsequent promotees within the
65% promotional quota will be further pushed down. On
this ground alone, the Seniority List is required to be re-
drawn by the High Court. It is only when the Seniority List
is re-drawn, one can exactly ascertain if any of respondent
Nos.13 to 82 would also be pushed down in the rankings
assigned in the Seniority List as a consequence.
83. The High Court has filed objections before the
learned Single Judge and stated that the Final Seniority List
is prepared according to date of entry into service and date
of promotion of District Judges. The Seniority List is silent
with regard to maintaining quota of 65% for promotion,
25% for direct recruitment and 10% by selection through
limited competitive departmental examination. The High
Court has also not produced any statement showing
-
allocation of posts as per quota for the period after
01.10.2010, since Annexure - P to the writ petition
produced in the earlier round of litigation was only upto that
date. It is thus clear that the basis for determining the
seniority of persons recruited under these three different
sources of recruitment is their date of appointment as
District Judges.
84. The other contention of Sri. S.S. Naganand,
learned Senior counsel for the High Court is that though
there is no promotion made in excess of 65% promotional
quota as on the date of appointment of the petitioners and
the learned Single Judge has given an erroneous finding in
paragraph No.34 to the contrary is concerned, the High
Court has furnished the factual details of the cadre strength
and vacancies available under the 65% promotional quota
as on the date the petitioners were appointed. It is
specifically stated in paragraph No.9 of the sur-rejoinder
that as on 21.01.2016, the sanctioned cadre strength of
District Judges was 314 and 204 posts are earmarked under
the 65% promotional quota. It is further stated that the
-
working strength of officers was 193 and 11 vacancies still
existed under 65% promotional quota.
85. When the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioners disputed this factual position with respect to
"increase in cadre strength" of District Judges, the Registry
of the High Court is called upon to furnish the details along
with relevant Notifications by which there was increase in
cadre strength of District Judges between 2003 and 2016.
86. The High Court has filed a memo dated
08.09.2025 providing the details relating to increase in
cadre strength of District Judges from 01.05.2003 to
21.01.2016 along with certain Notifications/Government
Orders/Letters. However, the petitioners have filed
objections to the said memo on 10.09.2025 contending that
32 posts mentioned by the High Court cannot be considered
as part of cadre strength of District Judges. The said
contention of the petitioners needs to be examined.
87. The notification dated 15.02.2002 (Sl.No.1 of the
memo filed by the High Court) relates to a Court created for
-
the purpose of conducting trial of a case relating to
Dandupalya Krishna Gang. Another notification dated
15.02.2002 (Sl. No.2 of the memo filed by the High Court)
relates to a Court created for the purpose of conducting trial
of a case relating to fake Stamp paper scam. As per both
these notifications, condition No. 1 stipulates that the post
was created only for a period of one year and prior approval
was mandatory for continuation of the said Court. Condition
No.5 also expressly states that no new recruitment could be
done for the said Court. Further, the notification dated
27.12.2003 (Sl.No.3 of the memo filed by the High Court)
relates to a Court created for conducting trial of case
involving Late Kumari Jayalalitha. These three Courts are
temporarily created only for the purpose of conducting trial
in specific cases and upon conclusion of such trial, the said
Courts would stand abolished. Even otherwise, the trial of
cases in all these three cases have been concluded several
years ago and there is no notification for continuing such
Courts thereafter. Thus, these three posts cannot be
-
considered as increase in cadre strength of District Judges
since they are not permanent posts.
88. The Office Order dated 23.02.2005 issued by
Additional Registrar (Admn.), Supreme Court of India
(Sl.No.7 of the Memo filed by the High Court), would
indicate that one Sri. N.S. Kulkarni, Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Mangalore, is deputed as Member (Judicial)
of the E-Committee. A sanctioned post in the E-Committee
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India cannot be considered
as part of cadre strength of District Judges in the State of
Karnataka merely because a Judicial Officer has been
deputed to the said post. The State Government has not
notified the said post to be part of cadre strength of District
Judges. The said post is in another Establishment. It cannot
be comprehended as to how this post is included as part of
cadre strength of District Judges. Thus, this post also cannot
be considered to be a part of the cadre strength of District
Judges.
-
89. It is claimed that as per the notification dated
31.10.1991 (Sl. No.8 of the Memo filed by the High Court),
there was increase in cadre strength of 1 post of District
Judge. The note appended on page No.4 of the memo
would show that the said post was considered as part of
cadre strength of District Judges from 01.08.2005 as a
Judicial Officer was posted to the said post for the first time.
However, a reading of the notification reveals that it relates
to amendment to the High Court of Karnataka Service
(Conditions of Service and Recruitment) Rules, 1973,
whereby the nomenclature of "Additional Registrars" is
substituted by "Registrar (Judicial)" and "Registrar
(Administration)". This notification does not relate to
creation of post or increase in cadre strength of District
Judges. Even otherwise, as per the method of recruitment
prescribed under the Recruitment Rules relating to the said
posts, they can be filled by promotion from the post of
Deputy Registrar or filled by posting a person who has been
a District Judge. Though the post is validly created on the
Establishment of the High Court, the said post need not be
-
mandatorily filled up by a serving District Judge. There is
also no notification issued by the State Government with
concurrence of Finance Department for making this post as
part of the cadre strength of District Judges. Thus, this post
also cannot be considered to have been made part of the
cadre strength of District Judges.
90. The notification dated 05.12.2005 (Sl. No.9 of the
memo filed by the High Court) relates to 6 posts of
Chairman of Permanent Lok Adalat i.e., one each at
Bangalore, Mysore, Mangalore, Dharwad, Belgaum and
Gulbarga. Section 22B of the Legal Services Authorities Act,
1987, provides for establishment of Permanent Lok Adalats.
Section 22B(2)(a) of the said Act provides that the post of
Chairman of Permanent Lok Adalat can be filled up by a
person who is or has been a District Judge or has held an
office higher than the rank of District Judge. Merely because
a District Judge can be deputed to the said post, these six
posts cannot be considered in the cadre strength of District
Judges. Even a retired District Judge or a person holding an
office higher than the rank of a District Judge can be
-
appointed and they are not exclusively meant for District
Judges alone. There is no notification issued by the State
Government making such posts as part of the cadre strength
of District Judges. Hence, these six posts cannot be
considered to have been made as part of the cadre strength
of District Judges.
91. The notification dated 30.04.2008 (Sl.No.14 of
the memo filed by the High Court) relates to 2 each posts of
Additional Registrar Generals of this Court at Dharwad &
Kalaburgi; notification dated 02.08.2013 (Sl. No.30 of the
memo filed by the High Court) is relating to 3 posts of
Registrars - Recruitment, Infrastructure & Maintenance, and
Statistics & Review of this Court; notification dated
06.01.2014 (Sl. No.32 of the memo filed by the High Court)
relates to 2 posts each of Registrar (Judicial) and Registrar
(Administration) of this Court. The method of recruitment in
respect of these posts in the High Court is not exclusively
from the cadre of District Judges. The said posts can be
filled by promotion from the post of Deputy Registrar or by
posting a person who has been a District Judge. Though the
-
posts are validly created on the Establishment of the High
Court, the said posts need not be mandatorily filled up by a
serving District Judge from among the District Judges. There
is also no notification issued by the State Government with
concurrence of Finance Department for making these posts
as part of the cadre strength of District Judges. Thus, these
nine posts cannot be considered for the purpose of increase
in the cadre strength of District Judges.
92. The letter dated 16.01.2012 issued by the then
Registrar General of the High Court (Sl. No.24 of the memo
filed by the High Court) is the relieving letter of one
Sri.C.R.Benakanahalli, District Judge, upon having been
appointed as Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal,
Bengaluru. The said post of Presiding Officer, Debt
Recovery Tribunal is a selection post at pan-India level with
tenure appointment and District Judges are never deputed
to the said post. Even retired District Judges are considered
for appointment. Merely because a Judicial Officer has
resigned from the post of District Judge and is joining as a
Presiding Officer at Debt Recovery Tribunal, the said post
-
cannot be considered to be part of cadre strength of District
Judges under any circumstance. There is also no Gazette
Notification issued by the State Government relating to the
said post. Thus, this post cannot be considered for the
purpose of increase in the cadre strength of District Judges.
93. By notification dated 25.8.2008 (Sl. No.33 of the
memo filed by the High Court), the Karnataka Government
Secretariat Services (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules,
2008, has come into force. The amendment relates to the
post of Secretary to Government, Department of
Parliamentary Affairs and Legislation, Government of
Karnataka. The method of recruitment provided for the said
post is promotion by selection from the cadre of Additional
Draftsman and ex-officio Additional Secretary to
Government, Department of Parliamentary Affairs and
Legislation and only when no eligible officer in this cadre is
available, then by deputation of an Officer of Karnataka
Judicial Service in the cadre of District Judge. Thus, the
Rule itself expressly provides that it is a promotional post in
the said Government Department and not meant to be filled
-
only by District Judges. The said post is in the
Establishment of the State Government Department and in
absence of any notification issued by the State Government
including the said post in the cadre of District Judges, by no
stretch of imagination, it can be considered as part of cadre
strength of District Judges.
94. The notification dated 02.09.1986 (Sl. No. 34 of
the memo filed by High Court) is relating to the post of
Registrar, Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. As per the
note appended on page No.4 of the memo, since a Judicial
Officer was posted on deputation pursuant to the letter
dated 26.11.2013 of the then learned Judicial Member,
Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, requesting for deputing a
District Judge to the post of Registrar as there are no eligible
Deputy Registrars to be promoted to the said post, this post
of Registrar, Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, is also
considered by the High Court to be part of cadre strength of
District Judges with effect from 01.04.2014. The Rules
provide for filling up the said post by promotion from the
cadre of Deputy Registrars in Karnataka Administrative
-
Tribunal and a Judicial Officer is temporarily deputed in
exigencies of administration. This notification was issued far
back in the year 1986 when the Karnataka Administrative
Tribunal was established and the High Court considers the
said post as part of cadre strength of District Judges from
01.04.2014 only based upon the said letter requesting for
temporary deputation of a District Judge. There is no
notification issued by the State Government for inclusion of
said post in the cadre strength of District Judges. Hence,
the said post cannot be considered as part of cadre strength
of District Judges.
95. The notification dated 06.12.2012 (Sl. No. 35 of
the Memo filed by High Court) is relating to the post of
Director, Arbitration Centre - Karnataka (Domestic and
International). As per the said notification, the said post of
Director is to be filled up by deputation of a District Judge.
However, it is further stated in the said notification itself
that the Government has also authorized filling up of the
said post of Director by appointing a retired District Judge as
well. Thus, even a retired District Judge can be appointed
-
and the said post is not exclusively meant for District Judges
only. There is no notification issued by the State
Government making the said post as part of the cadre
strength of District Judges. Hence, this post cannot be
considered as a part of the cadre strength of District Judges.
96. The notifications dated 22.09.1988, 15.02.2008
and 29.01.2015 relate to 8 posts of Additional Registrar
(Enquiries), Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru (Sl. Nos. 37
to 39 of the Memo filed by High Court). The note appended
on page No.4 of the memo filed by the High Court itself
states that the method of recruitment to the said posts of
Additional Registrar (Enquiries), Karnataka Lokayuktha, is
by deputation of a District Judge or an Officer of Indian
Administrative Service. It further states that as per the
request letter dated 07.09.2015 issued by the Registrar,
Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru, the then Hon'ble Acting
Chief Justice has permitted to include the said 8 posts into
consideration for cadre strength of District Judges. As per
the Karnataka Lokayuktha (Cadre & Recruitment) Rules,
1988, the said post, which is in a separate Establishment,
-
can be filled on deputation by a District & Sessions Judge or
by an Officer belonging to the Indian Administrative Service
or by promotion of Officers from the cadre of Deputy
Registrars. Only because one of the modes of recruitment to
the said posts provides for deputation of a District Judge,
the same cannot be considered as part of the cadre strength
of District Judges. The cadre strength cannot be increased
only based upon such correspondence and without any
notification in the Official Gazette. Though these posts are
created in the Karnataka Lokayuktha several years back, the
same are said to have been included in the cadre strength
on 01.09.2015 based upon the letter of Registrar, Karnataka
Lokayuktha. This procedure is not in accordance with law.
Thus, these eight posts cannot be considered as a part of
the cadre strength of District Judges.
97. Thus, as detailed above and as rightly contended
by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners,
the above said 32 posts cannot be considered as part of
'cadre strength' of District Judges. The creation of
posts/cadre strength is essentially an executive function and
-
it has financial implications on the exchequer. Though it is
open to the Government to include temporary posts in the
cadre to be defined by them, at the same time, it is for the
State, in consultation with the High Court, to declare the
cadre and its strength. The said strength is to be calculated
on the basis of the posts, which are brought in the cadre.
98. As per the Karnataka Civil Service Rules "Cadre"
means the strength of a service or part of a service
sanctioned as a separate unit.
99. The literal meaning of "sanctioned post" is an
official, approved and funded position within an
organization, official staffing structure, created with formal
authorization by a competent authority. The approval
includes a financial sanction and specifies a job title, salary
and duties for the post, ensuring its legal validity and
existence within the organization.
100. Whereas "temporary post" is defined under Rule
8(46) of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules, which states that
"a post carrying a definite rate of pay sanctioned for limited
-
a time." Further no temporary post may be created without
the sanction of the Government. The Government may,
however, delegate this power to the Heads of Department
and other Authorities subject to such limits and conditions as
they deem fit. Thus, it is clear that a temporary post is job
position sanctioned for a limited, defined period rather than
being a permanent, unlimited position. These posts are
created to fulfill a specific, short term need.
101. Admittedly, in the instant case, there are no
notifications published in the Official Gazette to include the
posts in the cadre of District Judges. Without such an order,
it cannot be said that the strength of the service has been
increased and that the post created de-hors the cadre of a
service shall be considered as ex-cadre post. Merely
because a District Judge is temporarily deputed to such
posts on deputation, the same does not imply that they
become posts of District Judges. They can always be filled
up by resorting to other modes of recruitment provided
under the Recruitment Rules governing the said posts.
Under more or less identical circumstances, the Hon'ble
-
Supreme Court in the case of HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
AT RAJASTHAN V. VEENA VERMA AND ANOTHER - (2009)
14 SCC 734 in paragraph No.27 has held as under:
"We cannot agree with the view of the
Division Bench of the High Court that creation of
posts beyond the cadre strength mentioned in
Schedule-I automatically implies increase in the
strength in service under sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of
the Rules. It may be noted that under sub-rule (2)
of rule 6, the strength of the service may be varied
by the Governor from time to time in consultation
with the High Court. No such order has been passed
under sub-rule (2) of Rule 6. Without such an order
it cannot be said that the strength of the service
has been increased. It may be mentioned that posts
can be created de hors the cadre of a service, and
these are known as ex cadre posts."
102. The learned Single Judge while discussing the
above aspect has rightly observed by relying the dictum of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.B. BADAMI AND
OTHERS VS. STATE OF MYSORE AND OTHERS - (1976) 2
SCC 901 in paragraphs Nos.29 to 37 that as long as the
quota rule remains, promotees have no legal right to claim
for promotion unless there is clear vacancy under the said
-
quota. In other words, the promotees can be allotted to any
of the substantive vacancies of the quota provided for the
said cadre under the relevant Rules. Further, the learned
Single Judge has also relied on the dictum laid down in the
case of GONAL BHIMAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA -
1987 supp. SC 207, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that the inter-se seniority between direct recruitees and
the promotees should be strictly made adhering to the quota
provided under the relevant rules in paragraph Nos.10 to 23
by reiterating the principle laid down in V.B.Badami's case.
103. The High Court has claimed that there were 314
sanctioned posts in the cadre of District Judges as on the
date the petitioners and others were appointed on
01.02.2016 and thus, there would be 204 posts under 65%
promotional quota. It is their further stand in the Sur-
Rejoinder that 193 Judicial Officers promoted under 65%
promotional quota were working as on that day. However, if
the above said 32 posts are excluded from 314 posts
considered by the High Court as total cadre strength, then
the cadre strength of District Judges will be 282 posts. In
-
such an event, there would be 183 posts under 65%
promotional quota. Thus, even as on the date of
appointment of the petitioners i.e., 01.02.2016, 10
promotee Officers would be in excess of 65% promotional
quota. The High Court shall also verify and exclude all such
similar posts such as these 32 posts, if already included for
the purpose of counting the cadre strength of District
Judges.
104. As noticed above, when promotion is made
outside the quota, seniority would be reckoned from the
date of vacancy within the quota rendering the previous
service fortuitous. Such excess promotees will have to be
assigned rankings in the Seniority List below the petitioners
and adjusted in the later vacancies within the 65%
promotional quota, as such, service outside promotee quota
cannot be counted for seniority.
105. In the similar circumstance, the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of SANJAY K.SINHA-II & OTHERS - STATE
OF BIHAR & OTHERS - (2004) 10 SCC 734, the Apex Court
has held in paragraphs 9, 16 and 17 as under:
-
" 9. We have carefully perused the said
resolution. As the heading of the resolution
suggests, it is merely a determination of the cadre
strength of the post of ACF. It is a decision as to
what should be the cadre strength. The resolution
cannot be said to be creating the posts. There is lot
of difference between determination of cadre
strength and creation of posts. Determination is a
decision regarding what should be the cadre
strength. The decision needs to be implemented.
Implementation is by creation of posts. For creation
of posts certain formalities have to be gone
through. Nothing has been shown to suggest that
requisite formalities regarding creation of posts had
taken place. The resolution therefore cannot be
taken as a creation of posts. The discussion which
follows will show that the State Government itself
understood the legal position in the same manner
as the State Government has taken a stand in the
subsequent proceedings that sufficient number of
posts had not been created and therefore were not
available.
16. We have no reason to discard the clear
admissions made on behalf of the State
Government about non-availability of posts of ACFs
for promotion of the promotees at the relevant
time. This leads to the conclusion that the
appointments of the respondents-promotees
between June and November, 1987 as ACFs were
-
against non-existing posts. When the posts were
not available at all the next question as to whether
the posts were falling within the quota of the
promotees does not arise. Therefore, we need not
advert to it. The question of availability of posts and
the number of posts which are available is a
question which can be best answered on the basis
of record. Unfortunately no effect was made to
place the relevant information before the court by
supporting it with records. The record position we
got in this case only from the affidavit of Shri K.D.
Sinha, Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Department
of Forests & Environment, Government of Bihar
filed in reply to the contempt petition in the Patna
High Court, copy of which is available as Annexure
R3 to the Rejoinder Affidavit filed on behalf of
appellants in this Court. The affidavit with which
copy of the affidavit of Shri K.D. Sinha is annexed,
was filed on 4th November, 1999. No effort has
been made on behalf of the State Government to
controvert the factual position stated in the affidavit
of Shri K.D. Sinha. We can safely accept the
position explained by Shri K.D. Sinha in his
affidavit. Thus we hold that the appointments of the
respondents/ promotees made between June and
November, 1987 to the posts of ACFs cannot be
termed as substantive appointments to the service
and therefore, they cannot confer any benefit of
seniority on the respondents over and above the
-
appellants who were directly appointed to the
service vide notification dated 14th February, 1987.
17. It is settled law that appointments made
contrary to the rules are merely fortuitous and do
not confer benefit of seniority on the appointees
over and above the regular/substantive appointees
to the service."
106. In view of the above, I am of the considered view
that the learned Single Judge was justified in quashing the
Final Seniority List of District Judges published on
16.03.2022 (Annexure - N to the writ petition) on both the
grounds.
107. Insofar as quashing of the Final Seniority List
(Annexure - A to the writ petition) is concerned, the same is
of no consequence since the said List stood withdrawn by
the High Court during the pendency of the writ petition in
the year 2021. At the cost of repetition, as discussed supra,
82 Senior Civil Judges who were promoted on adhoc basis as
District Judges to man the Fast Track Courts vide
notifications dated 15.02.2003, 19.03.2003, 15.11.2003 and
20.03.2004 and substantively appointed as District Judges
-
on 01.06.2009 and 29.07.2009, cannot be assigned
seniority prior to the date of their substantive appointment.
Such Fast Track Court Judges at Sl.Nos.38 to 105 and 113
to 126 in the Final Seniority List (Annexure - A to the writ
petition) cannot be assigned seniority from 26.05.2003 to
01.01.2009 and their seniority will have to be reckoned only
from the date of their substantive appointment as District
Judges on 01.06.2009 and 29.07.2009. In such an event,
there will be a cascading effect and the subsequent
promotees within the 65% promotional quota will be
assigned ranking below the direct recruits and adjusted
against a later vacancy within their 65% quota. The exact
number of persons who would be pushed down in view of
such consequence is required to be worked out by the High
Court while redoing the Seniority List.
108. Further, even as on the date of appointment of
the petitioners on 01.02.2016, by considering the increase
in cadre strength from 2003 to 2016, it is clear that 10
promotee Officers would be in excess of 65% promotional
quota as a result of excluding 32 posts of District Judges
-
which are erroneously considered for calculating the
'increase in cadre strength' of District Judges. While redoing
the Seniority List, the High Court shall also verify and
exclude all such similar posts such as these 32 posts, if
already included for the purpose of counting the cadre
strength of District Judges. Thus, the total number of
officers under the 65% promotional quota, who are in
excess of their quota, as on the date the petitioners were
appointed, shall be assigned ranking below the petitioners in
the Seniority List. The findings of the learned Single Judge,
in the given circumstances and from the material available
on record, can therefore be sustained in view of my
reasoning. There is no merit in the grounds put forth by the
High Court or the promotees in support of these appeals and
accordingly, they are liable to be dismissed by upholding the
order passed by the learned Single Judge.
109. Before parting with the case, it is noticed that the
High Court has not complied with the directions issued by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges
-
Association & Others (supra-2002), wherein it is held
thus:
"29. Experience has shown that there has
been a constant discontentment amongst the
members of the Higher Judicial Service in
regard to their seniority in service. For over
three decades a large number of cases have
been instituted in order to decide the relative
seniority from the officers recruited from the
two different sources, namely, promotees and
direct recruits. As a result of the decision
today, there will, in a way, be three ways of
recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service.
The quota for promotion which we have
prescribed is 50 per cent by following the
principle "merit-cum-seniority", 25 per cent
strictly on merit by limited departmental
competitive examination and 25 per cent by
direct recruitment. Experience has also shown
that the least amount of litigation in the
country, where quota system in recruitment
exists, insofar as seniority is concerned, is
where a roster system is followed. For
example, there is, as per the rules of the
Central Government, a 40-point roster which
has been prescribed which deals with the
quotas for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes. Hardly, if ever, there has been a
-
litigation amongst the members of the service
after their recruitment as per the quotas, the
seniority is fixed by the roster points and
irrespective of the fact as to when a person is
recruited. When roster system is followed,
there is no question of any dispute arising.
The 40-point roster has been considered and
approved by this Court in R.K.
Sabharwal v. State of Punjab [(1995) 2 SCC
745 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 548 : (1995) 29 ATC
481]. One of the methods of avoiding any
litigation and bringing about certainty in this
regard is by specifying quotas in relation to
posts and not in relation to the vacancies.
This is the basic principle on the basis of
which the 40-point roster works. We direct
the High Courts to suitably amend and
promulgate seniority rules on the basis
of the roster principle as approved by
this Court in R.K. Sabharwal
case [(1995) 2 SCC 745 : 1995 SCC
(L&S) 548 : (1995) 29 ATC 481] as early
as possible. We hope that as a result thereof
there would be no further dispute in the
fixation of seniority. It is obvious that this
system can only apply prospectively except
where under the relevant rules seniority is to
be determined on the basis of quota and
rotational system. The existing relative
-
seniority of the members of the Higher
Judicial Service has to be protected but the
roster has to be evolved for the future.
Appropriate rules and methods will be
adopted by the High Courts and
approved by the States, wherever
necessary by 31-3-2003.
30. We disapprove the recommendation
of giving any weightage to the members of
the Subordinate Judicial Service in their
promotion to the Higher Judicial Service in
determining seniority vis-à-vis direct recruits
and the promotees. The roster system will
ensure fair play to all while improving
efficiency in the service."
110. The above directions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court clearly show that the High Court was obliged to
promulgate Seniority Rules, relating to the post of District
Judges which can be filled up by three modes of
recruitment, on the basis of the 40-point roster principle as
approved by the Constitution Bench in R.K. SABHARWAL
AND OTHERS V. STATE OF PUNJAB - 1995 SCC (2) 745,
prior to 31.03.2003. However, though over 22 years have
passed by, no such Rules are notified by the High Court. It
-
is only due to the absence of any roster-based Seniority
Rules that such inter-se seniority disputes between the
direct recruits and promotees repeatedly call upon the
Courts for adjudication. This results in lot of heartburn
among the Judicial Officers and is required to be remedied at
the earliest in the larger interest of the functioning of the
District Judiciary. It would be expedient if the above said
directions are given effect to in near future so as to avoid
future litigations in this regard. Accordingly, I pass the
following:
ORDER
i. Writ Appeal No. 1006/2023 preferred
by the Registrar General of the High
Court of Karnataka as well as Writ
Appeal Nos. 1162/2023 and
1312/2023 preferred by the
promotee District Judges are hereby
dismissed.
ii. The impugned Order dated 19.7.2023
passed by the learned Single Judge in
Writ Petition No. 4046/2020 is
affirmed.
-
iii. The High Court shall re-do the
Seniority List of District Judges
strictly as per the quota prescribed
for three (3) sources of recruitment
to the post of District Judges under
the Recruitment Rules from time to
time.
iv. The High Court shall publish a fresh
Provisional Seniority List and provide
an opportunity to all concerned
Officers to file objections and
thereafter finalize the Seniority List in
accordance with the observations
made herein.
v. The adhoc District Judges who were
appointed as Fast Track Court Judges
shall be assigned ranking in the
Seniority List from the date of their
appointment as District Judges on
substantive basis i.e., 01.06.2009
and 29.07.2009 and not from any
anterior date in view of the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the cases of Dinesh Kumar
Gupta and Others (supra) and C.
Yamini and Others (supra).
-
vi. Ten (10) District Judges who are
promoted in excess of 65%
promotional quota as on the date of
appointment of the writ petitioners on
01.02.2016 and such other promotee
District Judges, who would become
excess of 65% promotional quota as
a result of (i) re-assigning
appropriate rankings to Fast Track
Court Judges appointed during the
years 2003-04 from the date of their
substantive appointment as District
Judges in the year 2009; and (ii)
upon due verification and excluding
all similar posts such as the 32 posts
referred to in paragraph Nos. 20.2 to
20.11 above, if already included for
the purpose of counting the cadre
strength of District Judges, if any,
shall be assigned rankings in the
Seniority List below the writ
petitioners and adjusted against later
vacancies within the 65%
promotional quota.
vii. The High Court shall complete the
exercise as expeditiously as possible
-
at any rate within a period of three
months from this day.
viii. The High Court is also directed to
take immediate steps to comply with
the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of All India
Judges Association & Others
(supra) by promulgating the
Seniority Rules on the basis of the
40-point roster principle approved by
the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of R.K.
Sabharwal and Others (surpa), at
the earliest. It is needless to observe
that such Rules would be applicable
prospectively and the determination
of existing relative seniority of
District Judges shall be protected.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K.)
JUDGE
PKS/K
