Writ Petition No. 32858/2009 (S-RES). Case: Smt. Radharani Mahadev Kolambe Vs The State of Karnataka, The High Court of Karnataka and The Civil Judges (Junior Division), Selection Committee, High Court of Karnataka. High Court of Karnataka (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 32858/2009 (S-RES) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Sri H. Subramanya Jois, Sr. Counsel for Sri K. C. Shantkumar, Adv. And For Respondents: Sri Raghavendra G. Gayatri, HCGP |
| Judges | Case No |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 - Section 125; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 15, 15(1), 16, 16(1), 16(2), 21, 234, 25, 309; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 4; Indian Penal Code (IPC) (45 of 1860) - Sections 494, 495 |
| Judgement Date | January 16, 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Karnataka (India) |
Order:
A. N. Venugopala Gowda, J.
1. In response to a Notification No. CJRC-1/2006 dated 1st April 2006, inviting applications for recruitment to the posts of Civil Judges (Junior Division), in accordance with the Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 2004, the petitioner, an advocate, submitted application. The petitioner was successful in the written examination and was subjected to Viva-voce test. The select list of 232 candidates vide Annexure-A having been published, the petitioner's name appears at Sl. No. 41. The Government received information regarding the marriage of the petitioner with a married man already having another wife and thereby attracting Sub Rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 (for short 'the Rules'), which disqualifies such a candidate for being appointed to the State Civil Service. Consequently, petitioner's case for appointment was rejected and her name was not included in the Notification bearing No. LAW 134 LAC 2008 dated 30th September 2008, as at Annexure-B, issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 234 of the Constitution of India, by His Excellency, the Governor of Karnataka, appointing 223 persons selected under the Karnataka Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 as Civil Judges (Junior Division) in the Karnataka Judicial Service, in the pay scale of ` 9,000-14,550. Petitioner having submitted a representation dated 13.5.2009, as at Annexure-D, an endorsement dated 15.9.2009, as at Annexure-E having been issued, rejecting her candidature on the ground that there is violation of Rule 5(2) of the Rules, this writ petition has been filed to grant the following reliefs.
(1) To declare and strike down to Rule 5(2) of the K.C.S. (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 as ultravires the provisions of Articles 14, 15, 16(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India and also as inconsistent with the provisions of the Karnataka Government Servants (Conduct) Rules 1966;
(2) Quash an endorsement bearing No. LAW 134 LAC 2009 dated 15.9.2009 vide Annexure-E, issued by the 1st respondent;
(3) Direct the respondents to issue to the petitioner an order of appointment as a Civil Judge (Jr. Divn) in implementing of the Select List of candidates bearing Notification No. CJRC-1/2006, dated 6th June 2009 vide Annexure-A.
Petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Rules, which provides for disqualification for appointment. The main grounds of challenge are;
(i) It is inconsistent with the provisions of the Karnataka Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1966;
(ii) It brings about a hostile discrimination between a citizen and a citizen and a civil servant, without any rational basis and inhibits a Hindu ineligible to be appointed to the State civil services, if he has more than one wife living and that, if such a person being woman, she cannot marry a person, who already has wife living;
(iii) Keeping in view the provision Rule 5(2) of the Rules and the Karnataka Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1966 permitting bigamous marriages subject to Governmental sanction, the impugned Rule is opposed to Article 15 of the Constitution of India, for, the same seeks to bring about a hostile discrimination between a man and a woman. Thus, discrimination on the basis of sex, similarly as discrimination on the basis of religion is forbidden.
(iv) It is unguided and does not contain or lay down any yardstick for granting an exemption envisaged therein.
2. The State has justified the impugned provision, by filing statement of objections. It has been stated that;
(i) Granting exemption to a person from the operation of Rule 5(2) is always at the pleasure of the Government and only in cases where special grounds are available to do so, that the State can exempt the person from the operation of the Rule.
(ii) Granting of exemption from operation of the Rule to a person who has incurred disability being the sole prerogative of the State and the petitioner having been found to be undeserving for grant of such exemption and there being no special ground in the case of the petitioner, entailing her for such special treatment, the respondents declined to extend the benefit of the proviso, to the petitioner.
(ill) The Rule has been made for 'just cause' with the sole objective of ensuring that the people of high morality are appointed to State Civil Services and the classification made under the Rule is to serve an objective purpose and is therefore valid.
(iv) The Rule was framed with the sole aim of achieving an 'objective purpose', class of persons to be governed by the Rule is 'very well defined', the yardstick employed in classifying the well defined group of people is just and reasonable and the Rule has general application to all the persons who suffer the peculiar disqualification.
3. Sri H. Subramanya jois, learned senior counsel, in support of the prayers made in the writ petition contended as follows:
(i) Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Rules is ultravires the provisions of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from being inconsistent with the provisions of the Karnataka...
To continue reading
Request your trial