IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R.DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NOS.1223-1227/2019 (S-TR) BETWEEN 1. SMT. J. LATHA W/O M.P. RAMESH BABU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT, FAMILY COURT, MYSORE – 57 0005.
2. SRI. GOVINDA. V S/O LATE VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT, SENIOR DIVISION & JMFC COURT, PIRIYAPATNA, MYSORE DISTRICT- 571 107.
3. SRI. RAJU. J. C S/O C. JOGISIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT, SENIOR DIVISION & JMFC COURT, T.NARASIPURA, MYSORE DISTRICT- 570001.
4. SMT. SRITHULASI N. V W/O S. MAHESH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT, PRINCIPAL I CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, MYSORE- 570001.
5. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI W/O NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT, PRINCIPAL I CIVIL JDUGE & JMFC COURT, MYSORE- 570001.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAVI VARMA KUMAR, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SMT. G.SHARADA BAI, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, JUSTICE & HUMAN RIGHTS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSSIONS JUDGE, LAW OF COURTS, CHAMARAJA BOULEVARD ROAD, MYSORE- 570005.
4. VIRUPAKSHA. L AGED ABOUT MAJOR WORKING AS SHERISTEDAR, CIVIL AND JMFC COURT, PONNAMPET, KODAGU DISTRICT- 571213.
5. RAJAMMA P. C AGED ABOUT MAJOR, WORKING AS SHERISTEDAR, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, CHANNAPATNA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT- 562160.
6. NAGESH. R AGED ABOUT MAJOR, WORKING AS SHERISTEDAR, PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT-575003.
7. CHELUVARAYA SWAMY. J AGED ABOUT MAJOR, WORKING AS SHERISTEDAR, CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, HUVINAHADAGALI, BELLARY DISTRICT-582319.
8. PRAKASH K. C WORKING AS SHERISTEDAR, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SEDAM, UNDER DEPUTATION TO IV ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, KALBURGI, SITTING AT SEDAM, 58522.
9. SOMASHEKAR. A AGED ABOUT MAJOR, WORKING AS SHERISTEDAR, PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, KALBURGI- 560001.
10. ANITHA KUMARI. M. K AGED ABOUT MAJOR, WORKING AS SHERISTEDAR, PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, KUNIGAL, TUMKUR DISTRICT- 572130.
11. VEENA. C AGED ABOUT MAJOR, WORKING AS SHERISTEDAR, PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, RAMANAGAR- 562159.
(BY SRI. A.S.PONNANNA, AAG A/W SMT. M.S.PRATHIMA, AGA, FOR R1 & R2;
... RESPONDENTS SRI. M. NAGAPRASANNA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SMT.M.L.SUVARNA, ADVOCATE FOR R4, R5, R7 TO R11; NOTICE ISSUED TO R3 AND R6 ) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER ALL THE PETITIONERS FOR PROMOTION TO THE POST OF SHERISTEDAR AND TO PROMOTE THEM AS SHERISTEDARS, DIRECT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS STRIKING DOWN RULE 3 OF THE KARNATAKA SUBORDINATE COURTS (MINISTERIAL AND OTHER POSTS) (RECRUITMENT) RULES, 1982 AS ILLEGAL, VIOD AND UNCONSITUTIONAL AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Though these matters are coming up in the ‘Orders’ list, with the consent of the learned counsel on both the sides these matters are heard and disposed of finally.
2. The petitioners are working as First Division Assistants in the Subordinate Courts in Mysuru District. It is contended that the petitioners are at the fag-end of their services and they are fully eligible and qualified for being appointed as Sheristedars, on promotion. The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned orders at Annexures-A and B passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru. Annexure-A is the order passed by the Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, transferring 51 Sheristedars to various districts, on their own requests. The contention of the petitioners is that their promotional avenues in Mysuru district, for the posts of Sheristedars will be affected by virtue of the transfer of the Sheristedars from other districts to Mysuru district. Annexure-B is the order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, pursuant to the order at Annexure-A, assigning them the posts at Mysuru District.
3. Sri. A.S.Ponnanna, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent- State of Karnataka and the High Court of Karnataka submits that the post of Sheristedars is a State-wise cadre and Rule 3 of the Karnataka Subordinate Courts (Ministerial and other Posts) (Recruitment) Rules, 1982, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 1982’) empowers the High Court to appoint by transfer to a post in district, any officer holding identical post, in another district. Moreover, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that the apprehension of the petitioners is unfounded. It is submitted that there are at least two vacant posts of Sheristedars in the Mysuru district and petitioners could be considered for promotions. However, it is added that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B. K. Pavitra & Others Vs Union Of India & Others, reported in 2017 (4) SCC 620, promotions have not been effected, at least from the past one year and no sooner the dispute is settled, the promotions could be considered.
4. Although Rule 3 of the Rules, 1982 has been challenged by the petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that the validity of Rule 3 could be left open to be considered at the appropriate stage. Since the apprehension of the petitioners that they may not be considered for promotions, if the posts of Sheristedars in Mysuru District is blocked by the transfer of other Sheristedars/respondents to Mysuru district, has been allayed, by the submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General, this petition could be disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court, if their promotions are indeed affected for want of vacancy. No sooner the dispute in B. K. Pavitra’ case (supra) is settled and if it is found that the petitioners have not been considered on account of vacancy not being available at Mysuru district, the petitioners may approach this Court and all questions will be left open to be considered at that stage.
5. The respondent No.3, Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru would be required to take up the issue with the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, if it is found that the promotional avenues of the petitioners is blocked because of the enmass transfer effected in Annexures-A and B.
6. With these observations, these writ petitions stand disposed of.
SD/- JUDGE DL