IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION NO.35991/2015 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI SHIVABEERAIAH S.M., AGED 32 YEARS, S/O SRI MADAIAH, FORMER CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, SASALAPURA, SATHANURU HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVABEERAIAH S.M., PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND:
THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI DINESH RAO, AAG)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED CIRCULAR DATED 31.07.2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED (SL.NO.1544) AT ANN- A AND DECLARE THAT THE REJECTION OF THE PETITIONER’S APPLICATION AS HIGHLY ARBITRARY AND ILLEGAL AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R In the instant petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
“a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing the impugned circular dated 31.07.2015 bearing No.GOB (1) 27/2015 issued by the respondent, in so far as the petitioner is concerned (Sl.No.1544) Annexure”A”) b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction declaring that the rejection of the petitioner’s application as highly arbitrary and illegal.
c) Declare incidentally that the Annexure- B notification bearing No.LAW 18 LAC 2015 dated 07.02.2015 issued by the respondent, discharging the petitioner from the post of Civil Judge is non-est or void ab initio in the eye of law.
d) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order, directing the respondent to subject the answer scripts of the petitioner bearing No.DJR 2358, the written examination held for the post of District Judges on 30.08.2015, for fresh evaluation and to declare his result accordingly.
e) Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble court may deem fit, in the circumstance of the case, including the award of the costs of this petition in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. By virtue of interim order dated 27.08.2015, the petitioner was permitted to participate in the process of selection for the post of District Judge pursuant to the notification dated 30.06.2015 (Annexure-D).
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Civil Judge pursuant to the notification dated 18.03.2014, he was discharged from service vide notification dated 07.02.2015 under Rule 6(1) of Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977 (for short ‘Rules, 1977’). Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the same, the petitioner has filed writ petition No.15380/2015 which is pending consideration. On 10.07.2015, petitioner submitted application for the post of District Judge pursuant to notification dated 30.06.2015 (Annexure-D), he has revealed in the application that he had been discharged from service at Column No.16 (Annexure-E). In this background, the respondent has issued a circular regarding list of rejected candidates, the petitioner’s application number appears at Sl.No.1544. The reasons for rejection is stated that he was discharged from service. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature, the present writ petition.
4. It is submitted by the petitioner (party-in- person) that a detailed order has been passed on 27.08.2015 while considering the interim relief as sought by the petitioner, wherein this Court has taken note of Rules 6 and 7 of Rules, 1977 relating to discharge simplicitor and termination for misconduct. Further, Rule 6 of the Karnataka Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 (for short ‘Rules, 2004’) is also taken into consideration. The petitioner has also submitted that the word of discharge has been incorporated under Rule 6 of Rules, 2004 as is evident from the amendment Rules, 2016 notified on 26.04.2016 vide Notification No.LAW 18 LAC 2016 to the Karnataka Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 and Amendment Rules, 2016, wherein, Sub Rule (b) of Rule 6 has been amended to the extent of incorporating discharge from service during the probation period in addition to compulsory retirement, removal or dismissal from judicial service or from service in Government or statutory or local authority, if a candidate after being selected as judicial officer has been discharged from service during the probation period. In view of these facts and circumstances, impugned rejection of the petitioner’s candidature for the post of District Judge is liable to be set aside and consequently, the petitioner is entitled for reliefs sought in the present petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the word ‘removal’ from the service reflected in Rule 6 (b) of Rules, 2004 is equivalent discharge from service under Rules, 1977. Therefore, there is no infirmity in rejection of petitioner’s candidature to the post of District Judge. In order to crystal clear the issue, the respondent has proceeded to amend the Rule 6 while incorporating the word of discharge from service.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent and the petitioner (party-in-person).
7. Core issue in the present petition is a discharge employee/officer is disqualified to any other post in the judicial service or not?
8. Rule 6 of the Rules, 2004 which reads as under:
“6. Disqualification for appointment:-
No person shall be eligible for appointment to the service – (a) unless he is a citizen of India;
(b) if he is dismissed or removed from service or compulsorily retired by any High Court, Government or statutory or local authority or other employer;
(c) if he has been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude or who is or has been permanently debarred or disqualified by the High Court or the Union Public Service Commission or any State Public Service Commission from appearing for examinations or selections conducted by it or has been removed from its roll by any Bar Council;
(d) if any penalty or punishment has been imposed by the Bar Council or any disciplinary authority which in the opinion of selecting authority, makes the applicant unsuitable for a judicial post;
(e) if he directly or indirectly influences the recruiting authority by any means for his candidature;
(f) if the marital status of the candidates is bigamous.”
Rule 6 clause (b) of the (Amendment) Rules, 2016 is reproduced here under:
“(b) If he/she is compulsorily retired, removed or dismissed from Judicial Service or from service in Government or Statutory or Local Authority or if a candidate after being selected as a Judicial Officer has been discharged from service during probationary period.”
9. Undisputed facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Civil Judge on 18.03.2014* and he was discharged from service on 07.02.2015 under Rule 06* (1) of Rules, 1977. He is a candidate for recruitment for the post of District Judge pursuant to the notification dated 15.07.2015 and he has disclosed the fact that he has been discharged from services at Column No.16 of application. In this background, respondent has rejected petitioner’s candidature on 31.07.2015* on the score that the petitioner was discharged from service. Therefore, he has been disqualified to make an application or participate in the process of selection and appointment for the post of District Judge. The impugned decision of the respondent rejecting the petitioner’s candidature on the score that he was *Corrected vide Court order dated: 19.08.2019 discharged as Judicial Officer. Rule 6 of Rules, 2004 is crystal clear that who are all disqualified namely, dismissal, removal and compulsory retirement person / Judicial Officer. Till 26.04.2016, Judicial Officer who has been discharged from service is entitled to participate for the post of Judicial service. Only with effect from 26.04.2016, the discharged Judicial Officer is disqualified to participate in the process of selection and appointment in Judicial Service. In other words Amendment Rule 6 (b) Rules, 2016 is prospective w.e.f., 26.04.2016. In terms of Sub Rule (2) of Rule 1 “(2) They shall come into force from the date of their final publication in the Official Gazette” vide Gazette dated 26.04.2016. It has no retrospectivity, since right of the petitioner is crystallized & right accrued cannot be taken away.
10. In view of these facts and circumstances, Annexure-A dated 31.07.2015 at Sl.No.1544 by which petitioner’s candidature has been rejected for the post of District Judge pursuant to the notification dated 30.06.2015* is set aside and writ petition stands allowed.
11. Respondents are hereby directed to announce the result of the petitioner in respect of District Judge post pursuant to the notification dated 30.06.2015* within a period of four weeks from today. If result is adverse to the petitioner, he is at liberty to question the same before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE HA/-
*Corrected vide Court order dated: 19.08.2019