Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Sri. Dhanesh Mugali and three others, filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging their non-selection and non-inclusion in the final select list dated 7.12.2015 for appointment as District Judges in the Subordinate Judicial Services of Karnataka. They contended that the selection process was violative of Article 233 read with Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution and the Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2004. The petitioners were Assistant Public Prosecutors-cum-Assistant Government Pleaders and advocates who had applied for the post. The respondents were the State of Karnataka and the High Court of Karnataka. The court, after hearing arguments from Senior Counsel Sri. B.V. Acharya for the petitioners and Sri. Udaya Holla, Advocate General for the High Court, dismissed the petitions, holding that the selection process was valid and the petitioners failed to demonstrate any illegality or arbitrariness in the non-selection. The judgment was delivered by Justice R. Devdas on 7th February 2019.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Appointment of District Judges - Article 233 of the Constitution of India - Challenge to non-selection - Petitioners, Assistant Public Prosecutors, challenged their non-inclusion in the final select list for District Judges. The court examined whether the selection process conformed to Article 233 and the Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2004. Held that the selection process was valid and the petitioners failed to establish any violation of constitutional or statutory provisions (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the non-selection of the petitioners for appointment as District Judges in the Karnataka Subordinate Judicial Services was violative of Article 233 read with Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India and the Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2004.
Final Decision
The writ petitions were dismissed. The court upheld the selection process and found no violation of Article 233 or the Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2004.
Law Points
- Article 233 of the Constitution of India
- Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules 2004
- Selection process for District Judges
- Non-selection challenge
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (02) 32
Writ Petition No.5983/2016 (S-RES) c/w Writ Petition Nos.2642-2644/2016 (S-RES)
Sri. B. V. Acharya (Senior Counsel for petitioners), Smt. Vijetha R Naik (Advocate for petitioner in WP 5983/2016), Sri. Shantakumar K C (Advocate for petitioners in WP 2642-2644/2016), Sri. Sridhar N Hegde (HCGP for R1), Sri. Udaya Holla (Advocate General for R2), Sri. Vivek Holla (Advocate for R2)
Sri. Dhanesh Mugali, Sri. Shriharsh A Neelopant, Sri. Ramesh K. R., Sri. Mohana J. S
The State of Karnataka, The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging non-selection for appointment as District Judges.
Remedy Sought
Declaration that the non-selection and non-inclusion of petitioners in the final select list dated 7.12.2015 for appointment as District Judges is violative of Article 233 read with Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution and the Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2004.
Filing Reason
Petitioners were not selected for appointment as District Judges despite being eligible and having applied.
Issues
Whether the non-selection of the petitioners for appointment as District Judges was violative of Article 233 of the Constitution of India?
Whether the selection process conformed to the Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2004?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that their non-selection was arbitrary and violative of constitutional provisions and recruitment rules.
Respondents contended that the selection process was fair and in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi
The selection process for appointment of District Judges under Article 233 of the Constitution of India and the Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 was valid and the petitioners failed to establish any illegality or arbitrariness in their non-selection.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka challenging the final select list dated 7.12.2015 for appointment as District Judges. The petitions were heard together and dismissed by a common judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 233, Article 14, Article 16, Article 21
- Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2004:
