H.C. Puttaswamy And Ors vs Hon’Ble Chief Justice Of … on 5 November, 1990

           PETITIONER:
H.C. PUTTASWAMY AND ORS.

	Vs.

RESPONDENT:
HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT, BANGALORE AND

DATE OF JUDGMENT05/11/1990

BENCH:
SHETTY, K.J. (J)
BENCH:
SHETTY, K.J. (J)
AGRAWAL, S.C. (J)

CITATION:
 1991 AIR  295		  1990 SCR  Supl. (2) 552
 1991 SCC  Supl.  (2) 421 JT 1990 (4)	474
 1990 SCALE  (2)942


ACT:
    Karnataka  Civil  Services (General	 Recruitment)  Rules
1977-Rule  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.



HEADNOTE:
    Appointments  to the posts of Second Division Clerks  in
all  the State Departments of the Karnataka Govt.  are	gov-
erned  by the Karnataka Civil Services	(Ministerial  Posts)
Recruitment  Rules,  1966 and the power	 to  make  selection
vests  in the State Public Service Commission. Each  Depart-
ment  notifies	the number of required posts to	 the  Public
Service	 Commission and the Commission after  following	 the
prescribed  procedure  selects persons. The said  Rules	 are
made applicable to the judicial department also by statutory
Rules  called the Karnataka Subordinate Courts	(Ministerial
and  other posts) Recruitment Rules, 1977. Contrary  to	 the
said  statutory Rules by Notification dated  29.5.1978,	 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  stated that the selection would be to fill  up
the  then existing posts and for preparing a  waiting  list.
Large number of candidates including the appellants  submit-
ted  their applications. The then Chief Justice of the	High
Court  appointed  as many as 398 candidates  as	 against  40
posts advertised; he retained 56 on the establishment of the
High Court and the rest were transferred to the	 subordinate
courts.	 These appointments were made during the years	1980
to September 1982.
    In	1983 seven persons who had applied for the pests  in
response  to  the advertisement dated 29.5.1978,  moved	 the
High Court by means of writ petitions challenging the valid-
ity of all the aforesaid appointments. They urged that	they
had better merit than the appointees and the
553
appointments  made  by the Chief Justice from time  to	time
without considering their case was arbitrary and in  deroga-
tion  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 petitioners could, as far as possible be absorbed.
    The	 Petitioners however being dissatisfied,  filed	 the
instant	 review	 petitions on the plea that  the  directions
issued by this Court are not likely to ensure 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  Recruit-
ment) Rules 1977, that they had put in more than 10 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 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.
    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 carry-
ing out the administrative functions, he is actuated by same
principles and values as those of the Court he is
554
serving.  He cannot depart from and indeed must remain	com-
mitted	to  the constitutional ethos and traditions  of	 his
calling.  Those who are expected to oversee the	 conduct  of
others,	 must  necessarily  maintain a	higher	standard  of
ethical and intellectual rectitude. The public	expectations
do not seem to be less exacting.
    The circumstances of the instant case, however,  justify
a  humanitarian 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] 1 SCR	794;
Miss  Shainda Hasan v. State of U.P. and Ors., [1990] 2	 All
India  Services Law Journal 93; Channabasaviah v.  State  of
Mysore and Ors., [1965] 1 SCR 360; referred to.



JUDGMENT: