Sri K. Prakash Murthy vs The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka

Cyriac Joseph, C.J.—The petitioner is a law graduate from the Bangalore University. He has filed this writ petition praying for a direction to the respondent-Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka to allow him to participate in the selection process for the post of Second Division Assistant in the High Court as per notification dated 21.03.2006 (Annexure-A).

The High Court of Karnataka issued Annexure-A notification dated 21.03.2006 inviting applications from qualified candidates for recruitment to 50 posts of Second Division Assistants. As per the notification, selection of candidates will be made in accordance with the High Court of Karnataka Service (Conditions of Service and Recruitment) Rules, 1973 and the High Court of Karnataka Service (Direct Recruitment by Selection) Rules, 1984 as amended from time to time. The minimum qualification for the post is a degree of a recognised University with a minimum of 45 per cent marks in the aggregate for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and a minimum of 55 per cent marks in aggregate for other candidates. Admittedly the petitioner has got only 52 per cent marks in the qualifying examination i.e., LL.B. examination. However, the petitioner submitted his application pursuant to Annexure-A notification. As the petitioner does not possess the minimum qualification, he has not been called for interview. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner filed this writ petition.

According to the petitioner, the pay-scale of Second Division Assistant in the High Court and the pay-scale of the Second Division Assistant in the State Government service are the same, but the minimum qualification for the post of Second Division Assistant in the High Court is a degree of a recognised University with a minimum of 55 per cent marks in aggregate for General candidates, Whereas, the minimum qualification for the post of Second Division Assistant in the State Government service is only S.S.L.C. It is contended that the prescription of such higher qualification for the post of Second Division Assistant in the High Court is arbitrary and illegal. Another contention raised by the petitioner is that the Rules prescribe same minimum percentage of marks for the three years degree course and the five years degree course. According to the petitioner, the number of subjects prescribed for three years is 18 subjects and the number of subjects for five years is 33 subjects. Obviously the petitioner might be referring to LL.B. Course. The contention is that since a student undergoing the five year course has to study 33 subjects and a student undergoing three years course has to study only 18 subjects, the percentage of marks obtained by the student undergoing five year course must be taken as the double of the actual percentage he obtained. It is contended that in that event, the aggregate marks of the petitioner would be 80 per cent. The third contention of the petitioner is that the selection is based on viva voce without conducting any written test and therefore, the method of selection is arbitrary and illegal.

According to Clause (1) of Article 229 of the Constitution of India, appointments of officers and servants of a High Court shall be made by the Chief Justice of the Court or such other Judge or officer of the Court as he may direct: provided that the Governor of the State may by rule require that in such cases as may be specified in the rule, no person not already attached to the court shall be appointed to any office connected with the court save after consultation with the State Public Service Commission. As per Clause (2) of Article 229, subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature of the State, the conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court shall be such as may be prescribed by rules made by the Chief Justice of the Court or by some other Judge or officer of Court authorised by the Chief Justice to make rules for the purpose: Provided that the rules made under this clause shall, so far as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, require the approval of the Governor of the State. In exercise of the powers conferred by Articles 229(1) and (2) of the Constitution, the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka, with the approval of the Governor of Karnataka, made the High Court of Karnataka Service (Conditions of Service and Recruitment) Rules, 1973. According to Rule 7 of the said Rules, recruitment to a post or class of posts shall be made by the Chief Justice as enumerated in Schedule III to the Rules. As per serial number 19 of Schedule III, the method of recruitment of Second Division Assistants is 50 per cent by direct recruitment and 50 per cent by promotion. Direct recruitment shall be by selection after calling for application and interviewing the applicants. The minimum qualification for direct recruitment shall be a degree of a recognised University with a minimum of 55 per cent marks in the aggregate for candidates belonging to General category and a minimum of 45 per cent marks in the aggregate for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In exercise of the power conferred by Articles 229(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India read with Rule 7 of the High Court of Karnataka Service (Conditions of Service and Recruitment) Rules, 1973, the Chief Justice of Karnataka made the High Court of Karnataka Service (Direct Recruitment by Selection) Rules, 1984. According to Rule 4 of the said Rules, recruitment under the Rules shall be made on the basis of the marks secured at the interview under Rule 6. According to Rule 5, for purpose of selection of candidates for interview, the selecting authority shall prepare a list of names of candidates on the basis of the percentage of total marks secured in the qualifying examination in the order of merit, and if two or more candidates have secured equal percentage of total marks in the qualifying examination, the order of merit in respect of such candidates shall be fixed on the basis of their age, the person or persons older in age being placed higher in the order of merit. From among the candidates whose names are included in such list, as far as may be such number of candidates as is equal to five times the number of vacancies notified, selected in the order of merit, shall be called for the interview. According to Rule 6 the selecting authority shall interview the eligible candidates selected under Rule 5 and award marks on the basis of their performance in the interview. The maximum marks for interview shall be fifty. The object of such interview is to assess the suitability of the candidates for appointment to the cadre or post applied for by them and their calibre including intellectual and social traits of personality. According to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6, the applications which do not fulfill the requirements shall be rejected. The concerned applicant shall be informed of the reasons for the rejection. According to Rule 7 the selecting authority shall on the basis of the marks secured at the interview under Rule 6 and taking into consideration the orders in force relating to reservation of posts for SCs, STs, prepare in the order of merit a list of candidates eligible for appointment to the cadre or posts and if the marks secured at the interview under Rule 6 of two or more candidates are equal, the order of merit in respect of such candidates shall be fixed in accordance with Rule 5. The number of candidates to be included in such list shall be equal to the number of vacancies notified.

Annexure-A notification specifically stated that the selection of candidates will be made in accordance with the High Court of Karnataka Service (Conditions of Service Recruitment) Rules, 1973 and the High Court of Karnataka Service (Direct Recruitment by Selection) Rules, 1984 as amended from time to time. The petitioner has no case that the selection is being made in violation of any provision contained in the said Rules. On the contrary, the petitioner who does not possess the minimum qualification prescribed under the Rules wants to be called for interview in violation of the Rules. So long as the above mentioned Rules are in force, the respondent is bound to make the selection and appointment in accordance with the said Rules. Since the petitioner has no case that the selection is being made in violation of the Rules, no interference by this Court with the selection process is called for.

Even though the petitioner is aggrieved by the method of selection conducted by the respondent as per the Rules, he has not challenged the validity of the Rules. In the absence of any challenge against the Rules and Annexure-A notification, the petitioner is not entitled to maintain this writ petition and to contend that the selection being made in accordance with the Rules is illegal or arbitrary. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Even otherwise, there is no merit in the three contentions raised by the petitioner. Merely because the pay-scales of the Second Division Assistant in the High Court and the Second Division Assistant in the State Government service are the same, the minimum qualifications for the said posts need not be the same. The Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka is competent to prescribe a higher qualification for the post of Second Division Assistant in the High Court, taking into account the difference in the nature of duties and functions of the Second Division Assistant in the High Court when compared to the functions and duties of the Second Division Assistant in any department of the State Government The prescription of a different qualification for the post of Second Division Assistant in the High Court is not arbitrary or discriminatory. The second contention of the petitioner that the percentage of marks obtained by the students who have taken law degree after undergoing five years course must be doubled as they have studied 33 subjects as against 18 subjects of the three year LL.B. course, to say the least, is totally misconceived. Irrespective of the number of years of course and the subjects studied, the relevant consideration is the percentage of marks obtained in the qualifying examination. There is no question of doubling or changing the percentage of marks on the basis of the number of subjects studied in the course. The third contention that the selection based solely on viva voce is illegal, also is devoid of merit. First of all, anybody cannot apply for the post. Only candidates who possess the minimum qualification prescribed under the Rules can apply. Secondly, all those who apply are not invited for the interview. From among the candidates whose names are included in the list of candidates prepared on the basis of percentage of total marks secured in the qualifying examination in the order of merit, as far as may be, such number of candidates equal to five times the number of vacancies notified, selected in the order of merit are called for the interview, fn other words, since the number of posts notified is 50, only 250 candidates who are ranked higher in the above mentioned list are called for interview. From among the said 250 candidates, candidates are selected for appointment on the basis of the interview.

Thus the marks obtained in the qualifying examination form the basis for shortlisting the candidates for interview and from the shortlisted candidates, selection is made on the basis of the performance in the interview. There is nothing illegal or arbitrary about it. There is no law that in every case there will be a written test for selection and the marks obtained in the written test should be taken into account. In the light of the discussion above, we hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed.