Dismissed¶42

Smt.Joochini Vanishri W/O Ulli Virupakshi v. the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari

Karnataka HC21 Mar 2025WP/103680/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Dharwad Bench; WP No. 103680 of 2018 (S-RES); Justice R. Nataraj; decided 21-03-2025; discharge of Process Server; SSLC equivalence; certificate of National Institute of Research and Development Council, New Delhi; Rule 6 Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules 1977; Rule 2(1)(h) Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules 1977; Office Order No.09/2017/ADM dated 17.01.2018; appointing authority Principal District Judge; writ petition dismissed; direction to pay unpaid salary within three months.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner; writ petition dismissed. However, respondents directed to pay the petitioner's salary, if unpaid, within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the Order. ¶42

Smt.Joochini Vanishri W/O Ulli Virupakshi Vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioner; writ petition dismissed. However, respondents directed to pay the petitioner's salary, if unpaid, within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the Order.

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the discharge of the petitioner from the post of Process Server for not possessing the prescribed SSLC or equivalent qualification was valid and free from infirmity. +2 more

¶30

Court's answer

There is nothing wrong in the impugned order discharging the petitioner, since respondent No.3 categorically indicated that her qualification was not equivalent to SSLC; this Court cannot don the role of an adjudicator to adjudicate whether the two qualifications are equivalent.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

As the Principal District Judge was the appointing authority and there is no one higher than the Principal District Judge in the District Courts, discharge of the petitioner was not required to be placed before a higher authority for approval.

¶41

Key takeaways

The impugned order passed by respondent No.1 is just and proper and does not warrant any interference.ratio¶41
If the salary payable to the petitioner has not been paid, the respondents shall take immediate steps to pay it, at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the Order.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law - discharge of a newly appointed Process Server for lack of prescribed qualification. The petitioner, selected as Process Server on the strength of a 10th standard certificate issued by the National Institute of Research and Development Council, New Delhi claimed to be equivalent to SSLC, was discharged by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari vide Office Order No.09/2017/ADM dated 17.01.2018 after the Commissioner/Deputy Director of Public Instructions opined that the qualification was not equivalent to SSLC. Held: (i) since respondent No.3 categorically indicated non-equivalence, there was nothing wrong in the impugned order, and the High Court cannot don the role of an adjudicator on equivalence of qualifications; (ii) discharge under Rule 6, Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977 required no approval by a higher authority, the Principal District Judge being the appointing authority with none higher in the District Courts. Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 dismissed; however, respondents directed to pay any unpaid salary within three months of receipt of a certified copy of the Order.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5259 WP No. 103680 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 103680 OF 2018 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. JOOCHINI VANISHRI W/O ULLI VIRUPAKSHI AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: NEAR UJJINI SCHOOL, NEAR BHOVI COLONY, TQ: HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, DIST: BALLARI.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SRINAND A PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI, TALUK AND DIST: BALLARI.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-01.

¶16

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, TALUK AND DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶17

THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC-D:5259 WP No. 103680 of 2018

¶20

HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT A-3/132, GROUND FLOOR, SECTOR-07, ROHINI, NEW DELHI-110085.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. M.A.SUBRAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3;

¶23

VIDE ORDER DATED 23.09.2021, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER BEARING NO.09/2017/ADM DATED 17.01.2018 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY REINSTATE THE PETITIONER TO HER POST OF THE PROCESS SERVER.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner has challenged an office order bearing No.09/2017/ADM dated 17.01.2018 passed by respondent No.1 discharging her from service.

¶28

The petitioner had applied for the post of Process Server and was selected. She was also issued with an order of appointment and she reported to duty. The respondent No.1 sought a report from the respondent No.3 whether 10^th examination conducted by respondent No.4 is equivalent to SSLC examination conducted by the Karnataka School Examination and Assessment Board (henceforth referred to as

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5259 WP No. 103680 of 2018

¶30

'State Board'). The respondent No.3 forwarded the same to the respondent No.2 for its opinion and in reply, respondent No.2 informed the respondent No.3 that both of them were not equivalent. On the basis of the same, respondent No.1 passed the impugned office order discharging the petitioner from service for not possessing the minimum qualification prescribed. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when an order of discharge is passed under Rule 6 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977, it has to be approved by the next higher authority. He contends that in so far as the petitioner is concerned, the next higher authority is the Administrative Judge of the High Court and therefore, that had to be placed for approval before the Administrative Judge. He further contends that the petitioner had worked for a period of four months and that she was not paid the salary for the four months. He also contends that the petitioner is now aged more than 38 years and therefore, there is no possibility of she being employed under the State. Hence, he prays that the case of the petitioner may be considered sympathetically in the light of the

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5259 WP No. 103680 of 2018

¶33

fact that the very same certificate is considered as equivalent by the State Government for providing appointment in other departments.

¶34

The writ petition is opposed by the respondent No.1, who has filed statement of objections contending inter alia that the candidates were required to possess SSLC qualification or equivalent qualification and that the petitioner had submitted a certificate issued by the National Institute of Research and Development Council, New Delhi and claimed that the same was equivalent to SSLC examination conducted by the State Board. Based on the said certificate, she was selected and thereafter, a communication was addressed for verification whether the qualification of the petitioner was equivalent to SSLC. It is stated that since the respondent No.3 had specifically indicated that the qualification possessed by the petitioner was not equivalent to SSLC, the respondent No.1 was compelled to pass the impugned office order in view of Rule 2(1)(h) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977, which defined "equivalent qualification" as "qualification notified by the Government to be equivalent to a

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5259 WP No. 103680 of 2018

¶36

qualification prescribed in respect of any post in the Rules regulating recruitment to any State Civil Service."

¶37

The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 reiterated the above contentions and submitted that when the petitioner did not possess prescribed qualification, the impugned office order passed by the respondent No.1 is just and proper.

¶38

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

¶39

The petitioner was selected on the basis of her representation that the qualification that she possessed was equivalent to a pass in SSLC examination that was prescribed. The respondent No.1 has taken out steps to secure information whether the qualification possessed by the petitioner was equivalent to SSLC examination prescribed. The respondent No.3 has indicated categorically that the qualification of the petitioner was not equivalent to that of SSLC. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1. This Court cannot don the role of an

¶40

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5259 WP No. 103680 of 2018

¶41

adjudicator to adjudicate whether both the qualifications are equivalent or not. In so far as the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that when an employee is discharged under Rule 6 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977, it has to be placed for approval before the higher authority, in the instant case, it was the Principal District Judge who was the appointing authority and therefore, discharge of the petitioner was not required to be placed before the higher authority and when there is no one higher than the Principal District Judge in the District Courts. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 is just and proper and does not warrant any interference.

¶42

Hence, this writ petition is dismissed .

¶43

However, if the salary payable to the petitioner is

¶44

not paid, the respondents shall take immediate steps to pay salary, which shall at any rate, be not beyond a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.

¶45

Sd/(R.NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶46

PMR

Smt.Joochini Vanishri W/O Ulli Virupakshi v. the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Joochini Vanishri W/O Ulli Virupakshi v. the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shankar S/O (Late) Basavaraj Badgi Vs General Manager (Hr) and Anr.

Hajiali Harunjafar Koppal Vs the State of Karnataka

Kareem Phasa S/O Murtujasab Vs the Registrar

M/S Heliocon Agro Chemicals Limited Vs Union of India and Ors.

Shri. Shrimanth S/O Nemu Bogar Vs the Principal

Mr. Kishan Dutt Kalaskar Vs the Government