IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI Writ Petition No.47602/2017 C/W WRIT PETITION NO.48596/2017, WRIT PETITION NO.47601/2017 (S-RES) IN WRIT PETITION NO.47602/2017 BETWEEN:
DR. VANI. N, W/o. A.MURALI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO.1, A BLOCK, FSL QUARTERS, MADIVALA POST, BENGALURU-560 068.
(BY SRI. VIVEK B.N., ADVOCATE FOR …PETITIONER SRI. ABHINAV R, KUMAR & KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.
3. DIRECTOR OF FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORIES, MADIWALA, BENGALURU-560 068.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SREEDHAR N. HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND HOLD THAT THE KARNATAKA STATE (FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY SERVICES) (RECRUITMENT) RULES, 2017 DATED:23.06.2017, AT ANNEXURE-A AS INVALID AND ULTRA VIRES TO PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.48596/2017 BETWEEN:
DR. MALINI S, W/o. DR. B.K.MURALIDHAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT No.14/3, 1ST MAIN ROAD, RAMACHANDRAPURAM, SRIRAMPURAM, BENGALURU-560 021.
…..PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIVEK B.N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ABHINAV R, KUMAR & KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.
3. DIRECTOR OF FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORIES, MADIWALA, BENGALURU-560 068.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SREEDHAR N. HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND HOLD THAT THE KARNATAKA STATE (FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY SERVICES) (RECRUITMENT) RULES, 2017 DATED:23.06.2017, AT ANNEXURE-A AS INVALID AND ULTRA VIRES TO PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION NO.47601/2017 BETWEEN:
DR. KUMUDA RANI D/o. MUKUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT: HOUSE NO.2, A BLOCK, FSL QUARTERS, MADIVALA POST, BENGALURU – 560 068.
…..PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIVEK B.N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ABHINAV R, KUMAR & KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.
3. DIRECTOR OF FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORIES, MADIWALA, BENGALURU-560 068.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SREEDHAR N. HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; R3 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND HOLD THAT THE KARNATAKA STATE (FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY SERVICES) (RECRUITMENT) RULES, 2017 DATED:23.06.2017, AT ANNEXURE-A AS INVALID AND ULTRA VIRES TO PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner has assailed the Karnataka State (Forensic Science Laboratory Services) (Recruitment) Rules, 2017 (for short ‘Rules, 2017’) dated 23.06.2017 Annexure-A. Rules, 2017 is issued under Clause (a) Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 read with Section 8 of the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978 (Karnataka Act 14 of 1990).
2. The Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978 and Rules, 2017 relates to recruitment to various posts in the Forensic Science Laboratory Department. These posts are civil posts. In terms of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of L.Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 read with Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Shiva Prasad Biradar Vs. Karnataka Lokayuktha and others in Writ Appeal No.200715/2018 disposed off on 11.03.2019 even in respect of challenge to the validity of any Rules, the Court of first instance would be respective Tribunal.
3. In view of the principle laid down in the case of L. Chandrakumar (supra), the petitioner has a remedy before the appropriate Tribunal. Hence, Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable insofar as any relief sought against the civil post.
Accordingly, petitions stand disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum.
In view of disposal of the main petitions, I.A.No.1/2019 in all petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SJK