H.C. PUTTASWAMY AND ORS. versus HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, BANGALORE AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 552 · Decided: 05-11-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
H.C. PUITASWAMY AND ORS. 
v. 
HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF KARNATAKA 
HIGH COURT, BANGALORE AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 5, 1990 
[K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND S.C. AGRAWAL, 
JJ.) 
Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules 1977-
Ru/e 6(3)(b)-Second Division Clerks in subordinate courts-Benefit 
of age relaxation-Grant of-Humanitarian approach-Necessity for. 
Article 229 of the Constitution-Appointment of court staff-
Chief Justice/Administrative Judge-Not an absolute ruler-To operate 
in a clean world and remain committed to the constitutional ethos and 
traditions of his calling. 
D 
Appointments to the posts of Second Division Clerks in all the 
State Departments of the Karnataka Govt. are governed by the 
Karnataka Civil Services (Ministerial Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1966 
and the power to make selectiiln vests in the State Public Service Com-
mission. Each Department notifies the number of required posts to the 
Public Service Commission and the Commission after following the 
E 
prescribed procednre selects persons. The said Roles are made applic-
able to the jndicial department also by statntory Rules called the 
Karnataka Subordinate Courts (Ministerial and other posts) Recruit-
ment Rules, 1977. Contrary to the said statntory Roles by Notification 
dated 29.5.1978, the High Conrt of Karnataka invited applications for 
the posts of 40 Second Division Clerks and 25 posts of Typists and 
F 
Typists-copyists in the establishment of the High Conrt. The notifica-
tion stated that the selection would be to fill np the then existing posts 
and for· preparing a waiting list. Large nnmber of candidates including 
the appellants snbmitted their applications. The then Chief Justice of 
the High Court appointed as many as 398 candidates as against 40 posts 
advertised; be retained 56 on the establishment of the High Court and 
G 
the rest were transferred to the subordinate courts. These appointments 
were made during the years 1980 to September 1982. 
In 1983 seven persons who bad applied for the posts in response to 
the advertisement dated 29.5.1978, moved the High Court by means of 
writ petitions challenging the validity of all the aforesaid appointments. 
' ' 
H 
They urged that they bad better merit than the appointees and the 
,,.-
'i52 
H.C. PUITASWAMY v. CJ. OF KAR. HIGH COURT 
553 
appointments made by the Chief Justice from time to time without 
A 
considering their case was arbitrary and in derogation of the rules of 
recruitment. The High Court by its order date 21.1.1988 allowed the 
writ petitions and quashed the appointments. The affected persons filed 
a petition before this Court against the order of the High Court which 
was dismissed by this court with certain directions so that the petitio-
ners could, as far as possible be absorbed. 
B 
The Petitioners however being dissatisfied, filed the instant 
review petitions on the plea that the directions issued by this Court are 
notlikely to enure to the benefit of a large number of petitioners, as 
majority of them had already crossed the age of 40 years and thus would 
not be able to avail of the benefit of age relaxation under Rule 6(3)(b) of 
the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Roles 1977, that 
C 
they had put in more than IO years of service and that it would cause 
them irreparable injury if they are thrown out of employment at that 
. 
. 
stage of their life, as they are not likely to come anywhere near the zone 
of selection in the event of fresh selection. 
This Court admitted the review petition after notice to the 
Respondents, granted special leave to appeal after recalling its earlier 
order dated 30.4.1990; and allowing the resultant appeals, 
HELD: The judiciary is the custodian of constitutional principles 
which are essential to the maintenance of the rule of law. It is the vehicle 
for the protection of a set of values which are an integral part of our 
social and political philosophy. Judges are the most visible actors in the 
administration of justice. Their case decisions are the most publicly 
visible outcome. But the administration of justice is just not deciding 
disputed cases. It involves great deal more than that. Any realistic 
analysis of the administration of justice in the Courts must also take 
account of the totality of the Judges behaviour and their administrative 
roles. They may appear to be only minor aspects of the administration 
of justice, but collectively they are "not trivial. They constitute a 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.