KHAZIA MOHAMMED MUZAMMIL versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.

Citation: [2010] 7 S.C.R. 1061 · Decided: 08-07-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010) 7 S.C.R. 1061 
KHAZIA MOHAMMED MUZAMMIL 
.v. 
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 596 of 2007) 
JULY 08, 2010 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] 
Kamataka Civil Service (Probation) Rules, 1977: 
'A .. 
Rule 5(2) - Deemed confirmation - Held· Rule 5(2) c 
provides that competent authority has to examine the 
suitability of the probationer and upon recording satisfaction 
issue an order of confirmation - ·Thus in the absence of 
specific order, there is no deemed/automatic confirmation -
Delay in issuance of order would ndt·entitfe tfrEf propationer D 
to be deemed to have satisfactorily completed his prObation 
- On facts, Probation period of 2 years and the Probatib.ner-
Judicial officer discharged from service after 3 years and 10 
months of service on the ground that he was not found 
suitable for the post - He cannot claim that he is deemed to 
be confirmed - His service record also did not reflect that he 
E 
was an officer of outstanding caliber - He had made 
contradictory statements in his writ petition and mentioned his 
age as per his convenience - Not a fit case for exercising 
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution - Karnataka 
Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1983 - Rule 2, item 
F 
no. 2 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136. 
rule 5(2) - Discharge order of probationer showed that it 
was not stigmatic - Held: Since the discha(ge was simplicitor 
without causing stigma upon the concem'ed probationer, 
G 
holding of formal proceedings under the Karnataka Civil 
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1957 was 
not necessary - Service law. 
1061 
H 
1062 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
Service law: 
Confidential report - Necessity of recording - Discussed. 
Judicial service - Appointment - Police verification report 
- High Courts directed to ensure that the police verification 
B report conducted in accordance with law should be received 
by the concerned authority, before the order of appointment 
in the State Judicial Service is issued by the said authority -
On facts, name of concerned judicial officer on rowdy list prior 
to his appointment - Normally a person which such 
C antecedents would not be permitted to join service of the 
government and particularly the post of a judicial officer -
High Court on the administrative side dealt with the matter in 
a very causal manner and issued appointment order to the 
concerned judicial officer. 
D 
Probation - Purpose of. 
High Court: 
Non-recording of confidential report of judicial officer -
E Held: Adversely affects the administration of justice and 
dilutes the constitutional power and functions of 
superintendence of High Court - It is constitutional obligation 
on the High Court to ensure that the members of judicial 
service of the State are treated appropriately with dignity and 
F without undue delay - Directions passed - Administration of 
justice - Judiciary - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 235 
- Service law. 
The appellant was appointed as District Judge under 
the Karnataka Judicial Services (Recruitment) Rules, 
G 1983. By Notification dated 24.3.2000, he was discharged 
from service. The appellant challenged the said 
Notification by filing writ petition before High Court on the 
ground that he had put in 3 years, 10 months of service 
and thus had completed the probation period and that 
H since there was no specific communication Issued to him 
KHAZIA MOHAMMED MUZAMMIL v. STATE OF 
1063 
KARNATAKA AND ANR. 
by the authority extending his probation period, he 
A 
should be deemed to be confirmed. Appellant also prayed 
for issuance of mandamus to the Superintendent of 
Police to strike off his name in the 'rowdy and goonda 
register' prior to his selection as District Judge 
maintained by the concerned police station. The High 
B 
Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the 
appellant was found not suitable to hold the post and 
there was no specific order to the effect that he had 
satisfactory completed the probationary period. It also 
declined to declare the entries as being without basis. c 
Hence the appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. A bare reading of the notification dated 
24.3.2000 showed ttfat it was ex-facie not stigmatic. It D 
simply discharged the appellant from service as having 
been found unsuitable to hold the post of District Judge. 
Until and unless, the appellant is able to show 
circumstances supported by co

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