Karnataka HC allows Writ to Set Aside the Appointment of Deputy Registrars for Karnataka HC

Must Read

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions,...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by...

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Follow us

The writ was allowed to quash the Notification passed by The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka in the appointment of Deputy Registrar (Secretarial Services).

Facts regarding the Appointment of Deputy Registrars

The petitioners namely N Mahesha and Doreraj A K were appointed as Stenographer in 1990s on the establishment of High Court of Karnataka. Later, they were promoted to the cadre of Judgment Writer, Senior Judgment Writer and Assistant Registrar (Secretarial Services). Petitioners and 4 others were called for interview for the post of Deputy Registrar (Secretarial Services) on 01.09.2016, but they were not selected.

Later, to fill vacancies of Deputy Registrar on 07.11.2017 the then Acting Chief Justice appointed a Committee consisting of three Hon’ble Judges to carry out the selection process for filling up of two vacant posts in the cadre of Deputy Registrar (Secretarial Services). Along with petitioners, other six officers were called for an interview.

As per the resolution passed by Selection Committee prior to the interview, Respondents namely Rahimunnissa and  P Jayakumar were selected on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates in the interview and after scrutinizing the Annual Performance Reports for the last 5 years.

Arguments of the Counsel

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the petitioners are the seniors than the Respondents namely Rahimunnissa and P Jayakumar in the final seniority list of 2016 in the cadre of Assistant Registrar (Secretarial Services) and also submitted that in the process of selection to the post of Deputy Registrar (Secretarial Services), the official – respondents have not adhered to the Rules of Recruitment governing the post of Deputy Registrar (Secretarial Services) to the effect that seniority and order of preference to the Law Graduates has been ignored. Further, it was contended that Rules are silent in respect of holding interview and award of marks under various heads. Therefore, the Selection Committee has exceeded its jurisdiction in laying criteria like interview and fixation of marks and award of marks, they are abiding by the Rules governing the post of Deputy Registrar (Secretarial Services), in laying criteria like holding of interview and determining award of marks and minimum ten marks to each of the Members of the Committee are impermissible and contrary to Mode of Selection prescribed under Rules, 2013. The then Acting Chief Justice has authorized the Committee only for the purpose of selection of two Assistant Registrar (Secretarial Services) for promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar (Secretarial Services), neither Rules nor the then Acting Chief Justice has evolved the criteria relating to holding of interview and award of marks under various heads. Therefore, in the absence of Rules in respect of holding interview and award of marks under various heads by the Committee is without the authority of law. Thus the petitioner, feeling unsatisfied filed the writ petition praying to quash the notification.

Decision of the Court

The Court after hearing both the parties allowed the writ petition and came to the view that the Selection Committee laying down the criteria of holding of interview, fixation of 30 marks and allotment of 10 marks to each of the member for award of marks to the candidates, who have appeared for the interview for the post of Deputy Registrar (Secretarial Services), is without authority of law, since Rules, 2013 do not provide for holding of interview and award of marks by the Selection Committee.  Therefore, the order of promotion was set aside.

[googlepdf url=”http://libertatem.in/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Karnataka-HC-allows-Write-to-Set-Aside-the-Appointment-of-Deputy-Registrars-for-Karnataka-HC.pdf” download=”Download Judgement PDF” width=”100%” height=”900″]


Contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now. You can also join our Courtroom team and regularly contribute cases like the above one.

For more Courtroom Updates, check out our Courtroom Page

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -