[Cites 16, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Shantaveer Shivappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 April, 2026
Author: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
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 W.A. No. 1006/2023
BETWEEN:
Digitally
signed by 1. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
PRAKASH N
Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT
OF DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI ,
KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.S NAGANAND., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI PAVANESH D
S/O LATE SURESH D
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
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
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 BANGALORE - 560 001
4. SRI SYED BALEEGUR RAHAMAN
S/O SYED KALEEMULLA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS
ADDL 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
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001
6. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 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
8. SRI C RAJASHEKARA
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,
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
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
BENGALURU CITY ,
CIVIL COURT COMPLEX, K G ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 009
14. SMT B S REKHA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
NOW WORKING AS
PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
CHITRADURGA - 577 501
15. SRI SHUBHAVEER V
RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDING AT 'ANI' KAYERMAJAL,
BEHRU 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,
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
13TH MAIN, M C M LAYOUT
MALLATHAHALLI,
BENGALURU - 560 056
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
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
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 VILLAMENT,
NO.499 BLOCK NO.12,
TEJASHWINI NAGAR
KAMMANAHALLI OFF
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BEGUR HOBLI, HULIMAVU
BENGALURU - 560 076
26. SRI KRISHNAJI BABU RAO 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,
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
MALLESHWARAM
BANGALORE - 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
DISTRICT: KOPPAL, POST KUSHTAGI - 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
31. SMT USHA RANI
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
NOW WORKING AS REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
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 SHIVAJI ANANT NALAWADE
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
NOW WORKING AS
PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
VIJAYAPURA-586 109
35. SRI A D MAHANTHAPPA
RETIRED DISTRICT JUDGE,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT C/O DAMAPPA 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
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
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, KHANIJA BHAVAN
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
42. SRI R BANNIKATTI HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
NOW WORKING AS
PRL DISTRICT AND DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE
KOPPAL - 583 231
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 KOSANDAR
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
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
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
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 (JUDICIAL),
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
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
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
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
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
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 JUGE,
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.
61. SRI. KIRAN SIDDAPPA GANGANNAVAR,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
NOW WORKING AS
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
FTSC-I, HASSAN - 573 212.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
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
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
67. SRI A VIJAYAN
SINCE DECEASED,
NO.14, BEHIND SAINT ANDREW ECI CHURCH,
VIRINCHIPURAM 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
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
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.
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-563 125
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.S. BHAGWAT, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. SNEHA M BHAGWAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. GAURAV AGARWAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. URMILA PULLAT, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W
SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R5 & R6;
SRI P.S. RAJA GOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. M.A. APPAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R21 TO R44 TO R46,
R48, R51 TO R54, R58, R61 TO R62,
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
R64, R65, R68, R70, R73 AND R74;
SRI P.S. RAJA GOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI YASHU MISHRA, ADVOCATE FOR R55;
SRI. ADITHYA SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE 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 TO R42, R44 TO R48, R50 TO R54,
R57 TO R65, R68 TO R70, R73 AND R74 ARE SERVED;
R67 - APPEAL 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.
IN W.A. NO. 1162/2023
BETWEEN:
1. SRI SHANTAVEER SHIVAPPA
S/O SRI SHIVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI - 574 118.
EMAIL: [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
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
EMAIL- [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
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
EMAIL: [email protected]
MOB: 9481631837
5. SRI MOHAMMED KHAN M PATHAN
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
S/O SRI MOHAMMAD KHAN PATHAN
PRESIDING OFFICER
WAKF TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE
EMAIL: [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, BANGALORE
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
EMAIL: [email protected]
MOB: 9008280327
7. SRI .B. JAYANTHA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
S/O SRI B RAMANATH BANGERA,
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT SESSIONS JUDGE
YADGIR DISTRICT, YADGIR - 585 202
EMAIL: [email protected]
MOB: 9449540600
8. SMT S NAGASHREE
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
W/O SRI K.N. NAGARAJAN
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
KALABURAGI
EMAIL: [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
EMAIL: [email protected]
MOB: 9480180801
10. SRI CHANDRASHEKHAR MARGOOR
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
S/O SRI VIRUPAXAPPA
ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
EMAIL: [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
EMAIL: [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
EMAIL: [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
EMAIL: [email protected]
MOB: 9448536405
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
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
EMAIL: [email protected]
MOB: 8095321047
15. SRI M JAGADEESWARA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
S/O SRI A. MALLAPPA,
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT
RAICHUR DISTRICT, RAICHUR
MOB: 7760463700
16. SRI KIRAN SIDDAPPA GANGANNAVAR
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
S/O SRI S G GANGANNAVAR
ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN
EMAIL: [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
EMAIL: [email protected]
MOB: 9482315258
18. SMT HEMAVATHI
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
W/O SRI K R CHANDRASHEKHAR
PRINCIPAL JUDGE
FAMILY COURT, KALABURAGI
EMAIL: [email protected]
MOB: 9448544277
19. SRI MAHAVARKAR D GULZARLAL
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
S/O SRI DATTURAO
I ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX, RAMANAGARA
EMAIL: [email protected]
MOB: 9448033371
20. SRI. N. BIRADAR DEVINDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
S/O SRI. NEELKANTAPPA,
V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
SITTING AT DEVANAHALLI
EMAIL: [email protected]
MOB: 91 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
EMAIL. [email protected]
MOB. 91 9481904055
22. SRI. S. GOPALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
S/O SRI. C. SANJEEVAIAH,
ADDL. REGISTRAR,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU
[email protected]
MOB. 91 8277563949
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
23. SMT. G. PRABHAVATHI,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
W./O SRI. NAGARAJU N
V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
SHIVAMOGGA,
SITTING AT SAGAR
EMAIL. [email protected]
MOB. 91 63666704260
24. SMT. NAGAVENI,
AGED 55 YEARS,
W/O SRI. K SHIVA PRASAD,
II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHIKKABALLAPURA,
SITTING AT CHINTAMANI,
EMAIL. [email protected]
MOB. 91 8861429393
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI M A APPAIAH., ADVOCATE FOR A1 TO A11 AND
A13 TO A24 AND FOR
SRI YESHU MISHRA, ADVOCATE AND
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,
BANGALORE - 560 001
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
DEPT. OF LAW, JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001
3. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001
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
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
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 SUPERANNUATION)
10. SRI K SUBRAMANYA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
LXVII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COURT 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,
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
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.
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,
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
(RETIRED FROM SERVICE ON
ATTAINING SUPERANNUATION)
18. SRI. S. DESHPANDE GOVINDARAJ
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
COURT COMPLEX, TUMKUR
(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,
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)
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
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 - 580 001.
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 - 560 009.
(RETIRED FROM SERVICE ON
ATTAINING SUPERANNUATION)
26. SRI. KRISHNAJI BABURAO PATIL
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
VI ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT, NYAYA DEGULA,
H. SIDDAIAH ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
(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 - 572 132.
(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)
31. SMT. USHARANI
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
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
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
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
KAT
M S BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
40. SRI D S VIJAYA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT
KARWAR - 581 301.
41. SRI M BRUNGESHA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
DIRECTOR, ARBITRATION CENTRE
KHANIJA BHAVANA
RACE COURSE ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
42. SRI R BANNIKATTI HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
JUDICIAL MEMBER, KAT
M S BUILDING
BENGALURU
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 - 560 009.
(RETIRED FROM SERVICE ON
ATTAINING SUPERANNUATION)
46. SRI KUDAVAKKALIGAR MAHADEVAPPA GANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
1ST ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
BELGAUM - 590 001.
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
47. SRI SADANANDA M DODDAMANI
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
XXV ADDL CITIY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU - 560 009.
48. SRI A VIJAYAN
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
IV ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE
DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX, MYSURU
(RETIRED FROM SERVICE ON
ATTAINING SUPERANNUATION)
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
1ST ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
HAVERI
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W
SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. S.S. NAGANAND, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. M.S. BHAGWAT, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. SNEHA M. BHAGWAT, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6;
R8, R12 TO R14, R16, R19, R20, R22 TO R24, R26, R30,
R33, R38, R40 AND R42 - SERVICE OF NOTICE IS
DISPENSED WITH V.C.O. DATED 11.10.2023;
R10, R17, R21, R25, R39, R45 AND R49 - SERVICE OF
NOTICE IS DISPENSED WITH V.C.O DATED 21.08.2024;
SRI. K. SHASHIKANTH PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R31;
SRI. N.B.N. SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R50;
SRI. GAURAV AGARWAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. URMILA PULLAT, ADVOCATE FOR R7;
R9, R11, R15, R18, R27 TO R29, R32, R34 TO R37, R41,
R43, R44, R46 TO R48 AND R51 ARE SERVED)
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 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND
CONSEQUENTLY, DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION WITH
EXEMPLARY COST AND ETC.
IN W.A. NO. 1312/2023
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,
- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
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
DHARWAD
6. SMT USHA RANI
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
WIFE OF SRI SHASHIKANTH PRASAD
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
- 37 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
8. SRI M BRUNGESH
SON OF LATE SRI R. MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
WORKING AS DIRECTOR
ARBITRATION CENTER
KARNATAKA (DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL)
BENGALURU
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. ADITY SONDHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE 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
3. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
4. SRI PAVENESH D
SON OF LATE SRI SURESH D
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
- 38 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
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
RAMANAGARAM - 562 159
6. SRI SUDINDRANATH S
SON OF SRI SAINATH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WORKING AS
VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
TUMKUR - 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
(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
- 39 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
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
AGE 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
- 40 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
14. SRI BASAPPA BALAPPA JAKATI
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
WORKING AS
LIX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
CITY CIVIL COMPLEX
BENGALURU - 560 009
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 CITY AND SESSIONS JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COMPLEX
BENGALURU - 560 009
- 41 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
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
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.
- 42 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
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 AT SEDAM)
COURT COMPLEX, SEDAM-585 222.
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 SESSIONS JUDGE
UTTARA KANNADA KARWAR
- 43 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
(TO SIT AT SIRSI) COURT COMPLEX
SIRSI-581 401
29. SRI. RAVINDRA M JOSHI
AGED 53 TYEARS
WORKING AS XL ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU - 560 009.
30. SMT. SAVITRI
VENKATARAMANA BHAT
AGED 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 56 YEARS
WORKING AS VI ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE
FAMILY COURT, NYAYA DEGULA
H. SIDDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 027
33. SRI SUNILDATT ANNAPPA CHIKKORDE
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
- 44 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
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,
- 45 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
WORKING AS PRESIDING OFFICER,
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 SESSIONS JUDGE,
KALABURGI DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
KALABURGI - 585 103
42. SRI. H C SHAMPRASAD
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
- 46 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
XXXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU - 560 009
44. SRI. D T PUTTARANGASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
WORKING AS I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE
FAMILY COURT,
TUMAKURU COURT COMPLEX
TUMKUR - 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,
- 47 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
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 COMPLEX,
MYSURU - 570 005
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
- 48 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
54. SRI M CHANDRASHEKHAR 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
56. SRI C CHANDRASHEKHAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
WORKING AS
IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
DODDABALLAPURA DISTRICT 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,
- 49 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
WORKING AS PRESIDING OFFICER,
LABOUR COURT,
KALABURGI DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX,
KALABURGI-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 YASUDEV
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
WORKING AS LXXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX,
BENGALURU-560 009
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,
- 50 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX,
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201
65. SRI HOSAMANI PUNDALIK
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
WORKING AS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU DISTRICT
COURT COMPLEX, MYSURU-570 002
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, 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
- 51 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
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 NAIK
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
NOW WORKING AS XLI ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 001
73. SRI PATIL NAGALINGANAGOUDA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
WORKING AS II ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE
FAMILY COURT, MYSURU DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
MYSURU - 570 002.
74. SRI S GOPALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
NOW WORKING AS
II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
KALABURAGI DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
KALABURAGI - 585 103.
75. SMT. VELA DAMODAR KHODAY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
WORKING AS PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
- 52 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
FAMILY COURT,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
BELAGAVI - 590 001.
76. SRI. G.L. LAKSHMINARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
WORKING AS ADDL. 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 ADDL. 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
(BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W
SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. S.S. NAGANAND, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI M.A. APPAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R28, R47 TO R50, R52,
R53, R55 TO R62, R64, R65, R66, R68 TO R70,
R77 AND R78;
SRI P.S. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI YESHU MISHRA, ADVOCATE FOR R59,
SRI. M.S. BHAGWAT, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. SNEHA M BHAGWAT, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6;
- 53 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
SRI. GAURAV AGARWAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. URMILA PULLAT, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R7;
SRI N.B.N. SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R75;
R8 TO R14, R16 TO R18, R21 TO R23, R25,
R31, R32, R34, R35, R37, R40, R42, R46,
R54, R64, R67 AND R76 - ARE SERVED THROUGH
HAND SUMMONS
R20, R26, R36, R38, R41, R66, R73,
R77 AND R78 - ARE SERVED;
R15, R29, R33, R43, R45, R63 - SERVED THROUGH E-MAIL;
V/O DATED 20.06.2025, MEMO DATED 09.12.2024 FOR
DECEASED R39 AND R71 ARE TAKEN ON RECORD.)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO i) 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 RESPONDENT NOS.4-7/PETITIONERS AND ETC.
THESE WRIT APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 18.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY,
S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
- 54 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
WA No. 1006 of 2023
C/W WA No. 1162 of 2023
WA No. 1312 of 2023
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
THIS JUDGMENT HAS BEEN DIVIDED INTO THE
FOLLOWING SECTIONS TO FACILITATE ANALYSIS:
SL. NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.
CADRE
ANU SIVARAMAN J., AND RAJESH RAI K. J.,
ON CADRE STRENGTH
- 55 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
I. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
The parties are referred to by their rank in the writ
proceedings for the purpose of convenience.
2. The petitioners are Direct Recruit District Judges
appointed on 01.02.2016 and have challenged the Final
Seniority List of District Judges which is a consolidated
Seniority List consisting of Direct Recruits Civil Judges
who were promoted as District Judges, as well as those Civil
Judges who have been promoted on the basis of Limited
Departmental Competitive Examination [for brevity,
"LDCE"]. The prayer in the writ petition is as follows:
"a. Setting aside of the seniority of the District
Judges at Annexure- A.
b. Direction for preparation of fresh seniority list
after assigning proper ranking by placing them
above respondent Nos. 4 to 82.
c. To set aside the seniority list of 16.03.2022 at
Annexure-N insofar as the ranking assigned to
the petitioners and respondent Nos.13 to 82
- 56 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
and direct a redo of the seniority list by
placing the petitioners above respondent
Nos.13 to 82."
3. A perusal of the Seniority List at Annexure-'A'
would indicate that the Seniority List is as follows:
Sl. Promotees Limited Direct Recruit
Nos. Departmental District Judges
Competitive
Exam
38 to 98, 100, 99, 101, 103, 104, 106 to 112, 170,
102, 116, 118, 105, 113 to 115, 171, 367 to 371 ,
121, 123, 125, 117, 119, 120, 122 381 to 388.
126, 159 to 166, and 124, 127 to
172 to 366, 372 158, 167 to 169
to 380, 389 to 392
4. It is necessary to notice that this Seniority List at
Annexure-'A' was re-done and eventually the present
Seniority List is as is found at Annexure-'N' dated
16.03.2022. The placement of the petitioners vis-à-vis the
respondents in the said Seniority List is as follows:-
- 57 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
SL. NO. in the Seniority List dated Rank of Parties in
16.03.2022 W.P.No.4046/2020(S-RES)
(Annexure-N) [P - Petitioner ; R- Respondent]
373 P1
374 P2
377 P3
380 P4
288 R13
291-303 R14-R26
304 R48
305-311 R27-R33
314-317 R34-37
318 R49
319-324 R38-R43
326-329 R44-R47
337-343 R50-R56
345-351 R57-R63
353-364 R64-R75
366-372 R76-R82
381-387 R4-R10
389-390 R11-R12
5. The following is the table indicating the source of
entry under different categories/ quota:
- 58 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
Notification No. Year Of Proportion of Different Feeder Source
Notification/
Alteration of
Quota
LAW 130 LAC 82 1983 66 2/3% - promotion
dated 24.08.1983 33 1/3% - Direct Recruitment
LAW 26 LAC 2005 2005 50% - Promotion
dated 09.09.2005 25% - Promotion through LDCE
25% - Direct Recruitment
LAW 123 LAC 2011 2011 65% - Promotion
dated 11.07.2011 10% - Promotion through LDCE
25% - Direct Recruitment
I.A.No.230675/2025 2025 50% - Promotion
in Writ Petition (Civil) 25% - Promotion through LDCE
No.1022/1989 25% - Direct Recruitment
LAW-LAC/126/2025 2026 50% - Promotion
dated 12.03.2026 25% - Promotion through LDCE
25% - Direct Recruitment
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY:-
6. It is made out from the facts that the Seniority
List published on 14.09.2012 relating to the cadre of District
Judges contained ad hoc District Judges/Fast Track Court
["FTC"] Judges who were allegedly placed above the Direct
Recruits of the year 2008. The said Seniority List was
assailed in W.P.Nos.41684-41691/2012 and the Writ
- 59 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
Petition came to be allowed holding that the actual date of
appointment of Direct Recruits of the year 2008 and the
actual date of promotion given to the ad hoc District Judges
had to be considered while fixing the inter se seniority.
7. The said order was taken up in
W.A.No.6514/2013 and the writ appeal was allowed by an
order authored by Justice B.V.Nagarathna, presently, Judge
of the Supreme Court of India with the following directions:
"84. In the result, the writ appeals are allowed
and the impugned judgment is set aside. The
RG is directed to prepare a fresh seniority list
of the direct recruits and promotees (sic) in
conformity with the following directions:
(i) As far as the direct recruits are
concerned their seniority would be
reckoned from the date they were
appointed.
(ii) As far as promotees (sic) are
concerned, their seniority would be
reckoned from the date they were
appointed to the substantive
- 60 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
vacancies i.e. from the date
vacancies arose under the quota
mentioned in 1983 Rules and not
from the date of the Notifications
appointing them as FTC Judges,
where the vacancies arose
subsequent to their appointment. In
case, where the vacancies occurred
prior to their appointment as FTC
Judges, seniority should be reckoned
from the date they were appointed
as FTC Judges.
(iii) As far as those Judges who took
examination by way of accelerated
promotion is concerned, they are
from two categories (a) ad hoc FTC
Judges and (b) Civil Judge (Senior
Division). The ad hoc FTC Judges
have to be promoted as per their
seniority, in those vacancies, which
arose even prior to the examination
for accelerated promotion held in
the year 2009. Where there were no
available vacancies prior to the
examination held in the year 2009,
- 61 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
the ad hoc FTC Judges would be
considered for seniority from the
date of Notification promoting them
in 25% quota meant for accelerated
promotion. As far as the Civil judges
(Senior Division) judges, who took
the examination for accelerated
promotion is concerned, as the
examination was conducted in 2009,
their seniority would obviously be
after the entry of the direct recruits
on 25/02/2008, is reckoned. In
other words, the direct recruits
would be senior to the Civil Judges
(Senior Division), who were
promoted by way of accelerated
promotion in the year 2009.
(iv) The said exercise to be carried out in
an expeditious manner, preferably
within a period of one month from
today. All consequential benefits
which accrue to the promotees(sic)
shall be given to them in an
expeditious manner.
- 62 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
(v) The Notifications issued in the year
2009 shall be construed as
regularization of their officiation in
the vacancies in the cadre of District
Judges where the vacancies arose
prior thereto.
(vi) The appeals being allowed and the
impugned judgment being set aside,
is without any order as to costs.
8. Subsequent to such directions, a fresh
Provisional Seniority List was published and promotions
were effected on 26.03.2015 with effect from
01.04.2015 (respondent Nos.13 to 47). It is contended that
the promotion of respondent Nos.13 to 47 is stated to be in
excess of the 65% quota meant for the promotees. The
next round of the Direct Recruitment appointment was on
08.06.2015.
9. The pleadings in the writ petition would make
out that pursuant to the direction in W.A.
- 63 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
No.6514/2013, Provisional Seniority List was
published which culminated in the Final Seniority List for the
period from 01.05.2003 to 26.04.2016 which was notified.
10. Subsequent to grievances of the petitioners, the
Chief Justice constituted a Committee who after hearing the
petitioners and in specific, the first petitioner and Sri.
Santosh Gajanan Bhat had contemplated taking action.
However, the aforesaid Committee was reconstituted and
once again the exercise of hearing was resorted to with the
first petitioner having appeared before the Committee and
on the basis of the report , fresh Seniority List was
prepared.
11. As their grievance is stated to have been partially
redressed by way of a fresh Provisional Seniority List dated
30.09.2021 which culminated into a Final Seniority List
dated 16.03.2022, the petitioners seek the re-doing of the
list at Annexure-'N' dated 16.03.2022.
- 64 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
12. While the petitioners have now been placed
above respondent Nos.4 to 12 however, their claim for
fixation of seniority above respondent Nos. 13 to 82
allegedly remains to be redressed.
13. The multiple exercises in redoing the Seniority
List is reflected in the following timeline after the judgment
in W.A.No.6514/2013. The following table would indicate
opportunities granted and the number of times the list was
redone.
Date Description Annexure
24.07.2014 Provisional Seniority list pursuant C
18.07.2016 Final seniority list A
11.08.2016 Representation by Petitioner's for F
assignment of final rankings - this
representation is against both
2014 list and 2016 list.
Representation against G
Respondents 12-38 (i.e., promotes
appointed after Direct Recruits)
- 65 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
16.06.2021 Hearing/email evidence of hearing J
30.09.2021 Draft Seniority List K
22.10.2021 Petitioner's objections to Draft L
Seniority List dated 20.09.2021
11.12.2021 Written Submission on behalf of M
Direct Recruits
16.03.2022 Final Seniority List N
III. CURRENT DISPUTE:-
14. It is stated that the petitioners had applied under
the quota of Direct Recruitment pursuant to the Notification
dated 30.06.2015 and though select list was published on
07.12.2015, they were appointed on 21.01.2016 and joined
service on 01.02.2016.
15. In the interregnum, it is stated that the
respondent Nos.48 to 82 were promoted as District Judges
from the cadre of Senior Civil Judges as per
Notification bearing No.DPAR 51 Se VuNyA 2015, dated
13.08.2015 with immediate effect. This promotion of
- 66 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
respondent Nos.48 to 82, again the petitioners contend to
be in excess of 65% quota meant for promotees.
16. It is further made out from the pleadings that on
26.04.2016, the respondent Nos.4 to 12 who were
discharging duties as Senior Civil Judges were promoted to
the cadre of District Judges in respect of 65% quota
pursuant to Government Notification No.DPAR 39 Se VuNya
2016 dated 26.04.2016.
17. It is specifically asserted that the respondent
Nos.4 to 12 whose names were found at Sl.Nos.366, 372 to
377, 379 and 380 were promoted from the post of the
Senior Civil Judges to the cadre of District Judges with
effect from 26.04.2016. It is asserted that though the said
respondents were appointed by way of promotion later than
the petitioners, they had been placed above the
petitioners. Similarly, it is asserted that the respondent
Nos.13 to 47 were promoted on 01.04.2015 and shown at
Sl. Nos.287, 290 to 302, 304 to 310, 312 to 315, 317 to
- 67 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
322 and 324 to 327. While respondent Nos. 48 to 82 were
promoted on 21.08.2015 and shown at Sl. Nos.303, 316,
330 to 336, 338 to 344, 346 to 357 and 359 to 365. It is
specifically asserted that the promotion of the said
respondents was in excess of the 65% Promotional Quota.
18. It is submitted that the representations have
been made on 11.08.2016 at Annexure-'F' seeking redoing
of the rankings in the Final Seniority List.
19. It is submitted that on the Administrative Side,
the representations of the petitioners were taken up for
consideration and a fresh Provisional Seniority List dated
30.09.2021 was published which eventually culminated in
a Final Seniority List on 16.03.2022.
20. It is the case of the petitioners that the grievance
of the petitioners with regard to the claim of fixation of
seniority over and above respondent Nos. 13 to 82 has not
been considered. It is specifically asserted that the
respondent Nos.13 to 82, who have been assigned ranking
- 68 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
at Sl. Nos.288 to 329 and 335 to 372 are not entitled to
count their seniority from the date of their promotion from
01.04.2015 and 21.08.2015, as promotions were given in
excess of the posts under 65% quota earmarked for
promotions and are liable to be pushed down and placed
below the petitioners.
A. GROUNDS RAISED IN THE WRIT PETITION:-
(i) As regards respondent Nos.4 to 12, it is
contended that they were promoted as District Judges from
the cadre of Senior Civil Judges on 26.04.2016, however,
they have been placed above the petitioners who were
appointed earlier i.e., 01.02.2016. It is asserted that the
respondent Nos.4 to 12 cannot be placed above the
petitioners, as they were not borne in the cadre when the
petitioners were appointed.
(ii) The assignment of seniority to respondent Nos.4
to 82 is contrary to the direction at clause-"ii" of the
judgment of Division Bench passed in W.A. No.6514/2013.
- 69 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
(iii) The 'Quota Rule' prescribed under the Karnataka
Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1983 [for brevity,
"the 1983 Rules"] and the Karnataka Judicial Services
(Recruitment) Rules, 2004 [for brevity, "the 2004 Rules"]
have not been adhered to and the Seniority List is contrary
to the law laid down in the case of V.B. Badami and
Others v. The State of Mysore and Others1.
(iv) In the absence of classifying vacancies based
upon Block Periods, the impugned Final Seniority List is not
in accordance with law.
(v) The vacancies have been filled up randomly
without classification amongst the three different sources of
recruitment and taking Block Periods.
(vi) The vacancies under the Promotional Quota are
to be worked from the date of commencement of the 1983
Rules.
(1976) 2 SCC 901
- 70 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
(vii) The Seniority List commences only from
01.05.2003 and vacancy position prior to 2003 are not
considered and promotions granted in excess of quota
prescribed prior to 01.05.2003 are not accounted. It is also
contended that all the appointments made since the
commencement of the 1983 Rules are required to be
considered and accounted.
(viii) The reckoning seniority of the promotees from an
anterior date would amount to grant of retrospective
promotion. It is asserted that though respondent Nos.48 to
82 are promoted on 13.08.2015, the respondent Nos.4 to
12 though promoted on 26.04.2016 are granted
seniority from an anterior date.
B. STAND OF HIGH COURT:-
21. The High Court of Karnataka had filed its
Statement of Objections setting out the details of working
strength of cadre, and the respective proportion based on
source in the cadre of District Judges. It would be useful to
- 71 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
extract paras-4 to 8 of the Statement of Objections which
throws light on the proportion of Judges based on source.
"4. It is submitted that the Karnataka Judicial Service
Recruitment Rules, 1983 was amended in compliance
of the decision in "All India Judges Association &
Others v. Union of India", 2002 (4) SCC 247, by the
Karnataka Judicial Service Recruitment Rules, 2004,
which came into force by notification dated
09.09.2005. As per the Rules, the ratio in promotional
and direct recruitment was as under:-
District Judges by way of promotion 50%
District Judges promoted from the cadre of Ad-hoc 25%
District Judges/Senior Civil Judges on the basis of
merit through departmental examination
District Judges by way of direct recruitment 25%
5. As on 09.09.2005, the cadre strength of District
Judges was 172. Hence, the ratio fixed under 2004
Rules, cadre strength of District Judges was quantified
as under:
District Judges promoted from the cadre of Ad-hoc 43
District Judges/ Senior Civil Judges on the basis of
merit through departmental examination
District Judges by way of direct recruitment 43
6. But as on 01.10.2005, working strength in the cadre
of District Judges under the respective quota was as
under:
- 72 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
District Judges promoted from the cadre of Ad-hoc NIL
District Judges/ Senior Civil Judges on the basis of
merit through departmental examination
District Judges by way of direct recruitment 36
7. Subsequently, due to retirement of the Officers, as
on 25.02.2008, the vacancy position of the District
Judges under the above three segments was as under:-
District Judges promoted from the cadre of Ad-hoc 45
District Judges/ Senior Civil Judges on the basis of
merit through departmental examination
District Judges by way of direct recruitment 14
8. The ratio in promotional and direct recruitment was
yet again amended as per the direction of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in its decision "All India Judges
Association & Others v. Union of India", 2010 (15) SCC
170. As per the Karnataka Judicial Services
(Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2011, the ratio in
promotional and direct recruitment is as under:
District Judges by way of promotion 65%
District Judges promoted from the cadre of Ad-hoc 10%
District Judges/Senior Civil Judges on the basis of
merit through departmental examination
District Judges by way of direct recruitment 25%
- 73 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
22. A specific stand was taken as on 18.07.2016 that
the cadre strength of District Judges was 340 and the ratio
fixed was as follows:-
District Judges promoted from the cadre of Ad-hoc 34
District Judges/Senior Civil Judges on the basis of merit
through departmental examination
District Judges by way of direct recruitment 85
23. It was opined that as on 21.01.2016, i.e.,
purported date on which petitioners were selected while
sanctioned strength of District Judges were 314 out of
which, 204 posts were promoted under the 65% quota
category but there were only 193 Judicial Officers working
under the category out of sanctioned posts of 204 and
accordingly, there were 11(eleven) vacancies under 65%
category as on 21.01.2016.
24. It is specifically asserted at Para-17 that based
on the representations to rectify mistakes, the Seniority List
was re-done as per the list dated 30.09.2021 (Provisional
- 74 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
Seniority List) whereby, the petitioners were placed above
respondent Nos.4 to 12, while rejecting the request for
further revision of the list and finally, the impugned Final
Seniority List came to be published on 16.03.2022 at
Annexure-'N'.
25. It is specifically asserted that the seniority list
published is in order and promotions under the 65%
category were made against the vacant posts and no excess
officers were promoted.
C. PETITIONERS' REJOINDER:-
26. The Rejoinder has been filed by
the petitioners; it is asserted once again that the Seniority
List does not classify the posts amongst the three sources
of recruitment by considering block periods.
27. It is reiterated that the quotas which are fixed
are un-alterable and one group cannot claim the quota fixed
for the other group.
- 75 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
28. It is contended that the respondent No.3 is
bound by the direction passed by the Apex Court in Dinesh
Kumar Gupta and Others v. High Court of Judicature
of Rajasthan and Others2 [Dinesh Kumar Gupta]. It is
further contended that the principle laid down in the case
of C. Yamini & Others v. The High Court For The
State of Andra Pradesh at Amravathi and Another3
[C. Yamini]has not been followed.
29. It is specifically asserted that the direction in
paragraph 84 (II) of the Division Bench passed in writ
appeal is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in
the case of C. Yamini(supra). Accordingly, it is submitted
that the respondent No.3 - High Court is bound by the ratio
laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Dinesh Kumar
Gupta, and C Yamini (supra) notwithstanding the
directions of the Division Bench in the writ appeal.
(2020) 19 SCC 604
Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 49 of 2022
- 76 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
30. It is specifically contended that the ad
hoc District Judges appointed on 01.06.2009 and
29.07.2009 are entitled to count their seniority from the
date of Notifications issued during the relevant year of 2009
and not prior to that.
31. It is contended that the Seniority List is not
prepared in accordance with law and the High Court is
bound to redo the Seniority List taking note of the
directions of the Apex Court.
32. The petitioners in their pleadings by way of the
writ petition while assailing the Seniority List have asserted
that the cadre strength has not been properly taken note
of and that the Final Seniority List prepared refers to only
working list of District Judges and cannot be considered to
be the Seniority List under law. Such stand would come out
on a combined reading of the petition and the rejoinder.
The pleading makes out a case that the petitioners had
- 77 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
sought to draw a distinction between working strength vis-
à-vis sanctioned strength.
33. The petitioners had found fault with the High
Court in not placing on record material to demonstrate that
the Seniority List contained the sanctioned strength and
that further, the High Court failed to demonstrate the
appointment of District Judges traceable to the different
modes of recruitment and accordingly, have asserted that
the 'Quota Rule' has not been followed.
D. ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
34. After a detailed hearing, the learned Single Judge
has disposed of the writ petition by an order dated
19.07.2023 in the following terms:-
i) That the judicial officers promoted on the ad
hoc basis as Additional District and Sessions
Judges and their seniority has to be
considered only as on the date they were
appointed substantively as against the vacant
- 78 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
post and not from the date of appointment
as ad hoc District Judges;
ii) That the final seniority list consists of
promotees in excess of the 65% quota and
that the High Court has failed to classify the
block period in the seniority list;
iii) A finding is recorded that the reckoning of
seniority from an anterior i.e., the date
anterior to the date of entry would
amount to violation of Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India;
iv) Direction was issued setting aside
the seniority list at Annexure-A and
Annexure-N and further direction was
issued to respondent No.3 to publish the
seniority list in accordance with law.
IV. ANALYSIS:-
A. ANALYSIS OF ORDER OF SINGLE JUDGE
35. The learned Single Judge has grossly erred in
recording a finding that the promotion is in excess of the
65% quota reserved for promotees. Such conclusion could
- 79 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
not have been arrived at without a factual discussion of
strength of promotees with reference to the cadre strength.
36. The judgment contains mere enunciation of law
and a conclusion to the effect that the promotions are in
excess of quota. The conclusion which is a mixed question
of fact and law is not supported by factual material and has
no legs to stand.
37. The conclusion that the reckoning of seniority
from a date anterior to date of entry of the promotees
would be violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India is contrary to the judgment of the Division Bench in
W.A.No.6514/2013 and connected matters disposed of on
03.04.2014.
38. The Division Bench at para-82 had observed as
regards seniority of promotees as follows:
"82. ... the ad hoc promotions must enure to
the benefit of the promotees at least from the date
the vacancies arose in the cadre of District Judges
- 80 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
and not from the date of the Notifications
appointing them as ad hoc Judges."
39. The judgment of the Division Bench having
attained finality vis-à-vis FTC Judges (promotees) and
Direct Recruits could not be re-opened so as to take away
the rights that had enured to the promotees.
40. The conclusion of the Division Bench has been
assailed on the ground that the observations are contrary to
the law laid down in Dinesh Kumar Gupta(supra) as well
as the judgment in C. Yamini(supra). It was contended
that the above referred judgments of the Apex Court,
clearly held that it was impermissible to grant seniority
insofar as promotees from a date anterior to substantive
appointment in a vacancy. It is this view that is also taken
by the learned Single Judge in the observations at para-34,
stating that the reckoning of seniority of promotees is in
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
- 81 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
41. This view of the learned Single Judge could not
have the effect of reopening the benefit conferred on the
promotees and others who were parties to the lis. A
perusal of the parties in W.A.No.6514/2013 and in the writ
proceedings would indicate that the promotees referred to
above were arrayed as parties.
42. The quietus to a lis would require that a
subsequent change in law would not be a ground to re-visit
an adjudication that has attained finality between the
parties or persons claiming under or through such parties.
43. If that were to be so, the learned Single Judge
ought to have taken note of parties to the lis in the previous
round before observing the aspect of seniority anterior to
the date of entry.
44. The said order of the learned Single Judge was
assailed by the Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka
in the present Writ Appeals, viz., W.A. Nos.1006/2023 c/w
W.A. No.1162/2023 and W.A. No.1312/2023 which have
- 82 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
been filed by the District Judges filled under the 'Promotee
Category'.
B. OPINION OF ANU SIVARAMAN J.,
45. The Division Bench culminated in divergent views
with the judgment of Anu Sivaraman J., allowing the writ
appeal by setting aside the order of 19.07.2023 passed by
the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.4046/2020.
46. The opinion of Anu Sivaraman J., has recorded
the following findings:-
i) It was open to the High Court to fix the cadre
strength on the basis of the Notification
issued when the Recruitment Rules do
not specify fixed numerical cadre strength for
the posts of District Judges and accordingly,
the cadre strength would include all those
sanctioned posts in the cadre of District
Judges and all posts which are to be manned
by Officers in the cadre of District Judges.
- 83 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
ii) The said judgment of Anu Sivaraman J., has
rejected the contention that there has to be a
specific Notification by the State Government
declaring the strength of cadre of District
Judges and that the High Court on the
Administrative Side could determine the cadre
strength.
iii) The said opinion further observes that the
only point on which the challenge could be
raised by the directly recruited District Judges
is with regard to promotees exceeding their
quota.
iv) It is held that the petitioners have failed to
demonstrate that the promotee District
Judges were occupying posts meant to be
filed up by the Direct Recruits.
- 84 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
v) It was further held that certain Officers whose
seniority was specifically under challenge
have not been made parties and such Officers
have not been heard.
vi) That the finding of the learned Single Judge at
paras-33 and 34 requires interference and
that the petitioners have not substantiated
their case accordingly, as per the opinion
of Anu Sivaraman J., the order in the
Writ Petition was set aside.
C. OPINION OF RAJESH RAI K. J.,
47. The opinion of Rajesh Rai K. J., is as follows:
i) The said judgment has dismissed the writ
appeal filed by the Registrar General, High
Court of Karnataka in W.A. No.1006/2023 c/w
W.A.Nos.1162/2023 and 1312/2023 preferred
by the promotee District Judges and affirms
the order of the learned Single Judge.
- 85 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
ii) The direction at (iii) to (viii) is extracted
below:
"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
- 86 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
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.
- 87 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
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 (supra), 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."
iii) The opinion records:-
a. That the divergence is only in reference to
cadre strength and consequential promotion as
also the Final Seniority List dated 16.03.2022.
- 88 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
b. The Court has rejected the contention that
petitioners cannot claim seniority over respondent
Nos.13 to 82, in the absence of promotion orders
challenged.
c. The opinion records that the Karnataka
Government Servant's (Seniority) Rules, 1957 are
applicable in the absence of any specific Rules
promulgated by the High Court.
d. The opinion records the view that FTC Judges
could be assigned seniority only from the date on
which they are substantively appointed as District
Judges and not from the date of their ad
hoc Judges as FTC Judges.
e. It is specifically held at para-82
that 82(eighty two) Senior Civil Judges who were
promoted on ad hoc basis as District Judges to
man the FTC vide Notifications dated 15.02.2003,
- 89 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
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.
f. The Court has held that all the FTC Judges
who had retired from service long back would not
be affected if Seniority List was revised.
g. The opinion records that the 32 posts which
are referred to in the discussion cannot be
considered as part of cadre strength of District
Judges. It is further held that creation of
posts/cadre strength is essentially an executive
function.
h. It is further observed that in the absence of
any Notification published in the Official Gazette
to include the posts of District Judges, it cannot
be held that the strength of service has increased
- 90 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
and that the post created de hors the cadre of a
service shall be considered as ex-cadre posts.
i. That on the date of appointment of petitioners
i.e., 01.02.2016, 10(ten) Promotee Officers would
be in excess of 65% promotional quota.
j. The opinion further observes that the High
Court is to exclude all posts such as 32 posts if
included for the purpose of counting of cadre
strength.
D. CONSTITUTION OF FULL BENCH:-
48. In the absence of disposal of the writ appeals as
there was a divergence of opinion, the Division Bench
directed to place the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice
for necessary orders.
49. In the present case, the Division Bench
constituting Anu Sivaraman .J. and Rajesh Rai K. J. had
expressed divergent opinions and unable to resolve the
- 91 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
adjudication by a judgment with a consensual opinion and
having rendered their separate opinions had passed an
order on 26.09.2025 as follows:
"In view of divergence of opinion expressed by
us, Registry is directed to place the matter before
Hon'ble the Chief Justice for necessary orders.
Interim order granted earlier in W.A.
1312/2023 shall remain in force."
50. Subsequently, the matter was placed before
Hon'ble The Chief Justice, who on the administrative side
has ordered as follows:-
"Date 20/11/2025
AS SPECIALLY ORDERED BY THE HON'BLE CHIEF
A/W CONNECTED MATTERS BEFORE THE FULL
BENCH OF Hon'ble SSDYJ, Hon'ble LKJ & Hon'ble
VAPJ "
51. Rule 7 of the Karnataka High Court Rules, 1959
["the 1959 Rules"] reads as follows:-
- 92 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
"7. When a single Judge refers a case to a
Bench or when a Bench of two Judges refers any
question to a Full Bench, then the papers of the
particular case shall be placed before the Chief
Justice for a reference to a Bench or for the
constitution of a Full Bench."
52. Rule 7 contemplates reference by a Bench of two
Judges 'any question' to a Full Bench. No question has been
framed by the Division Bench, but in the context of
difference of opinion, the appeals itself were directed to be
placed before the Chief Justice. Rule 6 of the 1959 Rules
confers power on the Chief Justice to constitute Benches.
53. Rule 6 reads as follows:-
"6. Benches shall be constituted and judicial
work of the Court allotted or distributed to them
by or in accordance with the directions of the
Chief Justice."
54. In the absence of a reference as contemplated
under Rule 7 of the 1959 Rules, the Chief Justice has
- 93 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
proceeded to constitute a 'Full Bench' in exercise of the
power under Rule 6 of the 1959 Rules and assigned Writ
Appeal No.1006/2023 c/w W.A.Nos.1162/2023 and
1312/2023 to the Full Bench for its adjudication.
55. No doubt, learned Senior Counsel Sri. Aditya
Sondhi appearing for one set of the appellants did contend
that the individual opinions would have to be collated and
the majority be taken to be the view while placing reliance
on Section 98 of CPC as well as the judgment in
Pankajakshi v Chandrika4 [Pankajakshi].
56. The Judgment in Pankajakshi (supra) cannot be
relied upon, as the Travancore-Cochin High Court Act had a
specific provision of the mode of resolving a divergence in
decision.
57. Section 23 of the said Act reads as follows:-
"23. Reference by Chief Justice.--Where
two Judges forming a Division Bench agree as to
(2016) 6 SCC 157
- 94 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
the decree, order or sentence to be passed, their
decision shall be final. But if they disagree, they
shall deliver separate judgments and thereupon
the Chief Justice shall refer, for the opinion of
another Judge, the matter or matters on which
such disagreement exists, and the decree, order
or sentence shall follow the opinion of the majority
of the Judges hearing the case."
58. The Apex Court in Pankajakshi (supra) did
observe that the High Court Act of Kerala being a special
legislation prevailed over Section 98 of the CPC, and it is in
such context that the observation was made to the effect
that majority of the opinions would have to be taken note
of. However, in light of the discussion as made above, the
question of resorting to Section 98 of CPC, which would
reflect a General Law would not arise, as the answer for
dealing of an appeal with divergent views is found in the
Karnataka High Court Rules as discussed above.
59. Accordingly, the Full Bench having been seized of
the writ appeals is required to decide the appeals afresh.
- 95 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
E. CADRE STRENGTH:-
E1. Notification and Quantification of Cadre:-
60. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. M.S.Bhagwat while
contending that the quantification of posts/strength of cadre
has to be determined as per the procedure prescribed,
whereby Notification is to be made by the Government in
terms of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958. It is
pointed out that the Notification of DPAR of 03.03.2001
does indicate the strength of the cadre as on 03.03.2001.
Further, attention is drawn to Annexure-'P' which is
captioned as vacancy position of District Judges as on
01.01.2003 and it is pointed out that this list maintained
has a clear reference to the sanctioned strength as on
01.01.2003 till 01.10.2010 with further categorization
under different quota, viz., 50% promotees, 25% on
Departmental Competitive Exam and 25% on the basis of
Direct Recruitment. Apart from such data placed before the
High Court, it is submitted that after 2010, it is only a
- 96 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
compilation of Notifications relating to constitution of
additional Courts that are placed before the Court with
many of the Notifications which provide for establishment of
Special/Additional Courts while imposing a bar for
recruitment to the Court.
61. It is also contended that as regards certain posts
either in the Lokayukta or in the Registry of the High Court,
or in the case of similar posts which could be filled up
through different feeder sources such as by an official/staff
of the Lokayukta or the High Court by promotion as well as
by appointment of a Judicial Officer through deputation,
then in such event, such posts though may be permitted to
be filled up by the Judicial Officers through deputation
cannot be construed to be an addition to the cadre
strength. It is submitted that the theoretical possibility of
filling up of the post by promotion from within the staff
would not permit such post to be construed to be an
addition to the cadre strength.
- 97 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
62. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel
Sri P.S.Rajagopal had argued that the term 'cadre' ought
not to be construed as being inflexible or requiring any
separate Notification to quantify strength in the cadre and
the Notifications from time to time constituting Special
Courts or Additional Courts must be taken note of as ipso
facto an addition to the cadre strength. It is contended that
the Notification for constituting a Special Court or Additional
Court would have financial concurrence and accordingly,
such Notifications must be construed as enhancing the
cadre strength.
63. Similar is the stand of the High Court which has
filed a Memo dated 08.09.2025 enclosing the list of
Notifications regarding creation of posts or abolition which
could be taken note of for the purpose of increase in cadre
strength.
64. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. S.S. Naganand not
only adopts the stand of the private party appellants insofar
- 98 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
as cadre strength is concerned, but implores the Court to
accept the entirety of Notifications filed along with the
memo as collectively constituting the cadre strength.
65. As pointed out supra, that the applicable Rules
insofar as Judges of the District Judiciary would be the
Karnataka Civil Service Rules, 1958 which defines 'Cadre', it
would be appropriate that the strength of the cadre is also
notified in terms of the said Rules periodically.
66. The cadre also would include "Temporary Post"
or "Permanent Post" in terms of the definition5. In the
absence of a formal Notification declaring cadre strength in
terms of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958, there can
be no inference of cadre strength by reference to
documents such as Annexure-'P' which is vacancy position
of District Judges, Notifications establishing Special Courts
8(46) "Temporary Post" means a post carrying a definite rate of pay sanctioned for a
limited time; 8(34) "Permanent Post" means a post carrying a definite rate of pay
sanctioned without limit of time.
- 99 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
as filed along with the Memo dated 08.09.2025, or,
inference of cadre strength by reference to administrative
posts such as Registrar (Judicial) or ex-cadre posts such as
Registrar (Lokayukta).
67. The implication of an Official Notification
consolidating and specifying the cadre strength must be
assigned due weightage as constituting the basis for
determination of quota from different sources at different
percentages, viz., 50% by Direct Promotion, 25%
Competitive Exam, 25% Direct Recruitment. If the quota of
Judicial Officers who would constitute the cadre of District
Judges is dependent on a percentage of the cadre strength,
then cadre strength must be determined by way of a
Notification without any ambiguity.
68. As rightly pointed by learned Senior Counsel
Sri. M.S. Bhagwat, where certain posts could be filled up
through different sources, viz., either by a staff or
administrative official of the Department, or by deputation
- 100 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
of a Judicial Officer, the duality of feeder source where the
post could be filled up by incumbent other than a Judicial
Officer, that by itself would disqualify such post to be a part
of the cadre strength of Judicial Officers.
69. Further, the Notifications enclosed along with the
Memo dated 08.09.2025 would also indicate that there is
financial concurrence for creation of posts which refers to
Administrative Posts. However, some of the Notifications
contain clauses which provide that there could be no
recruitment done to the new Court. An extraction of such
clauses in the Notification dated 15.02.2002 vide Order No.
LAW 347 LCE 2002, Bangalore, at Clauses 4 and 5 read as
hereunder:-
"This is subject to the following conditions:-
...
4) The expenditure on account of creation of newly
created court, creation of posts, purchase of furniture
as per rules; and
5) No new recruitment should be done to the new
court."
- 101 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
70. The reading of such Notification would indicate
that there is financial concurrence insofar as creation of
Administrative Posts (see clause 4) while there is an
embargo for recruitment to the Court itself (see clause 5)
which indicates that there could be no recruitment of a
Judicial Officer.
71. The other Notifications creating Additional Courts
also have Clauses which are not free from ambiguity as to
when the Notifications could be construed as additions to
the strength of cadre.
72. It is also to be noticed that at certain points of
time, there are certain Courts or posts that may be
earmarked, the continuance of which would be co-extensive
to either a trial as in the case of Dandupalya Krishna Gang
(Notification dated 15.02.2002 vide Order No. LAW 165 LCE
2001), Kumari Jayalalitha (Notification dated 27.12.2003
vide Order No. LAW 151 LCE 2003), fake stamps and stamp
papers case (Notification dated 15.02.2002 vide Order No.
- 102 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
LAW 347 LCE 2002) where additional courts are set up by
way of Notifications. Though the setting up of additional
Courts by way of a Notification is with financial concurrence,
however, where Special Courts are set-up which are trial
specific, there is ambiguity as to whether setting up of such
Courts could add to the cadre strength. When the Rule itself
provides by way of definition that the cadre could include
permanent posts or temporary posts, the exercise of
determining cadre strength by looking at individual
Notifications either setting up of additional Courts or setting
up of Special Courts for specific trials by itself would not be
definitive. In light of implication of cadre strength vis-à-
vis quotas from different sources being dependent on a
percentage of cadre strength, the quantification of cadre
strength cannot be left to such uncertainty.
73. Accordingly, we are of the view that the strength
of the cadre has to be notified as per the existing Rules at
periodical intervals, perhaps co-extensive with the increase
or decrease in the cadre strength. The Notification should
- 103 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
also refer to the classification of categories that may
constitute the cadre such as temporary posts as the case
may be. In the absence of such a Notification quantifying
strength of the cadre, an inferential exercise on the basis of
Notifications issued in the context of creation of additional
Courts or creation of Special Courts for specific trials would
be impermissible. The cadre having a definitive connotation
reference to the number of Officers either in Notifications
such as, Annexure-'P' or references to strength of Judicial
Officers even in Seniority Lists cannot be taken to be the
numbers that constitute the strength of the cadre.
Reference to the number of Officers in different contexts
cannot be taken to constitute the cadre.
E2. JUSTICIABILITY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW:-
74. The Division Bench in W.A.No.6514/2013 while
setting aside the Seniority List in the context of lis between
Direct Recruits and FTC Judges who were promoted had the
occasion to deal with the issue of inter se seniority and has
- 104 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
also made observations relating to quotas of District Judges
filled up through different modes viz., Promotee Judges
within quota of 50%, 25% quota filled by promotion on the
basis of seniority-cum-merit through Departmental
Competitive Examinations (accelerated promotion) and
quota of 25% for directly recruited District Judges.
75. Insofar as the aspect of inter se seniority, the
Division Bench has emphatically held that though the FTC
judges were promoted through orders made in 2009,
however, their seniority could be fixed on dates on which
vacancies arose within the quota earmarked for promotees.
76. Insofar as the aspect relating to filling up of
quota, though the question was not subjected to
adjudication, the Court had construed as 'undisputed facts',
the filling up of different quotas as being in compliance with
quotas earmarked.
- 105 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
77. The observations made at para-52 reads as
hereunder:-
"52. At the outset, the undisputed facts may be
stated. Petitioners were appointed by direct
recruitment as District Judges by Notification dated
13/02/2008. They took charge on 25/02/2008. The
promotee Judges were appointed or promoted
temporarily as ad hoc District Judges prior to that
date, by Notifications dated 15/02/2003;
19/03/2003, 15/11/2003 and 20/03/2004. Eighty
two Civil Judges (Senior Division) were promoted on
ad hoc basis to officiate as District Judges with
immediate effect "to man the FTCs", subject to
reversion at any time. The expression "to man the
FTCs" in the aforesaid Notifications was deleted by
Corrigendum dated 21/04/2003. It is not in dispute
that directly recruited District Judges were
appointed within their 25% quota. Similarly,
promotee Judges were promoted/appointed within
their quota of 50% and 25% quota was filed by
promotions on the basis of seniority-cum-merit
through a departmental competitive examination
(accelerated promotion) respectively, by
Notifications dated -01/06/2009, 27/06/2009 and
29/07/2009 (Annexures R-22 to R-24) as per 2004
Rules. Thus the quota Rule has been maintained
- 106 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
and there is no transgression of the quota in the
instant case."
(emphasis supplied)
78. The Court has emphatically recorded a finding
that quota rule has been maintained and there was no
transgression of the quota in the case on hand.
79. This finding by the Division Bench is on an aspect
that would have bearing on the contentious issue of
seniority between the Direct Recruits versus the Promotees.
Any violation of quota would have resulted in the redoing of
the Seniority List only on such premise. Having found that
there was no transgression of quota, the Court then entered
into the inter se seniority between the FTC Judges vis-à-vis
the Direct Recruits on other contentions.
80. Such finding on the 'Quota Rule' as on the
relevant date could be construed to be a finding that is not
open for re-adjudication when the parties to the lis have not
- 107 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
challenged the judgment of the Division Bench before the
Apex Court.
81. If it were to be so, that as on 14.09.2012 that
the 'Quota Rule' has not been violated, the petitioners in
the fresh round of litigation are required to lay a factual
foundation regarding their assertion that the Promotees are
in excess of their quota and such excess is a factual event
subsequent to the previous Seniority List. The petitioners
would then be required to detail the promotions effected
after 2012 till the date of the Seniority List at Annexure-'N'
dated 16.03.2022.
82. It is to be noticed that the petitioners in their
pleadings in the writ petition have set up the case of
violation of the quota earmarked for the Promotees. A
perusal of para-5.5 of the memorandum of writ petition
would indicate that the petitioners have specifically averred
regarding the violation of 'Quota Rule'. It is specifically
- 108 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
averred that the quota since 1983 have not been worked
out before finalizing the Seniority List.
83. The said contention requires to be rejected in
light of the observations of the Division Bench extracted
above, as the aspect of violation of quota prior to 2012 is a
settled issue having been adjudicated upon with the
judgment of the Division Bench having attained finality.
84. Insofar as the averment in para-5.6 of the
memorandum of writ petition, the petitioners seek to set up
a case regarding increase in cadre strength of 139 Officers
being filled in without reference to the percentage of quota
earmarked for the feeder sources. Para 5.6 would indicate
that though 90 posts were available under 65% Promotional
Quota, the Final Seniority List would reveal that 114
persons were promoted against the said quota and
accordingly, it is asserted that respondent Nos.13 to 82
have been promoted in excess of the quota. Para 5.7
- 109 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
indicates the quantification of the quota with effect from the
commencement of the 1983 Rules.
85. It is to be noted that the petitioners are seeking
to set up the case by re-working quota from 1983 as
noticed above is impermissible. As regards 'increase in
cadre strength' being filled up without adhering to the quota
requirements is a contention that cannot be entertained, as
the 'Quota Rule' is not 'vacancy-based' but 'post-based.' If
that were to be so, the foundation regarding violation of
quota being based on vacancy is a faulty legal premise.
86. The adjudication of the Division Bench in
W.A.No. 6514/2013 settling the inter se seniority issue
between the Direct Recruits and the Promotees is
repeatedly sought to be re-opened by contending that
though the appointment order of the Promotees date back
to 2009, the observation of the Division Bench that their
seniority could be pre-dated to the date of appointment i.e.,
to a date when vacancy arose in the cadre was in violation
- 110 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
of the observations made in Dinesh Kumar Gupta(supra)
and C. Yamini(supra).
87. The judgment in the writ appeal having attained
finality between the Direct Recruits and Promotees cannot
be re-opened by contending that the Division Bench has
ignored applicable law.
88. The settled issue ought not to be re-agitated is a
principle born out of Public Policy. The observations of the
learned Single Judge also attempting to overreach the
judgment of the Division Bench as made out at paras-30
and 33 would be impermissible. Further, the observation of
the learned Single Judge at para-32 related to filling up of
139 posts wherein cadre was increased is also on the
premise of quota relating to vacancy and not posts which
would also be impermissible.
89. The efforts of Rajesh Rai .K J., in holding that the
judgment of the Division Bench was contrary to the orders
- 111 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
of the Supreme Court would also be impermissible and be
seen as an attempt to re-open a settled issue.
90. The effort of the petitioners to achieve a perfect
Seniority List to their liking by their repeated approach on
the administrative side and the judicial side cannot be a
continuing exercise with no closure. Uncertainty in Seniority
List would have grave consequences of demoralizing the
Officers due to absence of certainty in their promotional
avenues.
91. In the writ petition, the petitioners seek to
challenge the Seniority List at Annexure-'A' dated
18.07.2016 and Annexure-'N' dated 16.03.2022 that is
notified during the pendency of the petition. The Seniority
List at Annexure-'A' could be construed to be a list prepared
consequent to the directions in W.A.No.6514/2013.
W.A.No.6514/2013 has directed preparation of a fresh
Seniority List after setting aside the order in
W.P.Nos.41684-691/2012. In the said proceedings, the
- 112 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
Final Seniority List of District Judges published on
14.09.2012 was challenged.
92. Though it is contended and such contention was
accepted by Rajesh Rai .K J., in his opinion that the
redrawing of Seniority List would restrict itself to serving
Judicial Officers and not impact those who have already
attained seniority, however, such simplistic reasoning
cannot mask the impact of a redone list.
93. The manner of reworking and its legal
consequences could be contemplated by an exercise of
redoing the Seniority List as has been proposed by Rajesh
Rai .K J., in his opinion at para-103 in W.A.No.1006/2023
and connected matters.
94. Para-103 of the judgment reads as hereunder:-
"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.
- 113 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
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."
95. In terms of the above observations, if 10(ten)
Promotee Officers are in excess of the Promotional Quota,
and the Seniority List is to be re-done by placing the
petitioners above such Promotees, who are stated to be in
excess of their quota, the Judicial Officers at Serial Nos.363
to 372, would be pushed below the petitioners. An extract
of the Seniority List at Annexure-'N' relating to such
Officers who would be pushed down are as follows:-
- 114 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
Sl. Name of the Officer Date of Date of Date of
No. Birth Entry into Promotion
Service as District
Judge
363 Biradar Devendrappa N. 01.10.1968 26.07.1999 31.08.2015
(Promotion)
364 A. Vijayan 12.05.1961 26.07.1999 31.08.2015
(Promotion)
365 Umesh Moolimani 15.05.1959 26.07.1999 31.08.2015
(Promotion)
366 Kasanappa Naik 06.05.1965 26.07.1999 31.08.2015
(Promotion)
367 Patil Nagalinganagouda 03.06.1962 26.07.1999 27.08.2015
(Promotion)
368 S. Gopalappa 25.04.1967 26.07.1999 27.08.2015
(Promotion)
369 Vela Damodar Khoday 06.12.1970 26.07.1999 24.08.2015
(Promotion)
370 G.L. Lakshminarayana 05.07.1968 26.07.1999 27.08.2015
(Promotion)
371 Prabhavathi G. 02.12.1968 26.07.1999 01.09.2015
(Promotion)
372 Nagaveni 09.05.1968 26.07.1999 29.08.2015
(Promotion)
96. Even if this list dated 16.03.2022 is now redone
in terms of the opinion, it would indicate that the out of 10
(ten) Officers, the following Officers have already retired
(see Table infra). Any redoing of a Seniority List cannot
have such consequence of reverting Officers who have
- 115 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
performed duties including as Principal District Judges (Sl.
No.371 - Prabhavathi G.). A judicial adjudication cannot be
oblivious to its consequences when some consequences
may due to lapse of time unfortunately be irreversible. A
legal adjudication cannot restrict itself to addressing merely
interests that would be prejudiced as a direction to do a
Seniority List would have a bearing even as regards those
Officers who have attained superannuation insofar as the
retirement benefits including pension, depend on the length
of service in the cadre and also the layers of seniority linked
to functional promotion. If that were to be so, the redoing
of the Seniority List must address the consequences on
those who have also attained superannuation such as the
officers mentioned below:-
Sl. Name of Officer Date of Date of Date of
No. Birth Entry into Promotion as
Service District Judge
364 A. Vijayan 12.05.1961 26.07.1999 31.08.2015
(Promotion)
365 Umesh Moolimani 15.05.1959 26.07.1999 31.08.2015
(Promotion)
366 Kasanappa Naik 06.05.1965 26.07.1999 31.08.2015
(Promotion)
- 116 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
367 Patil 03.06.1962 26.07.1999 27.08.2015
Nagalinganagouda
(Promotion)
97. In any matter relating to challenge to Seniority
List where specific contention is taken that
there have been promotions made in excess of the quota
for feeder source, pleadings ought to demonstrate with
material particulars as to how the petitioners contend that
there has been promotion in excess of the quota earmarked
for the promotees.
98. It is to be noticed that the petitioners have
asserted in their rejoinder that the High Court while
referring to the strength of officers, have only referred to
the "working list" and not the sanctioned strength. If such
were to be the stand, the basic premise of strength of the
cadre itself is not ascertainable even as per the pleadings of
the petitioner.
- 117 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
99. In light of such ambiguity, it would be not be
appropriate to re-visit and re-do the Seniority List
impugned.
100. Any interference by way of judicial review in a
Seniority List prepared by the employer cannot be resorted
to at the mere say of the parties to the lis. Even if there is
any ambiguity in the list, the exercise is left to be made by
the employer.
101. Though the Seniority List or adherence to quota
may not be free from defects, however, existence of
such defects does not justify interference as a matter of
course in exercise of power of judicial review, when the
result of redoing the Seniority List is not based on
unequivocal data and material and may lead to unsettling
the Seniority List with perpetuation of further defects. Such
a conclusion would be inevitable, as the strength of the
cadre as on the relevant date is not ascertainable as would
be made out from the above discussion.
- 118 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
102. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Gaurav Agarwal
appearing for Petitioner No. 4 in W.P.No.4046/2020 has
contended that the details furnished by the High Court may
be taken note of to determine the cadre strength. However,
as discussed, the determination of cadre strength cannot be
a product of such casual exercise. The suggestion that this
Court monitors the preparation of a Seniority List, and
hence keep the matter pending cannot be accepted, as the
employer we trust would ensure that the determination of
the cadre would be accomplished with due care and caution,
and we do not intend to usurp the powers of the employer
realising the limits of judicial review. However, some of the
suggestions made are well meaning and taken note of.
E3. VACANCIES VIS-À-VIS CADRE STRENGTH:-
103. The petitioners in their pleadings at paras-5.5 to
5.7 have asserted that the vacancies that have occurred
also as a result of 'increase in cadre strength' ought to have
been filled up with reference to the respective quotas.
Specific averment is made as follows: -
- 119 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
"......However, even assuming there is increase in
cadre strength by 139 posts, only 90 posts are
available under 65% promotional quota in respect of
the posts in the cadre of District Judges that have
increased. However, the impugned Final Seniority
List would reveal that 114 persons are promoted
against the said 65% quota, though only 90 posts
could have been earmarked for promotes."
104. The premise that there is violation of quota is on
the understanding that the quota is required to be filled in
the vacancies that have arisen. Such assertion is not legally
tenable in light of quota being filled up with reference to
posts in the cadre and not vacancies available. Such
principle also flows from the judgment of the Supreme
Court in R.K. Sabharwal and Others v. State of Punjab
and Others6 (see para 5&6). Further, the Recruitment
Rules themselves provide quota as being a percentage of
the 'Posts'. Accordingly, the contention of breach of quota
based on the premise of maintenance of quota in vacancies
is liable to be rejected.
(1995) 2 SCC 745
- 120 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
105. The petitioners have been denied relief on the
basis of lack of appropriate pleadings, non-quantification of
cadre strength which are essentially non-negotiable
conditions to be met before proceeding to adjudicate on
other contentions. Though the remedy of the Direct Recruits
is denied on such grounds, nevertheless the requirement of
maintenance of quota would be a continuing legal
obligation.
106. However, the apprehension of the Direct recruits
in relation to promotees occupying in excess of the quota
could be addressed by way of appropriate directions.
107. Taking note of the latest order of the Apex Court
in All India Judges Association and Ors. v. Union of
India and Others7 which directs for redoing of the quota
by way of new percentage fixed viz., 50% for promotees,
25% for promotees appointed through Departmental
Competitive Exam and 25% for Direct Recruits and
Writ Petition (Civil) No.1022 of 1989
- 121 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
maintenance of 4-Point Roster (2 Regular Promotees, 1
Direct Recruit, 1 Departmental Competitive Exam) which
direction is to be implemented within 3 months.
108. For the purpose of implementation of such order,
a Committee is now set up by the High Court as is
evidenced from the Memo dated 11.03.2026. The present
order passed if it would not address the necessity of
maintenance of quota, there would be a plausible
continuation of quota imbalance.
109. As stated above, unless the cadre strength is
quantified there could be no working of the quota.
110. This exercise of quantifying the cadre strength
and consequential determination of posts under different
feeder category as per quota is required to be determined
at the earliest, failing which, the 4-Point Roster and its
implementation would fail.
- 122 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
E4. VIEWS ON THE OPINIONS OF ANU SIVARAMAN J., AND
RAJESH RAI .K J., ON CADRE STRENGTH:-
111. As the Karnataka Civil Service Rules, 1958,
refers to temporary and permanent posts before the State
quantifies the cadre strength, there must be consultation
with the High Court.
112. The reliance by Anu Sivaraman J., on the order
of High Court of Kerala and Others v. Mohandas P.K
and Others [Mohandas] in W.A.No.1224/2017 to
conclude that High Court could collate the Notifications and
effectively determine the cadre strength.
113. In the case of Mohandas (supra), the dispute
arose where the High Court had notified the cadre strength
to include within the cadre 'temporary posts' which action
was challenged by the Judicial Officers of the 'Subordinate
Judiciary'. There was a Notification defining cadre as
follows:-
- 123 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
"Cadre Strength shall constitute all the
sanctioned posts of District & Sessions Judges
(including Additional District & Sessions Judges), all
the sanctioned posts of Judges in the equivalent
stature, all such temporary posts existing for more
than six months and all such posts created by
Government from time to time, in the Kerala State
Higher Judicial Service."
114. It is further observed in the judgment that the
State had left the numerical strength to be computed by the
High Court.
115. The prerogative of the State as regards notifying
the cadre was in fact recognised at paras-9 and 10 which
reads as follows:-
"9. The first is that by the earlier judgment
i.e., W.P.(C) No.12732/2015 & connected cases,
this court had directed reconsideration in respect of
16 posts. Instead of that, the State went ahead
and redefined and the High Court declared the
strength of the cadre to be 169 from 130 earlier.
The learned single Judge took this as an
inappropriate approach. We respectfully disagree
- 124 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
with the same. The power of the State Government
is a plenary power and the State Government can
exercise it as and when the situation so demands,
so long as it is exercised within the constitutional
framework. No courts can restrain the State in
exercising it functions as per its jurisdiction and
subject to the conditions of such exercise. By
W.P.(C) No.12732/2015 & connected cases, this
Court did ask the State to reconsider with regard to
16 posts. But then, it did not bind the State not to
exceed that, for the State has its own jurisdiction in
the matter. The State thus in consultation with the
High Court was fully competent to issue the
impugned order i.e., G.O.(MS) No.226/2016/Home
dated 30.8.2016. We, thus, cannot uphold the
reasoning of the learned single Judge.
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
- 125 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
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
Indiaand 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."
116. However, noticing that the State had delegated
the quantification of cadre strength to the High Court which
the Single Judge had found objectionable, the following
observations were made at para 11 as follows:
"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
- 126 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
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."
117. It is only in such context that the observations in
Mohandas(supra) is required to be understood and
cannot be construed otherwise.
118. The opinion of Rajesh Rai .K J., on the other
hand that there should be Notification by the State requires
acceptance.
119. The opinion of Anu Sivaraman, J., that the Single
Judge has grossly erred in observing that the quota ought
to be with reference to vacancies and that the quota is in
relation to the cadre and not vacancy requires acceptance.
120. The opinion of Rajesh Rai .K J., that the seniority
of FTC Judges has not become final by virtue of the
- 127 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
judgment passed in W.A.No.6514/2013 and upholding the
finding of the learned Single Judge on such point cannot be
accepted. Rajesh Rai .K J., in his opinion proceeds to hold
that the law laid down by the Division Bench in
W.A.No.6514/2013 is contrary to Dinesh Kumar
Gupta(supra) and C. Yamini (supra) and hence the
seniority of FTC Judges can be re-opened, cannot be
accepted.
121. As discussed above, the conclusion in
W.A.No.6514/2013 insofar as it observes that there could
be seniority of FTC Judges anterior to the date of
appointment cannot be re-opened. The judgment in writ
appeal having attained finality would prevent re-opening of
settled issue at least as regards the parties to the lis in
W.A. No. 6514/2013 or persons claiming through them. The
judgments in Dinesh Kumar Gupta(supra) and
C. Yamini(supra) are subsequent and cannot have the
effect of altering the directions in W.A.No. 6514/2013 which
have attained finality as regards parties to the lis.
- 128 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
Accordingly, the opinion of Rajesh Rai .K J., insofar as it is
contrary to the above position cannot be accepted.
122. The observation of Anu Sivaraman J., holding
that the observations of the learned Single Judge in paras-
33 and 34 requires to be set aside would be in consonance
with the above discussion.
123. The opinion of Rajesh Rai .K J., at para-87
requires acceptance insofar as it holds that the Notification
to set up Special Courts cannot ipso facto be construed to
be an addition of cadre strength. As regards the Notification
of 15.02.2002 (Special Court set up to try Dandupalya
Krishna Gang case) and the Notification of 15.02.2002 to
try cases relating to 'fake stamps and stamp papers',
condition No.5 as rightly observed provides that "No new
recruitment should be done to the new court." Further, in
the case of Kumari Jayalalitha, the Notification would
indicate that an existing District Judge has been deputed to
conduct the trial. Thus, the interpretation of the Notification
- 129 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
will have a bearing as to whether the Notifications could be
construed to be an addition to the cadre strength.
124. The further discussion from paras-87 to 97
rightfully highlights the difficulties in construing certain
Notifications as an addition to cadre strength and highlights
the need to notify cadre strength of taking note of various
factors.
125. The factors that may have to be kept in mind
are:-
(a) Whether the post created is temporary i.e.,
trial relating to a solitary issue?
(b) Whether the Special Court is nominated with a
Presiding Officer drawn from the regular
District Judge cadre?
(c) Whether the post to be filled up in another
Organization e.g., Lokayukta (Registrar),
Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (Registrar),
which post could be filled up either by a
District Judge or by promotion of an Officer
from within the Organization itself?
- 130 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
126. In each of the above circumstances, the addition
to the cadre would be based on an interpretation of the
Rule relating to cadre. It may require determination as to
whether the post is a temporary post which is a constituent
of the term 'cadre'. Similar questions require to be probed.
Such exercise cannot be embarked upon by the Court, but
falls within the domain of the Authority competent to notify
the cadre in consultation with the High Court.
127. Rajesh Rai .K J., in his opinion at paras-103 to
104 has commented upon the exclusion of 32 posts from
the cadre and redoing of the Seniority List.
128. It is not open for the Court which sits in judicial
review to enter into the disputed facts and conduct an
exercise of exclusion and inclusion of posts from the cadre
strength by interpretation of Notification of Special Courts,
Notification of Deputation Posts in other Organizations and
other such Notifications. Accordingly, the opinion of Rajesh
- 131 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
Rai .K J., regarding redoing of Seniority List by excluding 32
posts and all such similar posts is unacceptable.
129. The opinion of Anu Sivaraman J., that the writ
petition deserves to be dismissed requires to be upheld,
while the opinion of Rajesh Rai .K J., that the writ petition
deserves to be allowed cannot be accepted due to the
discussion supra.
F. QUOTA RULE APPLICATION:-
130. Anu Sivaraman J., records a specific finding that
the writ petitioners have not demonstrated as to how many
Promotee Officers are in excess of the quota vis-à-vis that
cadre strength.
131. Rajesh Rai .K J., on the other hand, has taken
note of the Notifications of Government relating to filling up
of posts and recorded a finding that 32 posts cannot be
considered as part of cadre strength. It is observed at para-
103 that as on the date of appointment of petitioners on
- 132 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
01.02.2016, out of 314 sanctioned posts, there would be
204 posts under the Promotional Quota, while 193 Judicial
Officers were promoted under 65% Promotional Quota and
after excluding 32 posts cadre strength would be 282 posts
and there would be 183 posts under 65% Promotional
Quota and accordingly, as on 01.02.2016, the Promotees
were in excess of 65% quota.
132. It is thus clear that the detailed arguments made
contending either that quota of the feeder source has been
exceeded is an argument that cannot be adjudicated upon
unless there is a definitive finding as to what would
constitute the 'cadre'.
F1. RECRUITMENT RULES:-
133. The Karnataka Judicial Service (Recruitment)
Rules, 2004 traces its power to Article 233 and 234 of the
Constitution of India. The power conferred under Article 233
and 234 in recruitment of Officers to the Judicial service
would be exercisable by the Governor of the State in
- 133 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
accordance with the Rules made after consultation with the
State Public Service Commission and the High Court.
134. Rule 11 of the said Rules reads as hereunder: -
"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 Judges (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."
135. By virtue of Rule 11(2), the conditions of service
would be subject to Rules under Proviso to Article 309
- 134 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
which would be applicable to the Civil Judges, Senior Civil
Judges and the District Judges. However, this would be
subject to Article 233, 234 and 235 of the Constitution of
India. Accordingly, in the absence of any Rules framed as
regards Seniority of District Judges, the Karnataka
Government Servants' (Seniority) Rules, 1957 would apply.
136. However, the concept of 'Cadre' would have a
bearing on recruitment insofar as the quota fixed in terms
of the Karnataka Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules,
2004. Under Rule 4 of the said Rules, the recruitment to
District Judges from the sources of promotion from the
cadre of Senior Civil Judge, by direct recruitment, by
competitive exam is fixed as a percentage of the posts. The
reference to posts would be relatable to posts in the cadre.
However, we find that the Judicial Service Recruitment
Rules does not define 'cadre'.
137. By virtue of Rule 11(2) of the above Rules, all
Rules regulating conditions of service made under Proviso
- 135 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
to Article 309 shall be applicable to the District Judges
recruited and appointed under the Rules. If that were to be
so, it is necessary to fall back on the definition of 'Cadre'
under the Karnataka Civil Services Rules as notified in
1958.
138. Rule 8(7) defines 'Cadre' as follows: -
"8(7). "Cadre" means the strength of a service or part
of a service sanctioned as a separate unit"
139. Though such power under Rule 11(2) of the
Karnataka Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 is
subject to Article 233 and 234 of the Constitution of India,
however, it appears that non-defining 'Cadre' in the
Karnataka Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 has
resulted in primacy of the power of the State in notifying
the cadre through the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958
framed in exercise of the power conferred under the Proviso
to Article 309. Needless to state, such Notification can be
made only with the consultation of the High Court.
- 136 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
Invariably such Notification is a culmination of an exercise
initiated from the High Court itself.
140. Accordingly, in terms of the applicable Rules, the
strength of the cadre requires quantification by virtue of the
procedure as prescribed under the Karnataka Civil Service
Rules, 1958.
141. The data placed before this Court regarding the
strength of cadre relating to the relevant period is not
definitive insofar as there is no clarity as to whether
temporary posts, officiating posts could constitute part of
the cadre strength in the absence of any provision in the
Recruitment Rules.
142. Insofar as the cadre as referred to under the
Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958, no Notification is
forthcoming from the Government regarding the strength of
the cadre as on the relevant date.
- 137 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
143. If it is the contention of the petitioners regarding
breach of the 'Quota Rule' vis-à-vis the sources from which
there is recruitment to the cadre of District Judges, such
contention cannot be adjudicated in the absence of a
definitive cadre.
144. The argument raised before this Bench regarding
quota of District Judges is to be quantified by determining
the percentage of entry level District Judges after excluding
the strength of Selection Grade and Super Time Scale
District Judges deserves to be rejected.
145. Learned Senior Counsel Sri M. S. Bhagwat has
contended that the percentage from the feeder sources that
would constitute the entry level District Judges quota would
be the quota to be taken note of and not the percentage of
the entirety of the cadre of District Judges.
146. Such argument is not grounded in the pleadings
and raised for the first time at this stage cannot be
entertained. The reference made to the Government Order
- 138 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
No.LAW 26 LAC 2005, Bangalore, dated 22.04.2006 would
on a close reading make it clear that the stratification in the
cadre of District Judges as Entry Level, Selection Grade and
Super Time Scale is only a mechanism for functional
promotion within the cadre of District Judges as an aspect
of implementation of Assured Career Progression Scheme
and Financial Upgradation pursuant to the directions of the
Apex Court in the case of All India Judges Association v.
Union of India vide judgement dated 21.03.2002.
However, the said Government Order would refer to the
different sub-categorisations as being a percentage of the
cadre strength of District Judges. Accordingly, it cannot be
stated that the strength of the cadre of District Judges is
dependent on the strength of the Entry Level category of
District Judges. The cadre of District Judges is a
homogenous unit with a definitive strength and reference to
sub-categorization cannot lead to diminishing of the cadre
strength and restricting it only to the Entry Level District
Judges.
- 139 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
147. It is also to be noticed that though in the
Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment)(Amendment)
Rules 1989, there is a reference to District Judges (Super-
Time Scale) as a category of posts, such distinction is no
more continued in the Karnataka Judicial Service
(Recruitment) Rules 2004. The 2004 Rules refer to the
cadre of 'District Judges' with no further classification and
accordingly, it can be stated that the sub-categorisation of
the cadre of District Judges into Super-Time Scale,
Selection Grade, and Entry-Level District Judges would be
impermissible as not being backed by executive orders
which promulgate the Rules. The subsequent amendment
effected to the 2004 Rules in 2011 also does not change the
position.
V. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS:-
148. This judgment is a product of active deliberation
and discussion with the other Bench Partners whose
- 140 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
valuable inputs have enriched the judgment for what it
stands.
149. In the result, the writ appeals are allowed. The
order dated 19.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge
in W.P.No.4046/2020 deserves to be set aside and the writ
petition stands dismissed.
150. Insofar as I.A. No.2/2025 for impleading filed by
the direct recruits, we find that the said application is filed
at this belated stage and cannot be entertained. Further,
the contentions raised have an overlap with the contentions
of the direct recruits though of a different batch which have
been considered and accordingly, the said application is
rejected.
151. However, before concluding, we need to take
note of the recent order of the Apex Court which would be
of relevance insofar as it prescribes the way forward.
Having denied relief to the petitioners in the above case,
yet it would be apposite to make certain observations and
- 141 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
directions to ensure that the system moves forward within
the applicable legal framework. These observations are
required in light of the High Court not having incorporated
the '40-Point Roster' as stipulated in the "Fourth AIJA"8.
152. We are constrained to observe that, if the Apex
Court passes certain directions relating to Higher Judicial
Service after considering the views of the High Courts to
ensure a balanced system is in place, then such system is
required to be implemented with no exception. The order of
the Apex Court dated 19.11.2025 passed on
I.A.No.230675/2025 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1022/1989
indicates the requirement of '4-Point Roster' with a timeline
for implementation while maintaining the proportion of
50:25:25 to the entire cadre.
153. Having allowed the Writ Appeals and noticing the
directions of the Apex Court passed on I.A.No.230675/2025
in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1022/1989, the following
(2002) 4 SCC 247
- 142 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
directions are made which would be a step towards evolving
a system where objectivity is enhanced leaving lesser room
for litigation:-
(i) The High Court is now to place a
request to the State Government to notify the
cadre strength with all necessary details;
(ii) Upon the Notification of the cadre
strength, steps to be taken for
implementation of the '4-Point Roster' and for
such purpose, the recommendations of the
Committee constituted to suggest
methodology for implementation of '4-Point
Roster' to be taken note of;
(iii) To enable the effective working of the
'4-Point Roster', the State Government to
ensure that the Notification of the cadre
strength is made at the earliest within a
period not later than one month of the date of
- 143 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
High Court sending proposal to notify the
cadre strength;
(iv) In light of the change in the percentage
of quota viz., 50% by Promotion, 25% to be
filled by promotion on the basis of
Competitive Examination and 25% quota for
Directly Recruited District Judges, there
requires to be a re-look in to the existing
cadre strength and reconciling it with the new
quota and this direction would operate
prospectively. This would not have the effect
of unsettling the Seniority List at
Annexure-'N';
(v) Noticing that there are no separate
Seniority Rules, the State Government in
consultation with the High Court keeping in
mind the Constitutional Scheme to frame the
Seniority Rules;
- 144 -
NC: 2026:KHC:17771-LB
HC-KAR
(vi) The High Court also to take steps to
frame appropriate Rules regarding the cadre
and conditions of service as regards Judges of
the Higher Judicial Service consistent with the
Constitutional Scheme and the applicable
procedure.
SD/-
(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
SD/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
NP/VGR
