Sri. K. J. Dharmappa Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12400 WP No. 6888 of 2025 C/W WP No. 7295 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 6888 OF 2025 (S-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 7295 OF 2025 (S-RES)

¶6

IN WP No. 6888/2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. K.J. DHARMAPPA S/O LATE JAVEREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, ADVOCATE, R/A BEHIND NEW BUS STAND, RAMESHWARA EXTENSION, CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT-573116

¶9

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SRI. M.C. MANJUNATHA, S/O LATE CHANDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, ADVOCATE, R/A K. MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE, BAGUR HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573116

¶11

SRI. D.S. UMESH, S/O D.N. SHIVARAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, KOTHANAGATTA VILLAGE, SHRAVANABELAGOLA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573116

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. YASHWANTH NETHAJI N.T., ADVOCATE)

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12400 WP No. 6888 of 2025 C/W WP No. 7295 of 2025

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF LAW (ADMINISTRATION-2) VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

¶18

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573116,

¶19

DISTRICT OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF WELFARE AND BACKWARD CLASSES, HASSAN DISTRICT-573202

¶20

SRI. BASAVARAJU D.S, ADVOCATE, MAJOR, S/O SATHYANARAYANA, R/A DEVIGERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573116

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4; SRI. K.R.NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DATED 20.02.2025 BEARING NO. LAW-LAD/89/2024 AT ANNEXURE-S PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT.

¶24

- 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12400 WP No. 6888 of 2025 C/W WP No. 7295 of 2025

¶25

IN WP NO.7295/2025

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

SRI. K.N. KESHAVAMURTHY S/O LATE NINGEGOWDA, AGED 52 YEARS, BYALADARE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573116

¶28

...PETITIONER

¶29

(BY SRI. K.N.NITISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF LAW (ADMINISTRATION-2) VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY,

¶32

STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

¶33

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573116

¶34

DISTRICT OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF WELFARE AND BACKWARD CLASSES, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573202

¶35

SRI. BASAVARAJU D.S, ADVOCATE, MAJOR, S/O SATHYANARAYANA, R/A DEVIGERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573116

¶36

...RESPONDENTS

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12400 WP No. 6888 of 2025 C/W WP No. 7295 of 2025

¶38

(BY SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4;

¶39

VIDE ORDER DATED 12.03.2025, SRI. K.R.NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.5)

¶40

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION DATED 20.02.2025 BEARING NO.LAW-LAD/89/ 2024 AT ANNEXURE-S PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT.

¶41

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶42

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶43

ORAL ORDER

¶44

The petitioners in both these petitions have challenged the appointment of the respondent No.5 as a District Government Pleader. The petitioner in W.P.No.7295/2025 was the former District Government Pleader, whose services were continued by this Court in W.P.No.2340/2024, till a fresh appointment is made, in accordance with law.

¶45

The petitioner in W.P.No.7295/2025 was the former District Government pleader at Channarayapattana, District Court. He had filed W.P.No.2340/2024 where he assailed a notification dated 01.01.2024 by which, he was removed and respondent No.5 herein was appointed as an Additional District

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12400 WP No. 6888 of 2025 C/W WP No. 7295 of 2025

¶47

Pleader. The said writ petition was disposed of, in terms of the order dated 01.02.2024 by which, the removal of the petitioner was upheld, but the appointment of the respondent No.5 was also set aside and the petitioner in W.P.No.7295/2025 was permitted to continue till the fresh appointment was made.

¶48

Following the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.2340/2024, a notification was issued by the respondent No.4 on the directions of the respondent No.3, inviting applications from suitable candidates for the post of District Government Pleader. In furtherance of the said notification, the respondent No.5 was selected. The petitioners are therefore before this Court, challenging the selection of the respondent No.5 as the District Government Pleader.

¶49

The petitioners contend that the respondent No.3 was bound to comply with the procedure prescribed under Rule 26 of the Karnataka Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977. It is contended that the respondent No.3 did not issue the notification inviting applications but entrusted the same to the respondent No.4. It is contended that the respondent No.4 did not give wide publication to the

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12400 WP No. 6888 of 2025 C/W WP No. 7295 of 2025

¶51

recruitment notification but published it in local newspapers and therefore, there is no proper circulation of the recruitment notification. It is also contended that the respondent No.3 did not comply the procedure prescribed under Rule 26 to make his remarks about the candidates who had applied before forwarding it to the District Judge. It is therefore contended that the process of selection of the respondent No.5 is in violation of Rule 26 of the Rules, 1977.

¶52

Per Contra, learned Additional Government Pleader

¶53

representing the respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that the respondent No.3 had only directed the respondent No.4 to publish the notification inviting applications from eligible candidates. He contends that after the applications were received, the respondent No.4 had forwarded the applications to the respondent No.3 which were forwarded by the respondent No.3 to the District Judge. He contends that the District Judge had in turn obtained information about the candidates and thereafter processed it and forwarded it to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 for further needful action. He therefore contends that even if there is any mistake, that does not prejudice the petitioners in any manner whatsoever, as

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12400 WP No. 6888 of 2025 C/W WP No. 7295 of 2025

¶55

sufficient opportunity was given to all persons interested to apply and wide publication was given to the recruitment notification. He therefore contends that the petitioners have no cause to agitate in this writ petition. The learned counsel for the selected candidate respondent No.5, contends that the same procedure was followed when the petitioner in W.P.No.7295/2025 was selected. He therefore contends that the petitioner cannot now make an issue out of the procedure adopted for the selection of the respondent No.5. He also contends that the petitioners in W.P.No.6888/2025 were set up by those in W.P.No.7295/2025, to ensure that the petitioner in W.P.No.7295/2025, continues in office as a District Government Pleader pursuant to the interim arrangement made by this Court in W.P.No.2340/2024. Therefore, he contends that there is no serious error warranting interference with the appointment/selection of the respondent No.5. In addition he contends that after the respondent No.5 was selected, he took charge on 28.02.2025 and has been functioning as a District Government Pleader. He therefore prays that the petition be dismissed.

¶56

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12400 WP No. 6888 of 2025 C/W WP No. 7295 of 2025

¶57

The learned counsel for respondent No.5 submitted that the respondent No.5 has taken charge and therefore this writ petition does not survive for consideration. He contends that wide publicity was taken out in three local news papers and the application received were forwarded to the District Judge who in turn secured information about the candidates and forwarded it to the State government. He contends that the Deputy Commissioner had followed the same procedure when the petitioner in W.P.No.7295/2025 was selected. Even otherwise, he submits that petitioner's removal was upheld by this Court in W.P.No.2340/2024 and therefore, he cannot challenge the selection of respondent No.5.

¶58

I have considered the submissions of the learned

¶59

counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader for the official respondents.

¶60

The issue in these two petitions revolve around the non compliance of Rule 26 of the Rules, 1977. For the sake of immediate reference and brevity, the said Rule is extracted below:

¶61

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12400 WP No. 6888 of 2025 C/W WP No. 7295 of 2025

¶62

"26. Appointment of District Government

¶63

Pleader, etc.- (1) The number of posts of District Government Pleaders, Additional District Government Pleaders and Assistant Government Pleaders in the State and their particulars shall be as specified in Schedule VI.

¶64

(2) The Deputy Commissioner shall, whenever required by the Government, invite applications from eligible practising advocates of the place, for the post of District Government Pleaders, Additional District Government Pleaders and Assistant Government Pleaders specifying the date before which such application should be made and forward the applications so received to the District Judge along with his remarks about their suitability for appointment to the concerned post. On receipt of the same, the District Judge shall forward them to the Government in the Department of Law and Parliamentary affairs appending his remarks regarding his suitability of each of them for the concerned post. The Government shall thereafter' make the appointments having regard to the remarks of District Judge and the Deputy Commissioner.

¶65

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in subrule-2, but subject to other provisions of these rules, the Government may in cases of urgency appoint in consultation with the concerned District Judge, any advocate as District Government Pleader or Additional District Government Pleader for a period not exceeding one year".

¶66

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:12400 WP No. 6888 of 2025 C/W WP No. 7295 of 2025

¶67

A perusal of the above Rule makes it more than apparent that it is the Deputy Commissioner who has to invite applications from eligible practicing advocates for the post of District Government Pleaders, Additional District Government Pleaders and Assistant Government Pleaders. After receipt of the applications, he has to forward the applications along with his remarks about the suitability for appointment to the concerned posts. There is no rule which authorizes the Deputy Commissioner to delegate his functions. In the instant case, the Deputy Commissioner has abdicated his statutory duty of inviting applications from the eligible candidates, by directing the respondent No.4 to cause the publication and invite applications. This is the first fault in the process adopted by the respondent No.3. Thereafter, the respondent No.3, without making his remarks about the suitability for appointment of the concerned person, mechanically forwarded the application to the District Judge. This was not an empty formality as the Deputy Commissioner must have procured inputs from various departments of the government to know the antecedents of the candidates before forwarding the applications to the District Judge. This was the second fault committed by the respondent

¶68

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:12400 WP No. 6888 of 2025 C/W WP No. 7295 of 2025

¶69

No.3 in the process of selection. It is no doubt true that the District Judge had internally obtained information about the candidates and thereafter, forwarded it to the government for needful action. It is now well settled that if a statute prescribes that a thing should be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner or not at all.

¶70

The learned Additional Government Advocate was not able to point out any provision of law which authorized a Deputy Commissioner to delegate the function of inviting applications from eligible practicing advocates. He also was not able to point out whether the Deputy Commissioner could mechanically forward the application to the District Judge without making his remarks regarding the suitability of the candidates. The process therefore, suffered the second fault.

¶71

Under the circumstances, even if the first fault is treated as technical defect, the second fault cannot be remedied or ignored and the Deputy Commissioner was bound to give his remarks to the District Judge before the District Judge forwarded to the State Government. This apart, the respondent No.3 ought to have published the notification in several daily newspapers having wide circulation and also he

¶72

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:12400 WP No. 6888 of 2025 C/W WP No. 7295 of 2025

¶73

must have forwarded it to the local Advocates Association for information to all members of the bar. Therefore, the entire process of selection of respondent No.5 is vitiated and hence the same is liable to be set at naught.

¶74

In so far as the continuation of the petitioner in W.P.No.7295/2025 as District Government Pleader is concerned, this Court had in W.P.No.2340/2024, upheld the order discontinuing the services of the petitioner. However, it continued his service till a fresh appointment was made in accordance with law. Now that the term of the petitioner in W.P.No.7295/2025 has expired and respondent No.5 had assumed charge allowing the petitioner to continue would not subserve the ends of justice, as there is every likelihood of he placing stumbling blocks in the process of the appointment of a fresh District Government Pleader. Therefore, the continuation of the petitioner till a fresh appointment is made as granted by this Court in W.P.No.2340/2024, shall come to an end from this state. The respondent No.3 is directed to issue a fresh publication and publish it widely in daily newspapers having wide circulation in the District and also inform the Advocate Association at Channarayapattana about the recruitment

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC:12400 WP No. 6888 of 2025 C/W WP No. 7295 of 2025

¶76

13 -

¶77

notification and conclude the same in accordance with Rule 26 of the Rules, 1977 and as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶78