Smt. Varalakshmi M N., Vs the Honble Member Secretary

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:21021 WP No. 25181 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.25181 OF 2025 (S-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. VARALAKSHMI M N., W/O ASHOKA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS CHEIF LEGAL AID DEFENSE COUNSEL BENGALURU-RURAL DIST. DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, II FLOOR, CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU-560 009.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. R.S. RAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. SHIVSHANKER, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE HON’BLE MEMBER SECRETARY, KARNATAKA STATE LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY (KSLSA), SIDDDAIAH ROAD, SUDHAM NAGAR BENGALURU-560 027.

¶13

THE HON'BLE DEPUTY SECRETARY KARNATAKA STATE LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY (KSLSA) SIDDAIAH ROAD, SUDHAM NAGAR BENGALURU-560 027.

¶14

THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND CHAIRMAN DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY BENGALURU RURAL CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:21021 WP No. 25181 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY MEMBER SECRETARY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU II FLOOR, CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU-560 009.

¶19

SMT JYOTHI LAKSHMI N K ASSISTANT LEGAL AID DEFENSE COUNSEL DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU II FLOOR, CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU – 560 009.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADV. FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADV. FOR R5)

¶22

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE ENTIRE DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE SELECTION PROCESS CONDUCTED BY THE RESPONDENTS NOS.1 TO 4 AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶27

“a) Call for records of the entire documents pertaining to the selection process conducted by the respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶28

b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to reconsider the petitioner continuation as Chief Legal Aid Defense Counsel by extending her tenure for another term, based on the petitioner’s track record available in the DLSA.

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:21021 WP No. 25181 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

c) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to call for a fresh interview with a reconstituted and impartial panel to ensure fairness and transparency in the selection process.

¶33

d) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation / Complaint filed by the petitioner dated 28.05.2025 to Hon’ble Executive Chairman KSLSA requesting to extend tenure as Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru marked at Annexure-G.

¶34

e) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order No.KSLSA02 / LADCS-B’lore(R) / 2023 869 / 25 dated 03.07.2025 passed by the Deputy Secretary of the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority Respondent No.2, is herewith produced and marked at Annexure-H.

¶35

f) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash any order or appointment of selection list issued by the respondent No.1 dated 13.08.2025 in No.KSLSA:31 / LADCS-Human Resources / 2024 (Phase-I) 994/25 authority is herewith produced and marked at Annexure-J pertaining to Notification marked at Annexure-B issued on 23.12.2024 by the respondent No.1 for the selection of LADCS in Bengaluru Rural Dist.

¶36

g) Pass any order or direction as deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case by allowing the petition in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:21021 WP No. 25181 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶41

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the Legal Aid Defense Counsel Scheme 2022 in order to point out that the selection procedure prescribed in Clause number 4 of the said Scheme permits selection to be carried out by Selection Committee under the Chairmanship of only the Principal District & Sessions Judge along with three Senior most Judicial Officers and the respondent Nos.1 to 4 were not entitled to include the District Government Pleader or retired Judicial Officer or one Advocate having at least 15 years standing in the bar, which is contrary to the aforesaid Scheme of NALSA and as held by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Ramkrishna Soni and others Vs. Union of India and others – W.P.No.36687/2025 dated 18.12.2025 and as such, the impugned Selection List at Annexure – J dated 13.08.2025 appointing respondent No.5 as District Chief LADC deserve to be quashed. In support of his submissions, he places

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:21021 WP No. 25181 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

reliance upon the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Ramakrishna Soni supra.

¶46

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 would invite my attention to the aforesaid Legal Aid Defense Counsel Scheme, 2022, in order to point out that at Clause No.4, the selection procedure clearly mandates, prescribes and provides that the selection shall be carried out by the Selection Committee as envisaged under the NALSA (Free and Competent Legal Services) Regulations 2010 and contemplates that the Selection Committee should include judicial officers as well as District Government Pleader and as such, the respondents issued the SOP / detailed instructions at Annexure – D, pursuant to which respondent No.5 was appointed as District Legal Aid Defense Counsel by issuing the impugned endorsement, which does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition. It is also submitted that the petitioner having been appointed by the previous Selection Committee, which was constituted on 14.09.1992, which also included the very same personnel / very same committee members constituting the Selection Committee including the District Government Pleader and an advocate, who is a Monitoring

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:21021 WP No. 25181 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

and Mentoring Committee member having 15 years of practice, the petitioner was estopped from challenging the constitution of the Selection Committee and the selection procedure by way of the present petition, which is liable to be dismissed.

¶51

I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

¶52

Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be necessary to extract Clause No.3 of the Detailed instructions on full time Legal Aid Lawyers in Legal Aid Defense Counsel Office (LADC) at Annexure – A as hereunder:

¶53

“3. SELECTION PROCESS :

¶54

As per the guidelines issued by NALSA, the selection procedure would involve formation of the Selection Committee under the Chairmanship of Prl. District and Sessions Judge (Chairman of DLSA) as envisaged in NALSA (Free and Competent Legal Services) Regulations 2010, subject to final approval by the Executive Chairman, SLSA. In the selection committee at least three senior most judicial officers posted at HQ, dealing mainly criminal cases, preferably sessions cases, will also be included. No person with conflict of interest shall be part of selection process. Hence, you are requested to form a Selection Committee and submit the list to KSLSA for obtaining approval of

¶55

7 -

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:21021 WP No. 25181 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

Hon'ble Executive Chairman, KSLSA on or before 27.08.2022.

¶59

So also, it would be necessary to extract Clause No.7

¶60

of the Detailed instructions on full time Legal Aid Lawyers in Legal Aid Defense Counsel Office (LADC) at Annexure – D as hereunder:

¶61

“7. SELECTION PROCESS :

¶62

After due publicity including public notice, applications will be invited and a fair, transparent and competitive selection process shall be adopted by DLSA under guidance of KSLSA. As per the guidelines issued by NALSA, the selection procedure would involve formation of the Selection Committee under the Chairmanship of Prl. District and Sessions Judge (Chairman of DLSA) as envisaged in NALSA (Free and Competent Legal Services) Regulations 2010, subject to final approval by the Executive Chairman, SLSA. In the selection committee at least three senior most judicial officers posted at Head Quarter, dealing mainly criminal cases, preferably sessions cases will also be included. No person with conflict of interest shall be part of selection process. Hence, you are requested to form a Selection Committee and submit the list of Selection Committee to KSLSA for obtaining approval of Hon'ble Executive Chairman, KSLSA on or before 28.12.2024.

¶63

8 -

¶64

NC: 2026:KHC:21021 WP No. 25181 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

FORMATION OF SELECTION COMMITTEE:

¶67

1	Principal District and Sessions Judge	Chairman	1
2	District Judge (who shall be the member of Monitoring and Mentoring Committee)	Member	1
3	Other District Judges (in case district judges are not available at the Head Quarter, any other Senior most Judicial Officers may be designated)	Members	2
4	Member Secretary of concerned DLSA	Member	1
5	District Government Pleader (who shall be the member of Panel Lawyers Selection Committee)	Member	1
6	One Retired Judicial Officer or one Advocate having at least 15 years standing in the Bar. (who shall be the member of Monitoring and Mentoring Committee)	Member	1
	*Total*		7

¶68

So also, the Legal Aid Defense Counsel Scheme 2022

¶69

formulated / framed by NALSA is as under:

¶70

“4. Selection Procedure :

¶71

After due publicity including public notice, applications will be invited and a fair, transparent and competitive selection process shall be adopted by DLSA under guidance of SLSA. Legal Aid Defence Counsels shall be engaged on contract basis in each place/district initially

¶72

9 -

¶73

NC: 2026:KHC:21021 WP No. 25181 of 2025

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

for a period of two years with a stipulation of extension on yearly basis subject to satisfactory performance. The performance of every human resource shall be assessed every six months by SLSA in consultation with DLSA concerned. The selection of Chief Legal Aid Defense Counsel, Deputy Chief Legal Aid Defense Counsels, Assistant Legal Aid Defense Counsels will be purely based on merit, taking into account the knowledge, skills, practice and experience of candidates. The selection shall be carried out by Selection committee under the Chairmanship of the Principal District & Sessions Judge (Chairman, DLSA) as envisaged in NALSA (Free and Competent Legal Services) Regulations 2010, subject to final approval by the Executive Chairman, SLSA. In the selection committee at least three senior most judicial officers posted at HQ, dealing mainly with criminal cases preferably sessions cases shall be included. No person with conflict of interest shall be part of selection process. After approval by the Executive Chairman, SLSA, engagement contract shall be executed between the Secretary DLSA and the person so engaged.

¶76

The format of contract for engagement, as provided by NALSA to be used with required modifications.”

¶77

As can be seen from the aforesaid SOP / instructions / guidelines / scheme of the respondents, it clearly indicates that the selection process would necessarily have to be as per the NALSA (Free and Competent Legal Services) Regulations, 2010 and the

¶78

10 -

¶79

NC: 2026:KHC:21021 WP No. 25181 of 2025

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

Selection Committee would have to be constituted in terms of the said regulations. The said regulations have been produced by the respondents vide memo of even dated at Annexure – R1, in which Regulations 8 to 10 are as hereunder:

¶82

“8. Selection of legal practitioners as panel lawyers. - (1) Every Legal Services Institution shall invite applications from legal practitioners for their empanelment as panel lawyers and such applications shall be accompanied with proof of the professional experience with special reference to the type of cases which the applicantlegal practitioners may prefer to be entrusted with.

¶83

(2) The applications received under sub-regulation (1) shall be scrutinized and selection of the panel lawyers shall be made by the Executive Chairman or Chairman of the Legal Services Institution in consultation with the Attorney General [for the Supreme Court], Advocate General [for the High Court], District Attorney or Government Pleader [for District and Taluka level] and the Monitoring and Mentoring Committee set up under regulation 10:

¶84

Provided that the Executive Chairman or Chairman of the Legal Services Institution may also suo moto empanel any legal practitioner;

¶85

Provided further that the size of panel should be optimized so that each lawyer can be allotted sufficient cases.

¶86

11 -

¶87

NC: 2026:KHC:21021 WP No. 25181 of 2025

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

(3) No legal practitioner having less than three years' experience at the Bar shall ordinarily be empanelled.

¶90

(4) District Legal Services Authorities and Taluk Legal Services Committees shall get the panel approved from the Executive Chairman of the State Legal Services Authority.

¶91

(5) The Executive Chairman or Chairman of the Legal Services Institution shall take into consideration the competency, integrity, suitability, and experience of lawyers for the empanelment.

¶92

(6) There may be representation of the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, women and differently abled lawyers in the panel.

¶93

(7) The Executive Chairman or Chairman of the Legal Services Institution may maintain separate panels for dealing with different types of cases like Civil, Criminal, Constitutional Law, Environmental Law, Labour Laws, Matrimonial disputes, Juvenile Justice, etc.

¶94

(8) The Member-Secretary or Secretary, as the case may be, may assign a case to a panel lawyer of a subject matter other than for which he has been empanelled.

¶95

(9) The Chairman of the Legal Services Institution may, in consultation with the Executive Chairman of the State Legal Services Authority or National Legal Services Authority, as the case may be, prepare a list of legal

¶96

12 -

¶97

NC: 2026:KHC:21021 WP No. 25181 of 2025

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

practitioners from among the panel lawyers to be designated as Retainers.

¶100

(10) The Retainer lawyers shall be selected for a period fixed by the Executive Chairman on rotation basis or by any other method specified by the Executive Chairman.

¶101

(11) The number of Retainer lawyers in the panel of each Legal Services Institution, should not exceed the minimal requirement as determined by the Executive Chairman or the Chairman, as the case may be.

¶102

(12) The honorarium payable to Retainer lawyer shall not be less than, -

¶103

(a) rupees forty thousand per month in the case of Supreme Court Legal Services Committee;

¶104

(b) rupees twenty five thousand per month in the case of State Legal Services Authority or High Court Legal Services Committee;

¶105

(c) rupees fifteen thousand per month in the case of District Legal Services Authority;

¶106

(d) rupees ten thousand per month in the case of the Taluk Legal Services Committee:

¶107

Provided that the honorarium specified in this subregulation is in addition to the honorarium or fee payable by the Legal Services Institution for each case entrusted to the Retainer lawyer.

¶108

13 -

¶109

NC: 2026:KHC:21021 WP No. 25181 of 2025

¶110

HC-KAR

¶111

Provided further that the State Legal Services Authority may decide to make the payment of honorarium to the Retainer Lawyers on the basis of number of days they man the Front Office. In such cases the honorarium so payable shall not be less than Rs. 1500 per day of sitting at the district and taluka court level and Rs. 2500 at the High Court level.

¶112

(13) The panel prepared under sub-regulation (2) for the period of three years shall also be reviewed and updated periodically by the Executive Chairman or the Chairman, as the case may be, keeping in view the performance of the panel lawyers.

¶113

(14) The Legal Services Institution shall be at liberty for withdrawing any case from a Retainer Panel Lawyer during any stage of the proceedings.

¶114

(15) If a panel lawyer is desirous of withdrawing from a case he shall state the reasons thereof to the MemberSecretary or the Secretary, as the case may be, and the panel lawyer may be permitted to do so by an order.

¶115

(16) The panel lawyers shall not ask for or receive any fee, remuneration or any valuable consideration in any manner, from the person to whom he has rendered legal services under these regulations.

¶116

(17) If the panel lawyer engaged is not performing satisfactorily or has acted contrary to the object and spirit of the Act and these regulations, the Legal Services Institution

¶117

14 -

¶118

NC: 2026:KHC:21021 WP No. 25181 of 2025

¶119

HC-KAR

¶120

shall take appropriate steps including withdrawal of the case from such lawyer and his removal from the panel.

¶121

(18) The panel lawyers shall undergo training periodically as per modules prepared by the National Legal Services Authority and the State Legal Services Authority.

¶122

(19) The participation in the training programme shall be a relevant consideration for the retention or continuation of panel lawyers.

¶123

9. Legal services by way of legal advice, consultation, drafting and conveyancing. - (1) The Executive Chairman or Chairman of the Legal Services Institution may maintain a separate panel of senior lawyers, law firms, retired judicial officers, mediators, conciliators and law professors in the law universities or law colleges for providing legal advice and other legal services like drafting and conveyancing.

¶124

(2) The Executive Chairman or Chairman of the Legal Services Institution, as the case may be, may maintain a separate panel of retired senior bureaucrats, senior executives, retired police officials, doctors, engineers, psychiatrists, marriage counsellors, chartered accountants, educationists and other experts of the specialised field for legal services and honorarium payable to them shall be decided by the Executive Chairman of State Legal Services Authority or the Chairman of the Supreme Court Legal Committee, as the case may be.

¶125

15 -

¶126

NC: 2026:KHC:21021 WP No. 25181 of 2025

¶127

HC-KAR

¶128

(3) The Member-Secretary may send a request to Senior Advocates to volunteer their pro bono professional services for rendering advice as and when required.".

¶129

10. Monitoring and Mentoring Committee . - (1) Every Legal Services Institution shall set up a Monitoring and Mentoring Committee for close monitoring of the court based legal services rendered and the progress of the cases in the legal aided matters and to guide and advise the panel lawyers.

¶130

(2) The Monitoring and Mentoring Committee at the level of the Supreme Court shall consist of, -

¶131

(i) a Senior Advocate or an Advocate of at least 15 years of standing as nominated by the Chairman, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee;

¶132

(ii) Secretary, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee;

¶133

(iii) a renowned Academician or an Advocate-onRecord having ten years of practice to be nominated by the Chairman of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee;

¶134

(iv) The Legal Service Counsel-cum-Consultant, Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.

¶135

(3) The Monitoring and Mentoring Committee at the level of the High Court shall consist of, -

¶136

16 -

¶137

NC: 2026:KHC:21021 WP No. 25181 of 2025

¶138

HC-KAR

¶139

(i) a Senior Advocate or an Advocate of at least 15 years of standing as nominated by the Chairman, High Court Legal Services Committee;

¶140

(ii) Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee.

¶141

(4) The Monitoring and Mentoring Committee at the State or District Legal Services Authority shall consist of,

¶142

(i) Member-Secretary or Secretary of the Legal Services Institution, as the case may be;

¶143

(ii) one serving judicial officer from the State Higher Judicial Service;

¶144

(iii) one retired judicial officer or one Advocate of fifteen years' standing or more.

¶145

(5) The Monitoring and Mentoring Committee at the Taluk Legal Services Committee shall consist of, -

¶146

(i) Chairman of the Taluk Legal Services Committee;

¶147

(ii) one retired judicial officer or,

¶148

(iii) one advocate of 10 years standing or more.

¶149

(6) The members of the Monitoring and Mentoring Committee shall render their services on the days as may be required and fixed by the Executive Chairman or Chairman of the Legal Services Institution and the members

¶150

17 -

¶151

NC: 2026:KHC:21021 WP No. 25181 of 2025

¶152

HC-KAR

¶153

except serving Judicial Officers shall be paid the honorarium as fixed by the Executive Chairman.

¶154

As can be seen from the aforesaid SOP / instructions /

¶155

guidelines / scheme read with the aforesaid regulations, in particular, Regulation 8 clause (2) and Regulation 10 will clearly indicate that the Selection Committee shall constitute the Principal District and Sessions Judge as Chairman along with three Senior most Judicial Officers as well as Member Secretary of the concerned DLSA along with the District Government Pleader and also one retired Judicial Officer or one advocate having at least 15 years standing in the bar, who shall be a member of the Monitoring and Mentoring Committee as contemplated under Regulation 10 of the said Regulations of 2010.

¶156

In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that the Selection Committee has been formed and constituted by including all the aforesaid persons as members of the Selection Committee, which is clearly in accordance with the aforesaid regulations / Scheme / SOP / guidelines / instructions and consequently, I am of the considered opinion that the challenge to the impugned selection of respondent No.5 and the selection list on the ground

¶157

18 - NC: 2026:KHC:21021 WP No. 25181 of 2025

¶158

HC-KAR

¶159

that the District Government Pleader and one retired judicial officer or advocate having 15 years standing in the bar should not be included in the Selection Committee, is clearly devoid of merits and the said contention cannot be accepted.

¶160

As rightly contented by learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4, the petitioner was appointed as a Legal Aid Defense Counsel in the year 2022, pursuant to Selection Committee having been constituted vide Corrigendum Notification dated 14.09.2022

¶161

and the Committee Members of the LADC’s Selection Committee are as hereunder:

¶162

No.13/DLSA/BRD/2022

¶163

Dated: 14.09.2022

¶164

CORRIGENDUM NOTIFICATION

¶165

Order No. 13/2022, Dated 14.09.2022

¶166

Sub: Constitution of Selection Committee regarding Legal Aid Defense Counsel System .

¶167

****

¶168

As per the direction of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the District Legal Services Authority has constituted a Selection Committee regarding Legal Aid Defense Counsel System, headed by Prl. District and Sessions Judge and Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru Rural, as follows:

¶169

Sl. No.	LADCS Selection Committee Members
1	Prl. District and Sessions Judge and Chairman, DLSA Bengaluru Rural.

¶170

19 -

¶171

NC: 2026:KHC:21021 WP No. 25181 of 2025

¶172

HC-KAR

¶173

2	2^ndAddl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural (MMC Chairman)
3	Addl. District and Sessions Judge and FTSC-11, Bengaluru Rural.
4	6^thAddl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural.
5	7^thAddl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural.
6	Member Secretary, DLSA Bengaluru Rural and monitoring and mentoring committee member
7	Smt. D Muniratnamma, Advocate Monitoring and mentoring committee member
8	District Govt. Pleader, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.

¶174

By the order of Hon'ble Chairman Sandeep Salian Member Secretary

¶175

As can be seen from the Selection Committee, which

¶176

selected the petitioner herein in the year 2022, the petitioner was appointed as a Chief Legal Aid Defense Counsel by the very same Committee, which he seeks to assail by way of the present petition thereby leading to the sole / unmistakable conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to approbrate and reprobate and is estopped from questioning the very same Selection Committee, which appointed her in the year 2023.

¶177

Under these circumstances, the claim and contention

¶178

of the petitioner that the Selection Committee is contrary to the

¶179

20 -

¶180

NC: 2026:KHC:21021 WP No. 25181 of 2025

¶181

HC-KAR

¶182

NALSA Scheme, is clearly barred by the principles of estoppel, acquiescence and waiver and the present petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground also.

¶183

Insofar as reliance placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court for the proposition that SOP / instructions / guidelines of the State Legal Service Authority is not binding, cannot be contrary to the modified Scheme of NALSA, 2022 is concerned, as noticed supra, in the instant case, the Selection Committee has been constituted in accordance with the Regulations of 2010 and as such, the question of SOP / guidelines / instructions being contrary to the modified scheme would not arise in the fact and circumstances of the instant case and as such, the said judgment cannot be relied upon by the petitioner in support of her claim.

¶184

Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed .

¶185

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶186

SV

¶187

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

Smt. Varalakshmi M N., v. the Honble Member Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Varalakshmi M N., v. the Honble Member Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tejeswini G S Vs Reserve Bank of India

Mrs. Madhuri S Kotagi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Ramya H N Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Hema N Vs State of Karnataka

Smt J Manjula Vs State of Karnataka by

C S Mukunda Chandra Vs State of Karnataka