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

                                                                                 ''
                   H.C. PUITASWAMY AND ORS.
A
                               v.
              HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF KARNATAKA
               HIGH COURT, BANGALORE AND ORS.

                             NOVEMBER 5, 1990
B
      [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.
c          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.
                                                                               D
      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   E
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         F
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
substantial part of the mosaic which represents the ordinary man's
perception of what the courts are and how the judges go about their
work.                                                                          G
     The Chief Justice or any other Administrative Judge is not an
absolute ruler. Nor he is a free-wheeler. He must operate in the clean
world of law, not in the neighbourhood of sordid atmosphere. He has a
duty to ensure that in carrying out the administrative functions, he is
actuated by same principles and values as those of the Court he is             H
    554                SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A   serving. He cannot depart from and indeed must remain committed to
    the constitutional ethos and traditions of his calling. Those who are
    expected to oversee the conduct of others, must necessarlly maintain a
    higher standard of ethical and Intellectual rectitude. The public expec-
    tations do not seem to be less exacting.

B         The circumstances of the instant case, however, justify a humani·
    tarlan approach and indeed, the appellants seem to deserve justice
    ruled by mercy.

         Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan, [1981] 1 SCR 320 at 326; A. K.
    Yadav v. State of Haryana and Ors., (1985] 4 SCC 417; State of U.P. v.
    Refiquddin and Ors., (1988] I SCR 794; Miss Shainda Hasan v. State of
c   U.P. and Ors., (1990] 2 All India Services Law Journal 93; Channa-
    basaviah v. State of Mysore and Ors., [1965] 1 SCR360; referred to.

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Review Petition Nos.
    378-84 of 1990.
D
                                          IN
           Special Leave Petitions Nos. 3131-37 of 1988.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 21.1.1988 of the Karnataka
    High Court in W.P. Nos. 386, 387, 4695 to 4699of1984.
E
           Gopal Subramaniam and P. Mahale for the Petitioners.

        Advocate General of Karnataka and P.R. Ramashesh for the
    Respondents.
             ·' .-;~   ..
F          T!ie Judgment of the Court was delivered by
       •
          K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. The review petitions are
    against the order dated 30 April 1990, dismissing Special Leave Peti-
    tion Nos. 3131-37/88 and other connected petition. The Special Leave
    Petitions are directed against the decision of the Karnataka High
G   Court dated 21 January 1988 by which the petitioners were unseated
    by quashing their appointments. The Court while dismissing the
    Special Leave Petitions, however, issued certain directions as under:

                   "The SLPs are rejected but with the following directions:

H                           The High Court shall intimate the State Public
H.C. PUTIASWAMY v. C.J. OF KAR. HIGH COURT [SHETTY, J.J                555

            Service Commission the total vacancies in the cadre of
            Second Division Clerks on the establishment of Subordi-           A
            nate Courts and the Public Service Commission shall then
            immediately take up the process of selection of candidates
            for appointment to such vacancies. To avoid delay the
            Public Service Commission may take up this process exclu-
            sively for filling-up the vacancies in the establishment of       B
            the subordinate judiciary. All these procedures shall be
            completed with allotment of candidates io respective dis-
            tricts within eight months from today.

            2. The candidates whose appointments have been set aside
            by the High Court are entitled to relaxation of age as pro-
            vided under Rule 6(3)(b) of the General Recruitment               c
            Rules and they shall not be disturbed till they are selected.
            or displaced by the new recruits.

            3. So far as appointment against vacancies in the High
            Court is concerned it is left to the Chief Justice to take        D
            immediate action."

      The instant review petitions have been presented with the plea
that the directions issued by this Court though merciful are not likely
to enure to the benefit of a large number of petitioners. It is said that a
majority of the petitioners have already crossed the age of 40 years,         E
and they will not get the benefit of age relaxation even if it is allowed
up to 10 years under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Karnataka Civil Services
(General Recruitment) Rules, 1977. It is also stated that all the
petitioners have put in more than 10 years of service. They have over
the years acquired considerable experience in office administration
and it would cause them irreparable injury if they are thrown out of          F
employment. It is further stated that the majority of the petitioners
may not come any where near the zone of selection in the event of a
fresh selection in spite of their high qualifications and long experience,
since there would be lakhs of candidates for fresh recruitment. With
these and other grounds, the petitioners seek a review of the entire
matter.                                                                       G

     On 17 July 1990 notice was issued on the review petitions and
upon service they were admitted with the following observations:

            "The review petitions are admitted. The orders of this
            Court and the High Court are kept in abeyance. Counsel            H
                                                                                   \

    556         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A              for the High Court to state whether the present petitioners·
               could be appointed in suitable posts and whether the
               affected employees both in the High Court and also in the
               Subordinate Courts could be allowed to continue in service
               purely on compassionate and humanitarian consideration,
               since uprooting them at this stage will bring them untold
B              miseries and to their families. Most of these persons are
               over aged and they are not liable to get exemption under
               Rule 6(3)(b ). Some of them have already been promoted.
               Some have acquired high qualifications. All of them have
               gained experience for more than JO years. These facts were
               not brought to our attention when we disposed of the special
               leave petitions. This is a human problem and it requires a
c              very very sympathetic consideration. Counsel for the High
               Court will assist this Court how best to tackle this problem .. ,

          In response to these observations, Mr. Achar, learned
    Advocate-General of the State has appeared for the Chief Justice of
D   Karnataka High Court who is the main respondent in this case. He
    submitted that since the persons who have filed the writ petitions have
    complained that they have been unreasonably discriminated and found
    to have been denied the posts in the High Court, the Chief Justice is
    now willing to appoint them in the High Court, if necessary by creating
    additional posts. This is indeed a good gesture.
E
          We therefore, recall our order rejecting the special leave peti-
    tions, and grant leave and proceed to dispose of the appeals.

          The facts giving rise to the appeals, as found by the High Court,
    may be summarised as follows: By Notification dated 29th May, 1978,
f   the High Court of Karnataka invited applications for the posts of 40
    Second Division Clerks and 25 posts of Typists and Typists-Copyists in
    the establishment of the High Court. The notification provided that
    the selection would be to fill up those existing vacancies and for pre-
    paring a waiting list. The qualifications prescribed for the posts of
    Second Division Clerks was a pass in S.S.L.C. or any equivalent
G   examination; for Typists-Copyists a pass in S.S.L.C. and Senior
    Typewriting in English. A large number of candidates including the
    appellants submitted applications. The then Chief Justice of the High
    Court who was the competent authority in the matter has appointed as
    many as 398 candidates as against the 40 posts advertised. Of them, he
    retained 56 on the establishment of the High Court and the rest were
H   transferred to the subordinate Courts. The appointments and transfers
    H.C. PUITASWAMY v. C.J. OF KAR. HIGH COURT [SHETTY, J.)               557

    were made by instalments during the years 1980, 1981 and 1982 and
    the last of the appointments was in September, 1982.                         A

          In 1983, seven persons who were also the applicants in response
    to the advertisement <lated 29 May, 1978 moved the High Court by
    means of Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challeng-
    ing the validity of all the aforesaid appointments. They claimed that        B
    they had better merit determined on the basis of marks in the qualify-
    ing examination prescribed for recruitment to the cadre of Second
    Division Clerks than those who were appointed. The appointments
    made by the Chief Justice from time to time without considering their
    case was impugned as arbitrary and in derogation of the rules of
    recruitment.          ·
                                                                                 c
          It is not disputed that the selection and appointment to the cadre
    of Second Division Clerks in all the departments of the State Govern-
    ment are regulated by Rules called the Karnataka Civil Services
    (Ministerial Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1966. The power to make
    selection under the Rules is vested in the State Public Service Commis-      D
    sion. The selection is required to be made by written test followed by
    interview. On the basis of the merit determined by the written and
    interview tests, the Public Service Commission shall prepare a list of
    selected candidates. Before the commencement of the process of
    selection, the Heads of Departments are required to intimate the
    Public Service Commission the number of vacancies that are available         E
    for recruitment in their respective departments. The Public Service
    Commission would allot the corresponding number of selected candi-
    dates to each of the departments. The allotment is generally made with
    due regard to the option indicated by the candidates in their applica-
    tions and also on the basis of their rankings in the select list. The said
    Rules are made applicabfe to the judicial department also by the             F
    statutory rules called the Karnataka Subordinate Courts (Ministerial
    and other Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1977. It provides that ninety per
    cent of the posts of Second Division Clerks on the establishment of the
    subordinate courts should be filled up by direct recruitment in accor-
    dance wiih the Karnataka State Civil Services (Recruitment to
    Ministerial Posts) Rules, 1966. According to the provisions of the           G
    Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rul"",
    every District Judge is the appointing authority and consequently
    every District constitutes a recruitment unit. The District Judge being

-   the Unit head, like the head of any other department must send a
    requisition to the Public Service Commission intimating the number of
    vacancies available in his establishment for appointment. The Public         H
                                                                                 '   \

    558         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A   Service Commission shall send a list of selected candidates to the
    District Judge as per his requisition. It is only after the Public Service
    Comnmission forwards the list of selected candidates the District
    Judge could make appointments of persons out of that list. No other
    person could be appointed in the clerical cadre of the subordinate
    courts except perhaps by promotion.
B
           This is the undisputed procedure for recruitment prescribed by
    the Rules. The then Chief Justice, however, disregarded the authority
    of the Public Service Commission to make selection and bye-passed the
    power of the District Judge to make appointment. He took upon him-
    self the power of both the authorities of making selection as well as
    appointment in the establishments of the Subordinate Courts. Out of a
c   large number of candidates who have applied in response to the notifi-
    cation dated 29 May, 1978 he called some candidates for interview at
    frequent intervals and appointed them in the High Court. At the
    beginning except on one or two occasions the number of candidates
    called for interview seem to be more than the candidates selected, but
D   later on, only a few candidates were called for interview and they were
    all appointed on the same day. Most of them were immediately trans-
    ferred to subordinate courts. In some cases, it is said that in the fore-
    noon the candidates were appointed and taken on duty in the High
    Court; in the afternoon they were transferred and placed at the dis-
    posal of a District Judge for taking them on duty. In most of the cases
E   the candidates seem to have reported before the concerned District
    Judge on the very next day. This cycle of appointment and transfer
    went on during the years 1980 to 1982 as against the advertisement of
    the year 1978. The total number of persons thus appointed came to ten
    times the number of posts advertised. They could not be retained in
    the High Court since the High Court apparently did not have so many
F   vacancies. Their appointment in substance and effect was intended for
    the subordinate courts and accordingly.most of them were transferred
    to subordinate courts circumventing the statutory provisions for such
    recruitment.

          While the administration of the Courts has perhaps, never been
G   without its critics, the method of recruitment followed by the Chief
    Justice appears to be without parallel. The learned Judges of the High
    Court have in a considered judgment allowed the writ petitions and
    quashed all those appointments. They have expressed the view that the
    appointments made by the Chief Justice were very serious violation of
    statutory law and constitutional protection of equality of opportunity
H   guaranteed to the candidates under Article 14 and 16(1). From the
                                                                                 \
                                                                                 )

                                                                                 \i:
: H.C. PUTIASWAMY v. C.J. OF KAR. HIGH COURT {SHETTY, J.J                559

 foregoing narration of events and by the rules of recruitment, it seems
 to us that there cannot be two opinions on the conclusion reached by           A
 learned Judges. The methodology adopted by the Chief Justice was
 manifestly wrong and it was doubtless deviation from the course of law
 which the High Court has to protect and preserve.

       The Judiciary is the custodian of constitutional principles which        B
 are essential to the maintenance of rule of law. It is the vehicle for the
 protection of a set of values which are inte~ral part of our social and
 political philosophy. Judges are the most visible actors in the administ-
 ration of justice. Their case decisions are the most publicly visible
 outcom7. 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          C
 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 in our
-opinion, a substantial part of the mosaic which represents the ordinary
 man's perception of what the Courts are and how the judges go about            D -
 their work. The Chief Justice is the prime force in the High Court.
 Article 229 of the Constitution provides that appointment of officers
 and servants of the High Court shall be made by the Chief Justice or
 such other Judge or officer of the Court as may be directed by the
 Chief Justice. The object of this Article was to secure the indepen-
 dence of the High Court which cannot be regarded as fully secured              E
 unless ihe authority to appoint supporting staff with complete control
 over them is vested in the Chief Justice. There can be no disagreement
 on this matter. There is imperative need for total and absolute
 administrative independence of the High Court. But the Chief Justice
 or any other Administrative Judge is not an absolute ruler. Nor he is a free
 wheeler. He must operate in the clean world of law, not in the neigh-          F
 bourhood of sordid atmosphere. He has a duty to ensure that in carry-
 ing out the administrative function~. he is actuated by same principles
 and values as those of the Court he is serving. He cannot depart from
 and indeed must remain committed to the constitutional ethoes and
 traditions of his calling. We need hardly say that those who are
 expected to oversee the conduct of others, must necessarily maintain a         G
 higher standards of ethical and intellectual rectitude. The public
 expectations do not seem to be less exacting.

       Having reached the conclusion about the invalidity of the
 impugned appointments made by the Chief Justice, we cannot, how-
 ever, refuse to recognise the consequence that involves on uprootinp
                                                                                 \
    560         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

    the appellants. Mr. Gopala Subramanayam, counsel for the appellants
A
    while highlighting the human problems involved in the case pleaded
    for sympathetic approach and made an impassioned appeal for allow-
    ing the appellants to continue in their respective posts. He has also
    referred to us several decisions of this Court where equitable direc-
    tions were issued in the interests of justice even though the selection
B   and appointments of candidates were held to be illegal and unsup-
    portabie.

          There is good sense in the plea put forward for the appellants.
    The human problem stands at the outset in these cases and it is that
    problem that motivated us in allowing the review petitions. It may be
    recalled that the appellants are in service for the past IO years. They
c   are either graduates or double graduates or post graduates as against
    the minimum qualification of S.S.L.C. required for Second Division
    Clerks in which cadre they were originally recruited. Some of them
    seem to have earned higher qualification by hard work during their
    service. Some of them in the normal course have been promoted to
D   higher cadre. They are now overaged for entry into any other service.
    It seems that most of them cannot get the benefit of age relaxation
    under Rule 6 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment)
    Rules, 1977. One could only imagine their untold miseries and of their
    family if they are left at the midstream. Indeed, it would be an act of
    cruelty at this stage to ask them to appear for written test and viva voce
E   to be conducted by the Public Service Commission for fresh selection
    (See: Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan,) [ 198 l I 1SCR320 at 326.

          We may briefly touch some of the decisions referred to us by
    counsel for the appellants. A.K. Yadav v. State of Haryana and Ors.,
    [1985] 4 sec 417 was concerned with the selection made by the
F   Haryana Public Service Commission for appointment to the cadre of
    the Haryana Civil Service by allocating 33.3 per cent for viva Yoce. The
    selection was challenged before this Court on the ground that the
    marks awarded for the interview was high as it would aper. door for
    arbitrariness. This Court ~pheld that contention and held that the
    marks for viva voce test should not exceed 12.2. per cent. However,
G   the Court did not set aside the appointments, instead, directed the
    Public Service Commission to give one more opportunity to the
    aggrieved candidates to appear at the competitive examinations. In
    State of U.P. v. Refiquddin & Ors., [1988] I SCR 794 the validity of
    selection made by the Public Service Commission of Uttar Pradesh to
    the cadre of Munsifs came for consideration. Here again the Court
H   refused to quash the appointment even though the selection was found

                                                                                 I
                                                                                 I
                                                                                     \-
H.C. PUTTASWAMY v. C.J. OF KAR. HIGH COURT ISHETTY, J.l            561

to be conhary to the Rules of recruitment. In Miss Shainda Hasan v.
                                                                         A
Srate of U.P. & Ors., [ 1990] .2 All India Services Law Journal 93 the
legality of appointment of a Principal of a minority college was in
question. The Principal was averaged for .appointment, but she was
given age relaxation which was held to be arbitrary. Yet the Court has
declined to strike down her appointment. .On the contrary, the
Chancellor was directed to grant the necessary approval for her          B
appointment with effect from the date she was holding the post of the
Principal. Her continuous working as Principal in the College seems
to be the only consideration that weighed with this Court for giving
that relief. ·

      The learned Advocate General however, relied upon the deci.
sion in Channabasavaiah v. State of Myscre & Ors., [ 196S] 1 SCR 360     c
which has also been relief upon by the High Court to deny relief to the
affected persons. There the Karnataka Public Service Commission
made selection for appointment to services in Class I and II posts in
the State Administrative Services. The Public Service Commission
published a list of 98 persons who were said to be the selected candi: D
dates. After the announcement of the said list, the State Government
sent a list of additional twenty-four candidates to the Public Service
Commission for consideration. The Commission approved those
candidates and also included their names in the select list. Con·
sequently, all of them were appointed by the Government. Sixteen
Candidates who were .not selected by the Public Service Commission E
moved the High Court with a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution challenging the selection made by the Public Service
Commission. That writ petition was disposed of by a compromise bet·
ween the Government and petitioners. The Government agreed to
appoint those petitioners also. Of those 16 persons, three had not even
been called for interview by the Public Service Commission since they p
were not qualified for interview. But upon appeal, this Court quashed
the appointment of twenty-four persons selected by the Goverrunent
and also the appointment of sixteen persons who had filed the writ
petition before the High Court and who were appointed on the terms
of the compromise. The facts of the case are not comparable with the
present. Considerations that weighed with this Court also appear to be G
quite different.

       The precedents apart, the circumstances of this Case justify an
humanitarian approach and indeed, the appellants seem to deserve
justice ruled by mercy. We take note of the fact that the writ
pe.titioners also would be appointed in the High Court as stated by      H
    562         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (1990) Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A   learned Adocate General of the State.

          In the result, we allow these appeals and direct that these appel-
    lants should be treated to be regularly appointed with all the benefits
    of the past service. The judgment of the High Court is accordingly
    modified. This order would govern all those whose appointments have
B
    been quashed by the High Court.

         In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, we make no
    order as to costs.

    Y. Lal                                                Appeals allowed. ·




                       ..