: 1 -...

: 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.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.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


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


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.)


1.THE SECRETARY

CIVIL JUDGES RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE,


BANGALORE-560001

2.THE REGISTRAR GENERAL


: 5 :

BANGALORE-560001.

... RESPONDENTS

(By Sri RAGHAVENDRA R.GAYATHRI, AGA FOR R2



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


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.)



HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

BANGALORE 560 001.

: 6 :

2.CIVIL JUDGES RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE

REP BY THE SECRETARY,


BANGALORE-01.

... RESPONDENTS






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.



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.)


1.THE SECRETARY



BANGALORE-01



BANGALORE-01.

... RESPONDENTS






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,


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.)


THE SECRETARY

CIVIL JUDGES RECRUITMENT

COMMITTEE


BANGALORE-560091.

... RESPONDENT

(Sri D.M.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.ADV., FOR

Smt.SANJANA REDDY, ADV.)



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.



SRI RAVINDRA U. MERAWADE

S/O SRI UMAKANTASA,


: 9 :

NO.13/25,5TH CROSS,

S.P.EXTENSION, MALLESWARAM,

BANGALORE-560 003.

... PETITIONER

(By Sri.SATYANARAYANA P HOGADE, ADV.)


THE CIVIL JUDGE RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE


BANGALORE-560 001

REPRSENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

... RESPONDENT





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.



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. )





BANGALORE-560001

2.THE SECRETARY

CIVIL JUDGE RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE


BANGALORE-560001. ... RESPONDENTS

(By Sri RAGHAVENDRA G. GAYATHRI, AGA FOR R1

Smt SANJANA REDDY, ADV., FOR R2)



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.



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.)


THE SECRETARY



BANGALORE-560 001.

... RESPONDENT

(By Sri D.M.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.ADV., FOR




CALL FOR RECORDS RELATING TO THE RESULT OF FINAL

EXAMINATION DT.10.6.13, VIDE ANN-G AND ETC.



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 :


THE SECRETARY



BANGALORE 560001. ... RESPONDENT






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


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


R/O. MALLIKARJUN SADAN

KORIYAVAR ONI, VEERAPUR

ROAD, HUBLI –580031.

4.VITTAL NARAYAN SOMANAKOPPA


R/O. CHAVARGUDDA POST

ANCHATAGERI-580008, TQ: HUBLI

DIST: DHARWAD.

5.BASAVARAJ FAKKIRAPPA BAMMANAL


R/O. 814, JAI BHEEM BUILDING,

CHALAWADI ONI, UNKAL, HUBLI-580031.

6.PRAVEEN SHANKARAPPA BENDIGERI


R/O. H.NO. 50 ADHYAPAK NAGAR,

HUBLI-580032.

... PETITIONERS

(By Sri.PRAKASH ANDANIMATH, ADV.)


1.HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

BANGALORE.

BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL

: 14 :



BANGALORE.

BY SECRETARY.

… RESPONDENTS

(By Sri. RAGHAVENDRA G.GAYATHRI, AGA FOR R1


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.



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.)


: 15 :



BANGALORE 560 001

2.THE CHAIRMAN

CIVIL JUDGE RECURITMENT COMMITTEE,


BANGALORE 560 001

3.THE SECRETARY



BANGALORE 560 001.

RESPONDENTS



Smt.SANJANA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2-R3)



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


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.)


THE SECRETARY



BANGALORE-560001. ... RESPONDENT





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 :



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.)


THE SECRETARY



BANGALORE-560091. .. RESPONDENT






EXAMINATION CONDUCTED UNDER & IN PURSUANCE OF

THE NOTIFICATION DT.6.8.11, VIDE ANN-A AND ETC.

: 18 :



MOHAN H


S/O HIRIYANNAYYA,

C/O CHANDRASHEKAR,

ADVOCATE, R/O. "PAVADA KRUPA",

1ST CROSS, LAXMISHA NAGARA,

CHIKMAGALORE-577101.

... PETITIONER

(By Sri.ONKARA K. B., ADV.)




BANGALORE


REP BY ITS SECRETARY,

REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH

COURT OF KARNATAKA,

BANGALORE. . RESPONDENTS

(By Sri.RAGHAVENDRA G.GAYATHRI, AGA FOR R1





: 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.


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.)


1.THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

LAW DEPARTMENT,

VIDHANA SOUDHA,

BANGALORE-560001.

2.THE SECRETARY


COMMITTEE, HIGH COURT OF

KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560001.

... RESPONDENTS

: 20 :






QUASH THE KARNATAKA JUDICIAL SERVICE

[RECRUITMENT] RULES 2004, DT.9TH SEPT.2005, VIDE ANN-

J AND ETC.



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.)



REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR

GENERAL HIGH COURT OF

KARNATAKA BANGALORE

BANGALORE CITY.

: 21 :

2.THE SECRETARY


COMMITTEE,


BANGALORE-1. .. RESPONDENTS






QUASH THE LETTER DATED 10.7.13 VIDE ANNX-A ISSUED

BY R2 AND ETC.



SUDARSHAN S/O HULIPPA

ADVOCATE, NGOS PLOT NO.9

NEAR MAKA LAYOUT,

JEWARGI COLONY,

GULBARGA. ... PETITIONER

(By Sri.SHARANABASAPPA M PATIL, ADV.)


1.THE SECRETARY


COMMITTEE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

: 22 :

BANGALORE-560001.



BANGALORE-560001 ... RESPONDENTS




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


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. )


1.THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL,


BANGALORE-560001.

2.THE SECRETARY



BANGALORE -560001.

3.STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER

& DEPUTY REGISTRAR


BANGALORE-560001. ..RESPONDENTS

(By Sri.RAGHAVENDRA G.GAYATHRI, AGA FOR R1-R3



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 :


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.)


THE SECRETARY



BANGALORE-560001.

... RESPONDENT


Smt SANJANA REDDY, ADV.)




EXAMINATION CONDUCTED UNDER & IN PURSUANCE OF

THE NOTIFICATION DT.6.9.11, VIDE ANN-A, AND ETC.

: 25 :



MRS. NASEEM TAJ


W/O SALEEM JAVALI,

ADVOCATE,

R/O EVERSHINE HOUSE,

BESIDE MUNICIPAL QUARTERS,

CHRISTIAN COLONY,

CHIKMAGALUR-577101. ... PETITIONER

(By Sri.ARUNA SHYAM .M, ADV. )


THE SECRETARY


COMMITTEE,HIGH COURT

OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA VEEDHI,

BANGALORE-560001.

..RESPONDENT





QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A DATED

10.7.2013 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT.

: 26 :



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.)



REPRESENTED BY ITS

REGISTRAR GENERAL


BANGALORE-01

2.THE SECRETARY

CIVIL JUDGE RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE.


BANGALORE-560001.

... RESPONDENTS

(By Sri RAGHAVENDRA G.GAYATHRI, AGA FOR R1,





: 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.



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.)


THE SECRETARY

CIVIL JUDGE RECRUITMENT COMMITEE,


BANGALORE-560001

... RESPONDENT (By Sri D.M.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.ADV., FOR




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.



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.)



REPRESENTED BY ITS

REGISTRAR GENERAL,


BANGALORE 560 001.

2.THE SECRETARY



BANGALORE 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS


Sri.D.M.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.ADV., FOR


: 29 :



DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REVALUATE THE LAW

PAPER 1 AND III OF THIS PETITIONER.



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. )



REPRESENTED BY ITS

REGISTRAR GENERAL

BANGALORE-560001

2.THE SECRETARY





: 30 :





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.



SINDHU M POTADAR

AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

H NO.260, BHARATI NAGAR

HALIYALL ROAD

DHARWAD-580001. ... PETITIONER

(By Sri.CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY, ADV.)



REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERA


BANGALORE-01

2.THE SECRETARY



: 31 :




Smt.SANJANA REDDY, ADV. FOR R2. )



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.



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.)


1.THE SECRETARY

CIVIL JUDGES RECRUITMENT,

COMMITTEE HIGH COURT

: 32 :

OF KARNATAKA,

BANGALORE-560001.



BANGALORE-560001. .. RESPONDENTS





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.



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 :


THE SECRETARY


HON"BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

BANGALORE-560001. ... RESPONDENT




THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE

ORDER PASSED ON 10.7.13, BY THE R1,VIDE ANN-E.


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.)



REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR

GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

BANGALORE

: 34 :

2.THE SECRETARY

CIVIL JUDGE RECRUITMENT

COMMITTEE,


BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENTS





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


1.SHARANAPPA YAMANAPPA BUKANATTI


ADVOCATE, R/AT YELBURTHI,

HIRE BANNIGOL,

TQ-KUSHTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL.

2.BASAVARAJ G PUJAR


ADVOCATE, R/AT RYAPUR,

DIST: DHARWAD

3.BHIMANA GOWDA R PATIL


: 35 :

ADVOCATE, R/AT M R # 14,

ROW HOUSE, BDA,

SFHS SCHEME,

NANDINI LAYOUT,

BANGALORE. ... PETITIONERS

(By Sri. CHANDRAKANTH R. GOULAY, ADV.)



REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL,


BANGALORE-01.

2.THE SECRETARY

CIVIL JUDGE RECRUITMENT

COMMITTEE,


BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENTS




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

: 1 -...

Documents

Transcript of : 1 -...