Post on 16-Jan-2020
: 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BANGALOREAT BANGALOREAT BANGALOREAT BANGALORE
Dated this the 04th day of September, 2013
Before
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DASTHE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DASTHE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DASTHE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS
W.P.Nos.27832W.P.Nos.27832W.P.Nos.27832W.P.Nos.27832----27837/2013 C/W W.P.No.28330/2013, 27837/2013 C/W W.P.No.28330/2013, 27837/2013 C/W W.P.No.28330/2013, 27837/2013 C/W W.P.No.28330/2013,
W.P.No.26631/2013, W.P.No.27706/2013, W.P.No.27838/2013,W.P.No.26631/2013, W.P.No.27706/2013, W.P.No.27838/2013,W.P.No.26631/2013, W.P.No.27706/2013, W.P.No.27838/2013,W.P.No.26631/2013, W.P.No.27706/2013, W.P.No.27838/2013,
W.P.No.27944/2013, W.P.No.28399/2013, W.P.No.29097/2013, W.P.No.27944/2013, W.P.No.28399/2013, W.P.No.29097/2013, W.P.No.27944/2013, W.P.No.28399/2013, W.P.No.29097/2013, W.P.No.27944/2013, W.P.No.28399/2013, W.P.No.29097/2013,
W.P.No.31027/2013, W.P.Nos.78007W.P.No.31027/2013, W.P.Nos.78007W.P.No.31027/2013, W.P.Nos.78007W.P.No.31027/2013, W.P.Nos.78007----78011/2013 & 78012/2013, 78011/2013 & 78012/2013, 78011/2013 & 78012/2013, 78011/2013 & 78012/2013,
W.P.No.18124/2013, W.P.No.29313/2013, W.P.No.29314/2013, W.P.No.18124/2013, W.P.No.29313/2013, W.P.No.29314/2013, W.P.No.18124/2013, W.P.No.29313/2013, W.P.No.29314/2013, W.P.No.18124/2013, W.P.No.29313/2013, W.P.No.29314/2013,
W.P.No.29319/2013, W.P.NoW.P.No.29319/2013, W.P.NoW.P.No.29319/2013, W.P.NoW.P.No.29319/2013, W.P.No.29347/2013, W.P.No.31500/2013, .29347/2013, W.P.No.31500/2013, .29347/2013, W.P.No.31500/2013, .29347/2013, W.P.No.31500/2013, W.P.No.W.P.No.W.P.No.W.P.No.111102081/2013,W.P.No02081/2013,W.P.No02081/2013,W.P.No02081/2013,W.P.Nossss.32380/2013.32380/2013.32380/2013.32380/2013 & 32381/2013 & 32381/2013 & 32381/2013 & 32381/2013,,,,W.P.NoW.P.NoW.P.NoW.P.No....30323/201330323/201330323/201330323/2013
W.P.No.32323/2013, W.P.No.32616/2013, W.P.No.33079/2013, W.P.No.32323/2013, W.P.No.32616/2013, W.P.No.33079/2013, W.P.No.32323/2013, W.P.No.32616/2013, W.P.No.33079/2013, W.P.No.32323/2013, W.P.No.32616/2013, W.P.No.33079/2013,
W.P.No.34097/2013, W.P.No.34124/2013, W.P.No.35128/2013, W.P.No.34097/2013, W.P.No.34124/2013, W.P.No.35128/2013, W.P.No.34097/2013, W.P.No.34124/2013, W.P.No.35128/2013, W.P.No.34097/2013, W.P.No.34124/2013, W.P.No.35128/2013,
W.P.No.102445/2013, W.P.No.35035/2013, W.P.No.35538/2013W.P.No.102445/2013, W.P.No.35035/2013, W.P.No.35538/2013W.P.No.102445/2013, W.P.No.35035/2013, W.P.No.35538/2013W.P.No.102445/2013, W.P.No.35035/2013, W.P.No.35538/2013
& W.P.Nos.35539& W.P.Nos.35539& W.P.Nos.35539& W.P.Nos.35539----41/2013 (S41/2013 (S41/2013 (S41/2013 (S----RES)RES)RES)RES)
W.P. NoW.P. NoW.P. NoW.P. Nossss. 27832. 27832. 27832. 27832----27837/2013 27837/2013 27837/2013 27837/2013
BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :
1.CHANDRAKALA B
W/O B MARISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
ADVOCATE
NO.1447, INDIRA NAGAR EXTENSION
BEHIND POST OFFICE
NELAMANGALA TOWN
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
: 2 :
2.D SHIVU
S/O LATE DOOJA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
ADVOCATE
NO.1, KALENA AGRAHARA
SOS POST, B G ROAD
BANGALORE-560076
3.PRAJWALA M P GOWDA
W/O PRASHANTH N
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
ADVOCATE
NO.6/5, IST MAIN ROAD
ADARSHA NAGAR
9TH CROSS, CHAMRAJPET
BANGALORE-560018
4.H S SURESH @ H S SURESH AMBEDKAR
S/O H S NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
ADVOCATE
NO.17/08, BDA FLATS
MICO LAYOUT, BTM 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE-560076
5.RAVINDRA M V
S/O VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/A MEESAGANAHALLI VILLAGE
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK
KOLAR DISTRICT-563135
: 3 :
6.DINESH C R
S/O CM RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
ADVOCATE
R/A CHIKKONDI HALLI
SATANAGERE POST
ARASIKERE TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT ... PETITIONERS
(By Sri.S. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADV. )
AND :AND :AND :AND :
1.HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE.
2.THE SECRETARY
CIVIL JUDGES RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560001
.. RESPONDENTS
(By Sri RAGHAVENDRA G.GAYATHRI, AGA FOR R1
Sri D.M.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.ADV., FOR
Smt.SANJANA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A
PRAYER TO CALL FOR RECORDS RELATING TO THE
RESULT OF FINAL EXAMINATION CONDUCTED UNDER
AND IN PURSUANCE OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED
: 4 :
6.8.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND POSTPONING THE
HOLDING OF THE VIVA VOCE FOR THE SELECTION TO
THE POST O CIVIL JUDGE WITHOUT ALLOWING THE
CANDIDATES TO PERUSE THEIR ANSWER SCRIPTS AND
WORKOUT THEIR REMEDIES AS PER LAW IN THE FORM
OF REVALUATION, AS UNJUST, ARBITRARY AND
DISCRIMINATORY AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 & 16 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA VIDE ANNEXURE-G DATED
20.6.2013 AND ETC..
W.P. No. 28330/2013W.P. No. 28330/2013W.P. No. 28330/2013W.P. No. 28330/2013
BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :
MISS NASEEMA BANU
D/O LATE SYED BABU
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
ADVOCATE, LAW CHAMBER
FOURTH FLOOR, NO.1
AMAR TOWER, FIRST CROSS
FIRST MAIN, GANDHI NAGAR
BANGALORE-560009. .PETITIONER
(By Sri. V. B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADV.)
AND :AND :AND :AND :
1.THE SECRETARY
CIVIL JUDGES RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560001
2.THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
: 5 :
BANGALORE-560001.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri RAGHAVENDRA R.GAYATHRI, AGA FOR R2
Sri D.M.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.ADV., FOR
Smt.SANJANA REDDY, ADV. FOR R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO
DIRECT THE SECRETARY, CIVIL JUDGES RECRUITMENT
COMMITTEE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
TO REVLUE THE LAW PAPER-II (REGISTER NO.BG1301551)
WITH RESPECT TO MAIN EXAMINATION MARKS CARD,
VIDE ANNX-G AND ETC.
W.P.No.26631/2013W.P.No.26631/2013W.P.No.26631/2013W.P.No.26631/2013
BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :
KARAN MARUTHI RAO GUJJAR
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O MARUTHI RAO GUJJAR,
R/O. O.31, AMMINABHAVI, JAVALI GARDEN,
NIKETAN COLONY, GOKUL ROAD,
HUBLI 30 DHARWAD DIST.
... PETITIONER
(By Sri.ONKAR K B , ADV.)
AND :AND :AND :AND :
1.THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE 560 001.
: 6 :
2.CIVIL JUDGES RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE
REP BY THE SECRETARY,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-01.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri RAGHAVENDRA R.GAYATHRI, AGA FOR R1
Sri D.M.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.ADV., FOR
Smt.SANJANA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER
TO APPLY FOR THE REVALUATION AND DULY
REVALUATE HIS ANSWER PAPERS OF THE MAIN
EXAMINATION HELD ON 13 AND 14 OF APRIL 2013 FOR
THE RECUITMENT OF CIVIL JUDGES AS PER NOTIFICATION
NO.CJRC. 1/2010 BANGALORE DT.6.8.2011 IN ANNX-A AND
ETC.
W.P.No.27706/2013W.P.No.27706/2013W.P.No.27706/2013W.P.No.27706/2013
BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :
PRASHANTHA G C
ADVOCATE
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
# 2334/1, LAKSHMI NIVAS
2ND FLOOR, 9TH MAIN, E-BLOCK
2ND STAGE, SUBRAMANYA NAGAR
RAJAJI NAGAR, BANGALORE-10.
.. PETITIONER
: 7 :
(By Sri. VIVEK REDDY, ADV. FOR
Sri. K. N. SUBBA REDDY, ADV.)
AND :AND :AND :AND :
1.THE SECRETARY
CIVIL JUDGES RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-01
2.HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL
BANGALORE-01.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri RAGHAVENDRA R.GAYATHRI, AGA FOR R2
Sri D.M.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.ADV., FOR
Smt.SANJANA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO
DIRECT THE R-1 TO REVALUE AND RE-TOTAL THE LAW
PAPER II AND TRANSLATION PAPERS(REG.NO.BG1300352)
AND ETC.
W.P.No.27838/2013,W.P.No.27838/2013,W.P.No.27838/2013,W.P.No.27838/2013,
BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :
SMT. DHANYA M M
AGED 33 YEARS
W/O VINCY
: 8 :
R/O NO. 21/15, PARVATHI NILAYA
2ND FLOOR, 12TH MAIN
6TH CROSS, RAGHAVENDRA
MATH ROAD, RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK
SRINAGAR, BANGALORE-560050.
... PETITIONER
(By Sri RANGANATHA S JOIS, ADV.)
AND :AND :AND :AND :
THE SECRETARY
CIVIL JUDGES RECRUITMENT
COMMITTEE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560091.
... RESPONDENT
(Sri D.M.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.ADV., FOR
Smt.SANJANA REDDY, ADV.)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO THE RESULT OF
FINAL EXAMINATION CONDUCTED UNDER AND IN
PUSUANCE OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 6.8.11 VIDE
ANNX-A AND ETC.
W.P.No.27944/2013W.P.No.27944/2013W.P.No.27944/2013W.P.No.27944/2013
BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :
SRI RAVINDRA U. MERAWADE
S/O SRI UMAKANTASA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
: 9 :
NO.13/25,5TH CROSS,
S.P.EXTENSION, MALLESWARAM,
BANGALORE-560 003.
... PETITIONER
(By Sri.SATYANARAYANA P HOGADE, ADV.)
AND :AND :AND :AND :
THE CIVIL JUDGE RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560 001
REPRSENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENT
(Sri D.M.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.ADV., FOR
Smt.SANJANA REDDY, ADV.)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO RE-EVALUATE THE
ANSWER SCRIPT OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE SUBJECT
LAW PAPER-II CONDUCTED ON / HELD ON 13/14.4.2013
AND ETC.
W.P.No.28399/2013W.P.No.28399/2013W.P.No.28399/2013W.P.No.28399/2013
BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :
SRI P M VINOD KUMAR
S/O P K MANDAPPA
ADVOCATE,
NO.756, BEHIND REDDY COMPLEX
: 10 :
METAGALLI POST
HEBBAL, MYSORE-570016.
.. PETITIONER
(By Sri. K. G. LAKSHMIPATHI, ADV. )
AND :AND :AND :AND :
1.HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560001
2.THE SECRETARY
CIVIL JUDGE RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560001. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri RAGHAVENDRA G. GAYATHRI, AGA FOR R1
Smt SANJANA REDDY, ADV., FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO
CALL FOR RECORDS RELATING TO THE RESULT OF MAIN
EXAMINATION CONDUCTED UNDER AND IN PURSUANCE
OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 6.8.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-A
AND ETC.
W.P.No.29097/2013W.P.No.29097/2013W.P.No.29097/2013W.P.No.29097/2013
BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :
MISS MADHUSHRI S
AGED 29 YEARS,
D/O V.SOMASHEKHAR,
: 11 :
R/O NO.26/1, SANJEEVAPPA LANE,
AVENUE ROAD CROSS,
BANGALORE-560 002.
.. PETITIONER
(By Sri.RANGANATH S JOIS & G.K. PATEL, ADVS.)
AND :AND :AND :AND :
THE SECRETARY
CIVIL JUDGES RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(By Sri D.M.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.ADV., FOR
Smt.SANJANA REDDY, ADV.)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO
CALL FOR RECORDS RELATING TO THE RESULT OF FINAL
EXAMINATION DT.10.6.13, VIDE ANN-G AND ETC.
W.P.No.31027/2013W.P.No.31027/2013W.P.No.31027/2013W.P.No.31027/2013
BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :
MISS.S.THEJASHWINI
D/O S. SHIVALINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
C/O G.R. PRAKASH
NO.53, V.V. ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI
BANGALORE 560004. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri.SHASHIDHAR BELAGUMBA, ADV.)
: 12 :
AND :AND :AND :AND :
THE SECRETARY
CIVIL JUDGES RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE 560001. ... RESPONDENT
(Sri D.M.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.ADV., FOR
Smt.SANJANA REDDY, ADV.)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO
CALL FOR RECORDS RELATING TO THE RESULT OF FINAL
EXAMINATION 10.6.13 WHICH HAS CONDUCTED ON THE
BASIS OF THE NOTIFICATION VIDE ANNEXURE-F ISSUED
BY RESPONDENT AND THE NOTIFICATION DATED 6.8.11
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC
W.P.Nos.78007W.P.Nos.78007W.P.Nos.78007W.P.Nos.78007----78011/2013 & 78012/201378011/2013 & 78012/201378011/2013 & 78012/201378011/2013 & 78012/2013
BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :
1.SUDHIR VISHNU KAKADE
AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC: ADVOCATE
R/AT: PLOT NO. 4,
KAKADE BUILDING,
I CROSS, SAI NAGAR, HUBLI-580031.
2.SHRIDHAR SHANKARAPPA TATTINAI
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE
R/O. SANNA ONI,
: 13 :
NAGASHETTIKOPPA,
HUBLI-580023.
3.PUSHPAVATI AMAREGOUDA
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE
R/O. MALLIKARJUN SADAN
KORIYAVAR ONI, VEERAPUR
ROAD, HUBLI –580031.
4.VITTAL NARAYAN SOMANAKOPPA
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE
R/O. CHAVARGUDDA POST
ANCHATAGERI-580008, TQ: HUBLI
DIST: DHARWAD.
5.BASAVARAJ FAKKIRAPPA BAMMANAL
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE
R/O. 814, JAI BHEEM BUILDING,
CHALAWADI ONI, UNKAL, HUBLI-580031.
6.PRAVEEN SHANKARAPPA BENDIGERI
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE
R/O. H.NO. 50 ADHYAPAK NAGAR,
HUBLI-580032.
... PETITIONERS
(By Sri.PRAKASH ANDANIMATH, ADV.)
AND :AND :AND :AND :
1.HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE.
BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL
: 14 :
2.CIVIL JUDGES RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE.
BY SECRETARY.
… RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. RAGHAVENDRA G.GAYATHRI, AGA FOR R1
Sri D.M.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.ADV., FOR
Smt.SANJANA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2 )
THESE WRIT PETITIONS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO
DECLARE THAT THE EXAMINATIONS CONDUCTED ON
13TH AND 14TH APRIL 2013 IN LAW PAPERS I, II AND III
FOR THE POSTS OF CIVIL JUDGE IN SO FAR THE
PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH LAW AND ETC.
W.P.No.18124/2013W.P.No.18124/2013W.P.No.18124/2013W.P.No.18124/2013
BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :
SRI PRADEEP B V
S/O B VISHNUMURTHY
HIND, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT NO 49 19TH CROSS
I BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 010.
.. PETITIONER
(By Sri.S.KRISHNASWAMY, ADV.)
AND :AND :AND :AND :
: 15 :
1.THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE 560 001
2.THE CHAIRMAN
CIVIL JUDGE RECURITMENT COMMITTEE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE 560 001
3.THE SECRETARY
CIVIL JUDGES RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE 560 001.
RESPONDENTS
(By Sri RAGHAVENDRA G.GAYATHRI, AGA FOR R1
Sri D.M.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.ADV., FOR
Smt.SANJANA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2-R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO
QUASH THE QUESTION OF THE MAIN EXAMINATION LAW
PAPER II UNDER THE HEADING "FRAME PROPER &
NECESSARY ISSUE WITH THE FOLLOWING PLEADING"
WHICH IS ASSIGNED 25 MARKS & DIRECT FRESH
QUESTION PAPER IN SO FAR AS LAW PAPER II MARKED AS
ANN-B WITH REGARD TO THE QUESTION ASSIGNED WITH
25 MARKS & GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS.
: 16 :
W.P.No.29313/2013 W.P.No.29313/2013 W.P.No.29313/2013 W.P.No.29313/2013
BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :
SRI REVANNA P C
S/O LATE CHALUVAIAH
AGE 32 YEARS
R/A PATTASOMANAHALLI
VILLAGE AND POST
PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571434.
... PETITIONER
(By Sri SHIVAKUMAR D.A., ADV.)
AND :AND :AND :AND :
THE SECRETARY
CIVIL JUDGES RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560001. ... RESPONDENT
(By Sri D.M.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.ADV., FOR
Smt.SANJANA REDDY, ADV.)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO THE RESULT OF
FINAL EXAMINATION CONDUCTED UNDER AND IN
PUSUANCE OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 6.8.11 VIDE
ANNX-A AND ETC.
: 17 :
W.P.No.29314/2013W.P.No.29314/2013W.P.No.29314/2013W.P.No.29314/2013
BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :
VEERABHADRA
S/O NINGAPPA PAIRASHI
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/O H.NO.88/1, RCC
GOKAK FALLS
GOKAK TALUK-591308
BELGAUM. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri. JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, ADV.)
AND :AND :AND :AND :
THE SECRETARY
CIVIL JUDGES RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560091. .. RESPONDENT
(By Sri D.M.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.ADV., FOR
Smt.SANJANA REDDY, ADV.)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO
CALL FOR RECORDS RELATING TO THE RESULT OF FINAL
EXAMINATION CONDUCTED UNDER & IN PURSUANCE OF
THE NOTIFICATION DT.6.8.11, VIDE ANN-A AND ETC.
: 18 :
W.P.No.29319/2013W.P.No.29319/2013W.P.No.29319/2013W.P.No.29319/2013
BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :
MOHAN H
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
S/O HIRIYANNAYYA,
C/O CHANDRASHEKAR,
ADVOCATE, R/O. "PAVADA KRUPA",
1ST CROSS, LAXMISHA NAGARA,
CHIKMAGALORE-577101.
... PETITIONER
(By Sri.ONKARA K. B., ADV.)
AND :AND :AND :AND :
1.THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE
2.CIVIL JUDGES RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE
REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH
COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE. . RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.RAGHAVENDRA G.GAYATHRI, AGA FOR R1
Sri D.M.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.ADV., FOR
Smt.SANJANA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO
: 19 :
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO GIVE 10% GRACE MARKS
OR WEIGHATAGE IN LAW PAPER III AS ANN-E, OF THE
MAIN EXAMINATION HELD ON 14 OF MAY 2013 FOR THE
RECRUITMENT OF CIVIL JUDGES AS PER NOTIFICATION
DT.6.8.11, IN ANN-A. AND ETC.
W.P.No.29347/2013W.P.No.29347/2013W.P.No.29347/2013W.P.No.29347/2013
BETWEENBETWEENBETWEENBETWEEN
SRI P.S.GURUPRASAD,
AGE: 35 YEARS,
S/O SHANTHA MALLAPPA,
R/AT PADAGURU VILLAGE,
THERAKANANBI HOBLI,
GUNDLUPET TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(By Sri.M. CHIDANANDA KUMAR, ADV.)
AND :AND :AND :AND :
1.THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
LAW DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560001.
2.THE SECRETARY
CIVIL JUDGES RECRUITMENT
COMMITTEE, HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560001.
... RESPONDENTS
: 20 :
(By Sri.RAGHAVENDRA G.GAYATHRI, AGA FOR R1
Sri D.M.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.ADV., FOR
Smt.SANJANA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO
QUASH THE KARNATAKA JUDICIAL SERVICE
[RECRUITMENT] RULES 2004, DT.9TH SEPT.2005, VIDE ANN-
J AND ETC.
W.P.No.31500/2013W.P.No.31500/2013W.P.No.31500/2013W.P.No.31500/2013
BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :
MR.N.SHIVAKUMAR
ADVOCATE
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/A NO.826, MIG-B
14TH BLOCK, NAGARJUNA APARTMENT
5TH PHASE, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
BANGALORE-560064. .. PETITIONER
(By Sri AJAY R ANNEPPANAVAR &
Sri.GOWTHAMDEV C. ULLAL, ADVS.)
AND :AND :AND :AND :
1.HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
GENERAL HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA BANGALORE
BANGALORE CITY.
: 21 :
2.THE SECRETARY
CIVIL JUDGES RECRUITMENT
COMMITTEE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-1. .. RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.RAGHAVENDRA G.GAYATHRI, AGA FOR R1
Sri D.M.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.ADV., FOR
Smt.SANJANA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO
QUASH THE LETTER DATED 10.7.13 VIDE ANNX-A ISSUED
BY R2 AND ETC.
W.P. No. 102081/2013W.P. No. 102081/2013W.P. No. 102081/2013W.P. No. 102081/2013
BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :
SUDARSHAN S/O HULIPPA
ADVOCATE, NGOS PLOT NO.9
NEAR MAKA LAYOUT,
JEWARGI COLONY,
GULBARGA. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri.SHARANABASAPPA M PATIL, ADV.)
AND :AND :AND :AND :
1.THE SECRETARY
CIVIL JUDGES RECRUITMENT
COMMITTEE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
: 22 :
BANGALORE-560001.
2.THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560001 ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.RAGHAVENDRA G.GAYATHRI, AGA FOR R2
Sri D.M.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.ADV., FOR
Smt.SANJANA REDDY, ADV. FOR R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE SECRETARY, CIVIL
JUDGES RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE, HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA, BANGALORE TO RECOUNT AND REVALUE
THE LAW PAPER-1 (REGISTER NO. GB1304005) WITH
RESPECT TO MAIN EXAMINATION MARKS CARD, VIDE
ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.
W.P.NoW.P.NoW.P.NoW.P.Nossss.32380/2013 & 32381/2013.32380/2013 & 32381/2013.32380/2013 & 32381/2013.32380/2013 & 32381/2013
BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :
1.SUVARNA R
D/O RAJU, ADVOCATE,
AGED 30 YEARS,
POST GORUR KOTE,
POST GORUR
(HASSAN DISTRICT).
2.LEELA.P
D/O KESHAVA DEVADIGA,
ADVOCATE, AGED 25 YEARS,
: 23 :
PERLAPU, MUTHIAH NIVAS,
GUNDOORI VILLAGE,
BAJIRE POST-574 242 (D.K.). ..PETITIONERS
(By Sri.BALIGA B. M., ADV. )
AND :AND :AND :AND :
1.THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560001.
2.THE SECRETARY
CIVIL JUDGES RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE -560001.
3.STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
& DEPUTY REGISTRAR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560001. ..RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.RAGHAVENDRA G.GAYATHRI, AGA FOR R1-R3
Sri D.M.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.ADV., FOR
Smt.SANJANA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE RESULTS OF THE 1ST PETITIONER'S IN THEORY
PAPERS viz. PAPERS I AND IV OF THE 1ST PETITIONER
VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND DIRECT REVALUATION OF THOSE
PAPERS.
: 24 :
W.P.No.30323/2013W.P.No.30323/2013W.P.No.30323/2013W.P.No.30323/2013
BETWEEN BETWEEN BETWEEN BETWEEN
ERANNA E S
S/O SHIVALINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/A MARAGATTA VILLAGE
CHIKAKPURA POST
CHITRADURGA TALUK & DIST.
... PETITIONER
(By Sri. PRASANNA B.R., ADV.)
AND :AND :AND :AND :
THE SECRETARY
CIVIL JUDGES RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560001.
... RESPONDENT
(By Sri D.M.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.ADV., FOR
Smt SANJANA REDDY, ADV.)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO
CALL FOR RECORDS RELATING TO THE RESULT OF FINAL
EXAMINATION CONDUCTED UNDER & IN PURSUANCE OF
THE NOTIFICATION DT.6.9.11, VIDE ANN-A, AND ETC.
: 25 :
W.P.No.32323/2013W.P.No.32323/2013W.P.No.32323/2013W.P.No.32323/2013
BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :
MRS. NASEEM TAJ
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
W/O SALEEM JAVALI,
ADVOCATE,
R/O EVERSHINE HOUSE,
BESIDE MUNICIPAL QUARTERS,
CHRISTIAN COLONY,
CHIKMAGALUR-577101. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri.ARUNA SHYAM .M, ADV. )
AND :AND :AND :AND :
THE SECRETARY
CIVIL JUDGES RECRUITMENT
COMMITTEE,HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560001.
..RESPONDENT
(By Sri D.M.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.ADV., FOR
Smt.SANJANA REDDY, ADV.)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A DATED
10.7.2013 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT.
: 26 :
W.P.No.32616/2013W.P.No.32616/2013W.P.No.32616/2013W.P.No.32616/2013
BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :
MR MOHAN
S/O LATE CHANDRAPPA MALGE
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
AT POST CHALKAPUR
TALUK BHALKI
DISTRICT BIDAR-585414.
... PETITIONER
(By Sri M. CHIDANANDA KUMAR, ADV.)
AND :AND :AND :AND :
1.HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGISTRAR GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-01
2.THE SECRETARY
CIVIL JUDGE RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560001.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri RAGHAVENDRA G.GAYATHRI, AGA FOR R1,
Sri D.M.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.ADV., FOR
Smt.SANJANA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO
: 27 :
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN
RESPECT OF THE ANSWER SCRIPT TO REVALUATION OF
THE LAW PAPER-I OF THE PETITIONER VIDE REGISTERED
NO. GB 1303823 AND ETC.
W.P.No.33079/2013W.P.No.33079/2013W.P.No.33079/2013W.P.No.33079/2013
BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :
SMT. RANJANA V
W/O CHANDASHEKAR GOWDA K L
AGE:32 YEARS,
R/O KAVERI ROAD,
KERALAPUR,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573136.
... PETITIONER
(By Sri.CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY, ADV.)
AND :AND :AND :AND :
THE SECRETARY
CIVIL JUDGE RECRUITMENT COMMITEE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560001
... RESPONDENT (By Sri D.M.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.ADV., FOR
Smt.SANJANA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE PETITIONER
FOR SELECTION & APPOINTMENT TO THE POST OF CIVIL
: 28 :
JUDGE IN PURSUANCE TO THE NOTIFICATION DT.6.8.11 &
TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS.
W.P.No.34097/2013W.P.No.34097/2013W.P.No.34097/2013W.P.No.34097/2013
BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :
SMT SHAMA R
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
D/O LATE MOHAMMED ABDUL RASHEED
RESIDING AT NO.124
MARIGAMMA TEMPLE STREET
NEW PET, GOURIBIDANUR 561 208.
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. .. PETITIONER
(By Sri.TEJAVATHI .J, ADV.)
AND :AND :AND :AND :
1.HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGISTRAR GENERAL,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE 560 001.
2.THE SECRETARY
CIVIL JUDGES RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.RAGHAVENDRA G.GAYATHRI, AGA FOR R1
Sri.D.M.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.ADV., FOR
Smt.SANJANA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2)
: 29 :
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REVALUATE THE LAW
PAPER 1 AND III OF THIS PETITIONER.
W.P.No.34124/2013W.P.No.34124/2013W.P.No.34124/2013W.P.No.34124/2013
BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :
SMT. PRATHIBHA D S
D/O SRI SURENDRA RAI D S
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
RESIDING AT HUNTSEY ESTATE
POST BOX NO.5.
SOMWARPET TALUK
NORTH COORG-571235. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri.KRISHNA SWAMY .S, ADV. )
AND :AND :AND :AND :
1.HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGISTRAR GENERAL
BANGALORE-560001
2.THE SECRETARY
CIVIL JUDGES RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560001. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.RAGHAVENDRA G.GAYATHRI, AGA FOR R1
: 30 :
Sri D.M.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.ADV., FOR
Smt.SANJANA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS A] TO REVALUATE THE LAW
PAPER-I OF THIS PETITIONER. B] TO ISSUE ANSWER PAPER
OF LAW PAPER-I OF THIS PETITIONER. C] TO ISSUE
MODEL ANSWER PAPER FOR ALL THE 4 SUBJECTS ALONG
WITH THE SCHEME OF VALUATION.
W.P.No.35128/2013W.P.No.35128/2013W.P.No.35128/2013W.P.No.35128/2013
BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :
SINDHU M POTADAR
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
H NO.260, BHARATI NAGAR
HALIYALL ROAD
DHARWAD-580001. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri.CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY, ADV.)
AND :AND :AND :AND :
1.HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERA
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-01
2.THE SECRETARY
CIVIL JUDGE RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
: 31 :
BANGALORE-01. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.RAGHAVENDRA G.GAYATHRI, AGA FOR R1
Sri D.M.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.ADV., FOR
Smt.SANJANA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2. )
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO FURNISH THE ANSWER
SCRIPTS OF THE PETITIONER WHICH WAS SOUGHT FOR
UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT AS PER
ANNEXURE-D.
W.P. No. 102445/2013W.P. No. 102445/2013W.P. No. 102445/2013W.P. No. 102445/2013
BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :
SMT. JYOTIBAI
D/O SEETARAM KUMKARNI
ADVOCATE PLOT No.6
H.NO.1-891-19-A,
NGO COLONY,
BEHIND PWD QUARTERS
OLD JEWARGI COLONY,
GULBARGA. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri.SATHYANARAYAN BHATT JOSHI, ADV.)
AND :AND :AND :AND :
1.THE SECRETARY
CIVIL JUDGES RECRUITMENT,
COMMITTEE HIGH COURT
: 32 :
OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560001.
2.THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560001. .. RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.RAGHAVENDRA G.GAYATHRI, AGA FOR R2
Sri D.M.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.ADV., FOR
Smt.SANJANA REDDY, ADV. FOR R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT
OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE SECRETARY, CIVIL
JUDGES RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE, HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA, BANGALORE TO RECOUNT AND REVALUE
THE LAW PAPER-II (REGISTER NO. GB1304021) WITH
RESPECT TO MAIN EXAMINATION MARKS CARD VIDE
ANNEXURE-G.
W.P. No. 35035/2013W.P. No. 35035/2013W.P. No. 35035/2013W.P. No. 35035/2013
BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :
SRI. VINAYAK K.
S/O K S KENCHAPPANNAVAR
ADVOCATE
AGED 33 YEARS
SHIVAKRUPA, 60 FEET ROAD
3RD CROSS, VINOD NAGAR
SHIMOGA. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri.SATISH M. DODDAMANI, ADV.)
: 33 :
AND :AND :AND :AND :
THE SECRETARY
CIVIL JUDGE RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE
HON"BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560001. ... RESPONDENT
(By Sri D.M.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.ADV., FOR
Smt.SANJANA REDDY, ADV.)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER PASSED ON 10.7.13, BY THE R1,VIDE ANN-E.
W.P. No. 35538/2013W.P. No. 35538/2013W.P. No. 35538/2013W.P. No. 35538/2013
BETWEEN BETWEEN BETWEEN BETWEEN ::::
YAMANURAPPA
AGED 35 YEARS,
S/O BASAPPA GOUDAR,
ADVOCATE,
R/AT K.KATAPUR, POST: KALAKERI,
TQ-GANGAVATTHI,
DIST: KOPPAL. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY, ADV.)
AND :AND :AND :AND :
1.HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE
: 34 :
2.THE SECRETARY
CIVIL JUDGE RECRUITMENT
COMMITTEE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri RAGHAVENDRA G.GAYATHRI, AGA FOR R1
Sri D.M.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.ADV., FOR
Smt.SANJANA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED 10.7.13 VIDE ANNX-
F AND COMMUNICATION DATED 24.7.13 VIDE ANXN-G.
W.P.Nos. 35539W.P.Nos. 35539W.P.Nos. 35539W.P.Nos. 35539----35541/201335541/201335541/201335541/2013
BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :BETWEEN :
1.SHARANAPPA YAMANAPPA BUKANATTI
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
ADVOCATE, R/AT YELBURTHI,
HIRE BANNIGOL,
TQ-KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL.
2.BASAVARAJ G PUJAR
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
ADVOCATE, R/AT RYAPUR,
DIST: DHARWAD
3.BHIMANA GOWDA R PATIL
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
: 35 :
ADVOCATE, R/AT M R # 14,
ROW HOUSE, BDA,
SFHS SCHEME,
NANDINI LAYOUT,
BANGALORE. ... PETITIONERS
(By Sri. CHANDRAKANTH R. GOULAY, ADV.)
AND :AND :AND :AND :
1.HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-01.
2.THE SECRETARY
CIVIL JUDGE RECRUITMENT
COMMITTEE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.RAGHAVENDRA G.GAYATHRI, AGA FOR R1
Sri D.M.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.ADV., FOR
Smt.SANJANA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT
THE RESPONDENT TO PERMIT THE PETITIOENR TO GET
RE-VALUATION OF THEIR PAPERS OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE TO VERIFY AS TO WHETHER ANY MISTAKE
IN AWARDING THE MARKS AS IS DONE IN THE ORDER OF
THE COURT VIDE ANNX-D.
: 36 :
These petitions having been heard and reserved for
orders, this day H.N.Nagamohan Das, J, at Dharwad Bench
pronounced the following:
ORDERORDERORDERORDER
Petitioners in all these writ petitions are unsuccessful
candidates in the main examination conducted by the
respondents for recruitment of Civil Judges. Respondents are
common in all these writ petitions. Different prayers are made in
different writ petitions. The sum and substance of the prayers in
all these writ petitions is as under:
i) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing
the respondents to retotal the marks secured by the
petitioners;
ii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to furnish
Xerox copies of answer scripts written by the
petitioners;
iii) For a writ of mandamus to revalue the answer
scripts of the petitioners in failed subjects in terms of
the representations given by them;
: 37 :
iv) To quash the entire process of conducting the main
written examination in so far as petitioners are
concerned on the ground that Kannada question
papers are not furnished.
v) To quash the main examination of Law Paper-II
under the heading “Frame proper and necessary
issues with the following pleadings” assigned 25
marks and to direct to issue fresh question paper to
that extent.
2. Respondents issued notification on 6.8.2011 inviting
applications from eligible candidates to fill 152 posts of Civil
Judges. This notification further specifies that there will be a
preliminary examination followed by main examination and
thereafter viva-voce. Petitioners and others submitted their
applications. On processing the applications intimation was sent
to the petitioners and others to appear for preliminary
examination on 8.12.2012. Petitioners are successful in the
preliminary examination. Thereafter respondents issued
intimation calling upon the petitioners and others to appear for
: 38 :
the main examination on 13th and 14th of April, 2013.
Accordingly, the petitioners and others appeared for the main
examination. After valuing the answer scripts, the respondents
notified the eligibility list for viva-voce in their website on
10.06.2013. To the shock and surprise of the petitioners it was
found that they have failed in some of the subjects. In the
circumstances, petitioners approached the respondents for
retotalling of the marks, to furnish copies of answer scripts and
for revaluation. Since the respondents refused to entertain the
request of the petitioners, they are before this court seeking the
above mentioned reliefs.
3. Respondent – High Court of Karnataka filed their
statement of objections interalia contending that they have
conducted the preliminary examination and the main
examination strictly in terms of provisions of Karnataka Judicial
Services (Recruitment)(Amended)Rules,2011 (hereinafter referred
to as ‘the Rules’). Even the valuation and totalling of answer
: 39 :
scripts of petitioners and others are strictly done in terms of the
Rules and there are no lapses or illegalities. The Rules do not
provide for retotalling, providing xerox copies of answer scripts
and revaluation. The setting up of question papers is in
accordance with the Rules and there are no illegalities.
Furnishing of question papers in Kannada language is not
mandatory and the same has not resulted in any inconvenience or
loss to the petitioners. Therefore the respondents pray for
dismissal of writ petitions.
4. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the
entire writ papers.
On Prayer (i)
5. On 25.07.2013 learned counsel for the respondent –
Registrar General made a submission and this court passed an
order as under:
Sri D.M.Nanjunda Reddy, learned senior counsel for the
respondent Registrar General submits that in the event of any of
: 40 :
the petitioners applying for re-totaling, then they will re-total
their answer sheets and issue necessary endorsement. Submission
of the learned senior counsel is placed on record. Petitioners who
are interested may apply for re-totalling to the respondent
Registrar General. The Registrar General is hereby directed to
consider the applications, re-total the answer sheets of the
respective petitioners and issue endorsement to that effect.
6. In terms of the above order some of the petitioners
have submitted their applications for retotaling their answer
scripts. Accordingly, the respondent retotalled the marks secured
by the applicants and issued necessary endorsements. If any of the
petitioners have not applied for retotaling they are entitled to
apply. Even if the respondents have rejected the applications for
retotaling, such applicants are also entitled to apply for retotaling.
In that event the respondent Registrar General to retotal the
answer scripts and issue necessary endorsement. In view of this
development prayer no.(i) in the writ petitions no longer need be
addressed.
: 41 :
On Prayer (ii)
7. Some of the petitioners have applied for the Xerox
copies of answer scripts written by them and the respondents
issued endorsements rejecting the same. Some of the petitioners
have filed appeals against the endorsement before the first
appellate authority and they are pending consideration.
Petitioners are seeking Xerox copies of the answer scripts under
the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The
Supreme Court in The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India
v. Shaunak H.Satya (AIR 2011 SC 3336) held as under:
The information to which RTI Act applies falls into two
categories, namely, (i) information which promotes transparency and
accountability in the working of every public authority, disclosure of
which helps in containing or discouraging corruption, enumerated in
clauses (b) and (c) of section 4(1) of RTI Act; and (ii) other information
held by public authorities not falling under section 4(1)(b) and (c) of
RTI Act. In regard to information falling under the first category, the
public authorities owe a duty to disseminate the information widely
suo moto to the public so as to make it easily accessible to the public. In
regard to information enumerated or required to be enumerated under
section 4(1)(b) and (c) of RTI Act, necessarily and naturally, the
competent authorities under the RTI Act, will have to act in a pro-
active manner so as to ensure accountability and ensure that the fight
against corruption goes on relentlessly. But in regard to other
: 42 :
information which do not fall under Section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act,
there is a need to proceed with circumspection as it is necessary to find
out whether they are exempted from disclosure. One of the objects of
democracy is to bring about transparency of information to contain
corruption and bring about accountability. But achieving this object
does not mean that other equally important public interests including
efficient functioning of the governments and public authorities,
optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of
confidentiality of sensitive information, etc. are to be ignored or
sacrificed. The object of RTI Act is to harmonize the conflicting public
interests, that is, ensuring transparency to bring in accountability and
containing corruption on the one hand, and at the same time ensure
that the revelation of information, in actual practice, does not harm or
adversely affect other public interests which include efficient
functioning of the governments, optimum use of limited fiscal
resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information,
on the other hand. While sections 3 and 4 seek to achieve the first
objective, sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 seek to achieve the second objective.
Therefore when section 8 exempts certain information from being
disclosed, it should not be considered to be a fetter on the right to
information, but as an equally important provision protecting other
public interests essential for the fulfilment and preservation of
democratic ideals. Therefore in dealing with information not falling
under section 4(1)(b) and (c), the competent authorities under the RTI
Act will not read the exemptions in section 8 in a restrictive manner
but in a practical manner so that the other public interests are
preserved and the RTI Act attains a fine balance between its goal of
attaining transparency of information and safeguarding the other
public interests.
8. In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the
judgment referred to supra, it is obligatory on the part of the
: 43 :
respondents to provide information under Section 4(1) (b) and (c)
of RTI Act. Further Section 8 of the Act exempted certain
categories of information from disclosure. It is not shown to me
under which category the respondents are exempted from
disclosure of the information sought for by the petitioners. If for
any reason, the respondents have refused to furnish the
information sought for by the petitioners, then the petitioners are
entitled to work out their remedy under the provisions of the
Right to Information Act. Indeed, in the present case some of the
petitioners who are aggrieved by the refusal endorsements issued
by the respondents have filed first appeals and they are pending
consideration. The first appellate authority to consider the
appeals filed by some of the petitioners in terms of the Right to
Information Act.
9. Learned Senior Counsel Sri D.M.Nanjunda Reddy for
respondent submits that they will show the answer scripts to the
advocates for petitioners and not to the petitioners. Some of the
: 44 :
petitioners are willing and some of the petitioners are not willing
to the proposal made by the senior counsel for respondent. Such
of the petitioners who are willing may ask their advocates to
approach the respondent – Registrar General of High Court and in
that event the answer scripts of the petitioners be shown to their
respective advocates.
On Prayer (iii)
10. It is necessary to notice the law laid down by the
Supreme Court on the question of revaluation of the answer
scripts. The Supreme Court in Maharashtra State board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another vs.
Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth and others (1984) 4 SCC 27 held
as under:
26. “We are unable to agree with the further reason stated
by the High Court that since "every student has a right to receive
fair play in examination and get appropriate marks matching his
performance" it will be a denial of the right to such fair play if
there is to be a prohibition on the right to demand revaluation
: 45 :
and unless a right to revaluation is recognised and permitted there
is an infringement of rules of fair play. What constitutes fair play
depends upon the facts and circumstances relating to each
particular given situation. If it is found that every possible
precaution has been taken and all necessary safeguards provided
to ensure that the answer books inclusive of supplements are kept
in safe custody so as to eliminate the danger of their being
tampered with and that the evaluation is done by the examiners
applying uniform standards with checks and cross-checks at
different stages and that measures for detection of malpractice,
etc. have also been effectively adopted, in such cases it will not be
correct on the part of the Courts to strike down the provision
prohibiting revaluation on the ground that it violates the rules of
fair play. It is unfortunate that the High Court has not set out in
detail in either of its two judgments the elaborate procedure laid
down and followed by the Board and the Divisional Boards
relating to the conduct of the examinations, the evaluation of the
answer books and the compilation and announcement of the
results. From the affidavit filed on behalf of the Board in the High
Court, it is seen that from the initial stage of the issuance of the
hall tickets to the intending candidates right upto the
announcement of the results, a well-organised system of
: 46 :
verification, checks and counter-checks has been evolved by the
Board and every step has been taken to eliminate the possibility of
human error on the part of the examiners and malpractices on the
part of examinees as well as the examiners in an effective fashion.
The examination centres of the Board are spread all over the
length and breadth of each Division and arrangements are made
for vigilant supervision under the overall supervision of a Deputy
Chief Conductor in charge of every sub-centre and at the
conclusion of the time set for examination in each paper
including the main answer book all the answer books and the
supplements have to be tied up by the candidate securely and
returned to the Supervisor. But before they are returned to the
Supervisor, each candidate has to write out the title page of main
answer books in the cages provided for the said particulars, the
number of supplements attached to the main answer book. The,
Supervisor is enjoined to verify whether the number so written
tallies with the actual number of supplements, handed over by
the candidate together with his main answer book. After the
return of all the answer books to the Deputy Chief Conductor, a
tally is taken of the answer books including supplements used by
the candidates by the Stationery Supervisor who is posted by the
Board at each sub-centre. This enables the supervisory staff at a
: 47 :
sub-centre to verify and ensure that all answer books and
supplements issued to the candidates have been turned in and
received by the supervisory staff. At this stage of checking and
double-checking, if any seat number has been duplicated on the
answer books by mistake or by way of deliberate malpractice it
can be easily detected and corrective measures taken by the
Deputy Chief Conductor or the Chief Conductor. The answer
books are then sent by the Deputy Chief Conductor to the Chief
Conductor in charge of the main centre. He sorts out the answer
books according to the instructions issued by the Board and sends
them to the examiners whose names had been furnished in
advance except in the case of the science subjects, namely,
"mathematics and statistics, physics, chemistry and biology". The
answer books in the science subjects are forwarded by the Chief
Conductor under proper guard to camps in Pune already notified
to the Chief Conductors. The further procedure followed in
relation to the valuation of the answer books has been explained
in paragraphs 22 to 26 of the counter affidavit dated 10th July
1980 filed in the High Court by the Joint Secretary to the Pune
Divisional Board of Secondary Education. We do not consider it
necessary to burden this judgment with a recapitulation of all the
details furnished in those paragraphs, and it would suffice to state
: 48 :
that the procedure evolved by the Board for ensuring fairness and
accuracy in evaluation of the answer books has made the system
as fool proof as can be possible and it meets with our entire
satisfaction and approval. Viewed against this background, we do
not find it possible to agree with the views expressed by the High
Court that the denial of the right to demand a revaluation
constitutes a denial of fair play and is unreasonable. The Board is
a very responsible body. The candidates have taken the
examination with full awareness of the provisions contained in
the Regulations and in the declaration made in the form of
application for admission to the examination they have solemnly
stated that they fully agree to abide by the regulations issued by
the Board. In the circumstances, when we find that all safeguards
against errors and malpractices have been provided for, there
cannot be said to be any denial of fair play to the examinees by
reason of the prohibition against asking for revaluation.
29. Far from advancing public interest and fair play to the
other candidates in general, any such interpretation of the legal
position would be wholly defeasive of the same. As has been
repeatedly pointed out by this court, the Court should be
extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise,
prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference
: 49 :
to those formulated by professional men possessing technical
expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of
educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It
will be wholly wrong for the court to make a pedantic and purely
idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from
the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the
working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which
would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a
pragmatic one were to be propounded. It is equally important that
the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or
interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law which
would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable
in practice. It is unfortunate that this principle has not been
adequately kept in mind by the High Court while deciding the
instant case.
In Pramod Kumar Srivastava vs. Chairman, Board Public
Service Commission, Patna (2004) 6 SCC 714 the Supreme Court
held that “in the absence of any provisions for revaluation of
answer books in the relevant rules no candidate in a examination
: 50 :
has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for revaluation of his
marks”
In Board of Secondary Education vs. Pravas Ranjan Panda
and another (2004) 13 SCC 383, it is held as under:
The High court though observed that the writ petitioner
who has taken the examination is hardly a competent person to
assess his own merit and on that basis claim for re-evaluation of
papers, but issued the aforesaid direction in order to eliminate the
possibility of injustice on account of marginal variation in marks.
It is an admitted position that the regulations of the Board of
Secondary Education, Orissa do not make any provision for re-
evaluation of answer-books of the students. The question
whether in absence of any provision to that effect an examinee is
entitled to ask for re-evaluation of his answer books has been
examined by us in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar
Public Service Commission decided on 6.8.2004. It has been held
therein that in absence of rules providing for re-evaluation of
answer books, no such direction can be issued. It has been
further held that in absence of clear rules on the subject, a
direction for re-evaluation of the answer-books, may throw many
problems and in the larger public interest such a direction must
: 51 :
be avoided. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned
order of the High Court directing for re-evaluation of the answer-
books of all the examinees securing 90% or above marks is clearly
unsustainable in law and must be set aside.
11. Keeping in view the law declared by the Apex court
in the decisions referred to supra, it is necessary to examine the
fact situation in the present case. The competitive examination
for recruitment of Civil Judges is governed by the Karnataka
Judicial Service (Recruitment)(Amended) Rules, 2011. A perusal
of these Rules do not provide for revaluation of the answer
scripts. As a matter of right the petitioners are not entitled to seek
revaluation of their answer scripts. In the writ petitions the
petitioners have not alleged any malafides, illegality or
irregularity in the matter of valuation of the answer scripts.
Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that petitioners are not
entitled for prayer-(iii).
: 52 :
On Prayer (iv)
12. It is not in dispute that competitive examination for
recruitment of Civil Judges is governed by the Rules. A perusal of
these Rules do not specify for providing question papers in
Kannada. The notification dated 6.8.2011 issued by the
respondents inviting applications from eligible candidates for
recruitment to the vacant posts of Civil Judges specifies that such
of those candidates who desire to answer in Kannada may do so in
the preliminary examination and main examination. In the
instant case, the aggrieved petitioners have answered the
questions in the main examination in Kannada. Aggrieved
petitioners have passed in certain subjects and failed in certain
subjects. Further in the main examination there is one translation
paper and the candidates will be required to translate from
English to Kannada and Kannada to English. Accordingly the
aggrieved petitioners have answered the translation paper.
: 53 :
Therefore, the aggrieved petitioners are not put to any
inconvenience or loss for not providing the question papers in
Kannada. It is not shown to me as to how the aggrieved
petitioners are put to inconvenience and loss for not giving the
question papers in Kannada.
13. It is contended that in all the previous examinations
conducted by the respondents they have provided question papers
both in English and Kannada. Even in the preliminary
examination in respect of the present recruitment, question
papers in English and Kannada was provided. But the
respondents have not provided the question papers in Kannada in
the main examination. There is a practice for a long length of
time providing question papers both in English and Kannada.
Thus the petitioners legitimately expected that they will be
provided with the question papers in Kannada even in the main
examination. As already pointed out the aggrieved petitioners
: 54 :
have understood the question in English and have answered in
Kannada. In some of the papers answered in Kannada aggrieved
petitioners have passed and in some of the papers they are failed.
Now that the main examination is completed, valuation of answer
scripts is completed and the viva-voce of successful candidates in
the main examination is over and at this length of time, I am of
the considered opinion that on this ground the entire process of
examination cannot be annulled. The Doctrine of legitimate
expectancy shall yield to equity and public interest. Though the
Rules do not provide for furnishing Kannada question papers,
there was a practice providing Kannada question papers. In future
examinations, the respondents shall provide question papers both
in Kannada and English.
On Prayer(v)
14. Petitioners in W.P.No.18124/2013 alone urged that
the framing of questions in the main examination Law Paper –II
: 55 :
to an extent of 25 marks under the head “frame proper and
necessary issues with the following pleadings” as not proper. The
grievance of the petitioner is that in the plaint, the provisions of
law is not mentioned. In the plaint it is specifically stated at the
top as “plaint”. Even in the absence of mentioning specific
provision, it is specified that it is a plaint. Therefore, the non-
mentioning of provision of law in the plaint has not resulted in
any injustice to the petitioner. Secondly, it is contended that in
the cause title to the plaint and the written statement pin code
numbers are not mentioned. Again this is an untenable ground.
Thirdly it is contended that in some places it is mentioned as
defendant and in some other places it is mentioned as defendants.
These minor mistakes has not resulted in injustice to the
petitioners. It is not the case of petitioners they are totally misled
by these minor mistakes and for this reason they scored less marks
or that they failed.
: 56 :
For the reasons stated above and with the above
observation the writ petitions are hereby dismissed.
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/ Sd/----
JUDGEJUDGEJUDGEJUDGE
Dkb