B Latha v. The Hon'Ble High Court of Karnataka

Judgement Writers. However, initially the existing and future vacancies shall be filled up in the ratio 2:2:1 from the cadres of Section Officers, Court Officers and Senior Judgement Writers, respectively, till the quota reserved for senior judgement writers is realised and thereafter whenever a post held by an incumbent coming from the cadre of senior judgement writers fall vacant, such vacancy shall be filled up only from the cadre of Senior Judgement Writers. The other vacancies shall be filled up from the cadres of Section Officers and Court Officers by rotation. By promotion by selection on basis of Merit-cum-efficiency from the cadre of Section Officers, Court Officers Senior Judgment Writers who possess Degree in Law from the University established under Law in the ratio of 2:1:1.

Explanation: 1. The present members who do not possess Law Degree, shall qualify themselves, without affecting the regular work, with prior permission of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, within a period of five years, failing which they shall not be entitled for further promotion.

The permission is not automatic, but subject to the interest of the Institution. Such permission shall not take away the rights of the senior employees and does not confer the undue privileges on the junior employees. The qualification obtained without following the above norms would not be taken into consideration, till they come within the zone of consideration.

Note:- 1) For securing minimum qualification prescribed for this cadre within stipulated time, the permission may be liberally granted.

2) The period of time prescribed for securing minimum qualification (i.e., five years) starts from the date of

NOTE:- The seniority of Senior Judgement Writers posted as Section Officers of Judicial Wing Typing pool. Paper Book Section and copying Branches I and II, if any, shall be counted for purpose of seniority in the cadre of Senior Judgement Writers. permission."

¶12Again, the said Rule was amended on

15.02.2013. The relevant amended Rule in respect of Assistant Registrar & Assistant Registrar (Protocol) is extracted below: "SI. Cadre Existing method of recruitment

Amendment substituted in the place of existing method of recruitment Assistant Registrar/ Assistant Registrar (Protocol) By promotion by selection on basis of Merit-cum-efficiency from the cadre of Section Officer, Court Officer and Senior Judgment Writer who possess Degree in law from the University established under Law in the ratio of 2:1:1

OR

If eligible candidate is available among the Section Officers/Court Officers/Senior Judgment Writers, by deputation among the Judicial Officers in the cadre of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.)

Explanation:

¶1The present members who do not possess Law Degree, shall qualify themselves, without affecting the By Promotion on the basis of Seniority-cum-merit from the cadres of Section Officers and Court Officers in the ratio of 2:1, provided that they have completed two years satisfactory service in the feeder cadre

regular work, with prior permission of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, within a period of five years, failing which they shall not be entitled for further promotion.

The permission is not automatic, but subject to the interest of the Institution. Such permission shall not take away the rights of the senior employees and does not confer the undue privileges on the junior employees. qualification obtained without following the above norms would not be taken into consideration. till they come within the zone of consideration. The

Note:- 1) For securing minimum qualification prescribed for this cadre within stipulated time, the permission may be liberally granted.

2) The period of time prescribed for securing minimum qualification (i.e., five years) starts from the date of permission

¶13Additionally, Rules 23 and 25 are extracted below: "23. Residuary Powers.-Nothing in these rules shall be deemed to affect the power of the Chief Justice to make such orders, from time to time, as he may deem fit in regard to all matters incidental or ancillary to these rules (not specifically provided for herein or in

regard to matters as have not been sufficiently provided for: Provided that if any such order relates to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions of Court Servants the same shall be made with the approval of the Governor. ………..

¶25Interpretation.-All questions relating to the interpretation of these rules shall be referred to the Chief Justice, whose decision thereon shall be final":

¶14Rule 23 of the 1973 Rules provides that, in matters not specifically provided for therein or in matters not sufficiently provided for, the Chief Justice may issue orders from time to time as he may deem fit, except in respect of salaries, allowances, leave, or pension of Court servants, for which prior approval of the Governor is required. Further, under Rule 25, where any doubt or ambiguity arises in the interpretation of the 1973 Rules, the Chief Justice is empowered to take a decision, and such decision of

the Chief Justice shall be final. Therefore, it is very clear that if there is an ambiguity in the Rules, the decision of the Chief Justice is final.

¶15However, in the rule under consideration in the present case, there is no ambiguity. The rule is clear and unambiguous. On a plain reading of Rule 7 along with Schedule III, it is seen that the 'recruitment' to the post of Assistant Registrar/Assistant Registrar (Protocol) is by promotion from the cadre of Section Officers and Court Officers in the ratio of 2:1. Therefore, it is clear that the 1973 Rules governing recruitment to the post of Assistant Registrar states that the ratio has to be maintained in respect of the arising vacancies. The expression "Recruitment" employed in Rule 7 r/w. Schedule III of the 1973 Rules necessarily refers to the act of filling up of vacancies to the concerned post.

¶16The vacancies available at the time of promotion have to be considered for the purpose of applying the prescribed ratio of 2:1. The 1973 Rules does not mention that ratio of 2:1 has to be maintained with reference to the overall cadre strength. Therefore, when the rule is clear and unambiguous, the interpretation adopted in the impugned intimation at Annexure–A cannot be sustained. The decision to maintain the 2:1 ratio in the cadre strength is contrary to Rule 7 read with Schedule III of the 1973 Rules and cannot be upheld.

¶17In R.K. SABHARWAL AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS, reported in

(1995) 2 SCC 745, the issue arose in the context of Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court in DR. R.N. BHATNAGAR (supra) has distinguished the judgment in R.K.SABHARWAL (supra), and held that once the recruitment is made

from two sources and once the candidate enters into any cadre through an entry point reserved for them, they get fused and blended into a single cadre and their birth marks get obliterated, while further distinguishing the applicability of the quota in terms of Articles 16(1) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India. The relevant portion is extracted below: "8. In the light of the aforesaid rival contentions, the following points arise for our determination:

(i) whether the interpretation of Rule 9(i)(d), which appealed to the High Court, is a correct one;

(ii) even if the roster operates on vacancies in such a way that from the very inception of the roster, vacancies on the first three roster points will go to promotees and the vacancy on the fourth roster point will go to a direct recruit and similarly, in future for further vacancies, whether the disputed 16th vacancy should go to a direct recruit or a promotee;

(iii) if the answer to the first point is in the negative, whether the ultimate decision of the High Court can be sustained on the conjoint reading of Rule 3 and Rule 9(i)(d) of the statutory rules as submitted by learned counsel for the respondent; and

(iv) what final order? We shall deal with the aforesaid points in the same sequence in which they are noted hereinabove. Point 1

¶9So far as the first point is concerned, the High Court in the impugned judgment, has heavily relied upon the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of R.K. Sabharwal [(1995) 2 SCC 745 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 548 : (1995) 29 ATC 481] . Now it has to be kept in view that the Constitution Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decision was concerned with entirely a different question, namely, as to how the roster indicating reserved points in connection with reservation of posts in a cadre to be filled in by Scheduled Caste (for short "SC"), Scheduled Tribe (for

short "ST") and Backward Class (for short "BC") candidates could be operated. Para 4 of the Report lays down that: (SCC p. 750) "4. When a percentage of reservation is fixed in respect of a particular cadre and the roster indicates the reserve points, it has to be taken that the posts shown at the reserve points are to be filled from amongst the members of reserve categories and the candidates belonging to the general category are not entitled to be considered for the reserved posts." In this connection, reliance was placed by the Constitution Bench on Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India which permits the State Government to make any provision for reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, was not adequately represented in the services under the State. In the light of the aforesaid scheme of the Constitution, the Bench had to consider whether reservation of posts for SCs, STs and BCs when sought to be secured by way of operation of the roster could permit the operation of the roster qua the posts or vacancies in the cadre. It was noted in this connection that if the roster operated on

vacancies, then it may happen that at a given point of time, the percentage of reservation of posts for SCs, STs and BCs may exceed the permissible percentage of reservation. In para 5 of the Report, it was observed that reservations provided under the impugned government instructions permitted 16% of the posts to be reserved for members of SCs and BCs and it could be achieved by the roster to be maintained in each Department. The roster had to be implemented in the form of running account from year to year. In connection with "16% of the posts…" to be reserved for members of SCs and BCs in promotional posts, it was held as under: (SCC p. 751, para 5) "When recruitment to a cadre starts then 14 posts earmarked in the (100 points) roster are to be filled from amongst the members of the Scheduled Castes. … When the total number of posts in a cadre are filled by the operation of the roster then the result envisaged by the impugned instructions is achieved. In other words, in a cadre of 100 posts when the posts earmarked in the roster for Scheduled Castes and the Backward Classes are filled the percentage of reservation provided for the

reserved categories is achieved. We see no justification to operate the roster thereafter. The 'running account' is to operate only till the quota provided under the impugned instructions is reached and not thereafter. Once the prescribed percentage of posts is filled the numerical test of adequacy is satisfied and thereafter the roster does not survive." The aforesaid observations which were heavily relied on by the High Court and are also relied upon by the respondent's (writ petitioner's) counsel before us, cannot be of any assistance to the appellant-State on the facts of the present case. The result is obvious. As per Article 16(4) which carves out a separate field for itself from the general sweep of Article 16(1) which guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of appointments in government services to all citizens of India, the reservation for these categories in employment has to be achieved by earmarking the requisite percentage of posts for the reserved category of candidates and by pitchforking these posts on roster points on requisite points' roster and when such a roster takes a full cycle, posts

earmarked on reserved points will enable the requisite reserved category of candidates to fill up these posts. After that is done, the roster would be treated to have achieved its purpose. Whenever a reserved candidate vacated a reserved post, the said post was liable to be filled only by a candidate belonging to the reserved category. If after the roster is first operated and thereafter it is again operated on future vacancies also, a situation may arise wherein a cadre may get reserved category exceeding the permitted quota of reservation. It is to avoid this contingency that the Constitution Bench laid down in the aforesaid decision as indicated therein. So far as Rule 9 of the Rules in the present case is concerned, it has nothing to do with reservation of posts in the cadre of Professors. It is not a rule of reservation envisaged for a specified category of persons as permitted by Article 16(4) of the Constitution. On the contrary, it is a rule of recruitment from two different sources, namely, in case of Professor's cadre, 75% of the posts has to be filled in by promotion while 25% by direct recruitment. These two sources of recruitment permit departmental promotees

and direct recruits from the open market to get absorbed in the cadre. They merely serve as two entry points for the cadre. Rule 9 deals with reservation of appointment to the posts of Professor and does not deal with reservation of posts of Professor for any special class or category of candidates. It is well settled that once recruitment is made from two sources, i.e., departmental promotees and direct recruitment from the open market and once the candidates concerned enter into any cadre through entry point reserved for them, they get fused and blended into one single cadre and their birthmarks get obliterated. In this connection, we may usefully refer to a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in State of J&K v. Triloki Nath Khosa [(1974) 1 SCC 19 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 49] . Chandrachud, J. (as he then was), speaking for the Constitution Bench while dealing with recruitment to a cadre from two sources, namely, direct recruits and promotees in the light of an earlier judgment of this Court in Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India [AIR 1967 SC 1889 : (1968) 1 SCR 185] made the

following pertinent observations: (SCC p. 38, paras 44-45) "44. The key words of the judgment are: 'The recruits from both the sources to Grade 'D' were integrated into one class and discrimination could thereafter be made in favour of recruits from one source as against the recruits from the other source in the matter of promotion to Grade 'C'.' (emphasis supplied) By this was meant that in the matter of promotional opportunities to Grade 'C', no discrimination could be made between promotees and direct recruits by reference to the source from which they were drawn. That is to say, if apprentice Train Examiners who were recruited directly to Grade 'D' as Train Examiners formed one common class with skilled artisans who were promoted to Grade 'D' as Train Examiners, no favoured treatment could be given to the former merely because they were directly recruited as Train Examiners and no discrimination could be made as against the latter merely because they were promotees. This is the true meaning of the observation extracted above and no more than this can be read into the sentence next following: 'To put it differently, once the direct recruits and promotees are absorbed into one cadre, they form one class and they cannot be discriminated for the purpose of further promotion to the higher Grade 'C'.' In terms, this was

just a different way of putting what had preceded.

¶45Thus, all that Roshan Lal case [AIR 1967 SC 1889 : (1968) 1 SCR 185] lays down is that direct recruits and promotees lose their birthmarks on fusion into a common stream of service and they cannot thereafter be treated differently by reference to the consideration that they were recruited from different sources. Their genetic blemishes disappear once they are integrated into a common class and cannot be revived so as to make equals unequals once again." It has, therefore, to be appreciated that when posts in a cadre are to be filled in from two sources, whether the candidate comes from the source of departmental promotees or by way of direct recruitment, once both of them enter a common cadre, their birthmarks disappear and they get completely integrated in the common cadre. This would be in consonance with the thrust of Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. No question of exception to the said general thrust of the constitutional provision would survive as Article 16(4) would be out of the picture in such a case. Consequently, the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench in R.K. Sabharwal case

[(1995) 2 SCC 745 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 548 :

(1995) 29 ATC 481] in connection with Article 16(4) and the operation of roster for achieving the reservation of posts for SCs, STs, and BCs as per the scheme of reservation cannot be pressed into service for the present scheme of Rule 9(1) is not as per Article 16(4) but is governed by the general sweep of Article 16(1). The attempt of learned counsel for the respondent to treat a quota rule as a reservation rule would result in requiring the State authorities to continue the birthmarks of direct recruits and promotees even after they enter the common cadre through two separate entry points regulating their induction to the cadre. Therefore, the roster for 3 promotees and one direct recruit is to be continued every time a vacancy arises and there is no question of filling up a vacancy arising out of a retirement of a direct recruit by a direct recruit or on the retirement vacancy of a promotee by a promotee. Consequently, the question of rotating the vacancies as posts or for treating the posts mentioned in the rules of recruitment as necessarily referable to total posts in the cadre at a given point of time in the light of

R.K. Sabharwal [(1995) 2 SCC 745 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 548 : (1995) 29 ATC 481] judgment, therefore, cannot survive for in the case of a quota rule between direct recruits and promotees, the same is to be judged on the touchstone of Article 16(1) and the statutory rules governing the recruitment to the posts of Professor constituting the Punjab Medical Education Service (Class I) and not on the basis of Article 16(4). The Division Bench in the impugned judgment with respect wrongly applied the ratio of R.K. Sabharwal case [(1995) 2 SCC 745 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 548 :

(1995) 29 ATC 481] governing Article 16(4) to the facts of the present case which are governed by Article 16(1)."

¶18The Rule 7 r/w. Schedule III of the 1973 Rules nowhere provides that the total cadre strength of Assistant Registrars has to be consistently maintained in 2:1 ratio from Section Officers and Court Officers, respectively. On the other hand, the Rules are very clear that the ratio has to be maintained at the time of filling up the vacancies. This

view is fortified by the Apex Court in the case of K.K.TIWARI (supra). The relevant paragraphs are extracted below: "23. Rule 7 on its bare reading does not make reference to Schedule I, which provides that 445 numbers of posts are to be held by civilian officers in the cadre of EEs. The Rules nowhere provide that the total strength of the cadre of EEs has to be consistently maintained in a manner that 2/3rd cadre is manned by those who are promoted from the posts of AEEs and 1/3rd cadre is manned by those who have been promoted from the post of AEs. It appears from the record that the entire basis for issuing the Circular dated 29-7-1997 by Respondent 2 was that in the cadre of EEs the ratio of such officers who had been promoted from the post of AEs had been depleted and after calculation of the posts, the deficiency has been found to the extent of 58 vacancies and, therefore, the vacancies should be filled in from amongst AEs only for a particular year 1997-1998.

¶24The High Court, in our opinion, was right in holding that such a direction in terms of the circular of Respondent 2 did not find support from the Rules as Rule 7 neither refers to Schedule I which prescribes the total strength of the cadre nor it provides anywhere further that recruitment shall be made in a manner so as to maintain the ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd in the entire cadre for a particular year. The language of Rule 7 is very clear and unambiguous and it emphasises that after the commencement of the Rules which came into force on 9-7-1991, the vacancies shall be filled in a manner provided in Schedule III. Schedule III, as earlier noticed, prescribes that the post of EEs shall be filled in the ratio of 66-2/3 posts to be filled on non-selection basis from the grade of AEEs and 33-1/3 posts have to be filled on selection basis from the post of AEs. The expression "posts to be filled" used in the rule clearly indicates and means that whenever any selection is made to the post of EE, the ratio, the criteria and the essential minimum qualifying service in terms of Schedule III shall have to be strictly followed and adhered to and any promotion in excess of the quota will result

in breaking down the prescribed quota. Thus, the language of Rule 7 read with Schedule III governing the service conditions has to be read harmoniously with meaningful construction. It is not possible or advisable to interpret the ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd as prescribed in Schedule IV of Rule 7 in the manner that all the 58 posts of EEs for the year 1997-1998 should be filled in by promotion from the cadre of AEs only. If the claim of the appellants that all 58 posts of EEs for the year 1997-1998 are to be filled in by promotion from amongst the AEs cadre only is accepted, then the quota rule as prescribed by Rule 7 read with Schedule IV shall break down with the result that the ratio of 2/3rd and 1/3rd prescribed in the Rules for AEEs and AEs has to be ignored and resultantly a situation may arise when one cadre will get excess quota as compared to other feeder cadre. If we construe the Service Rules in right perspective and read their provisions in a harmonious manner then the desired result can be achieved. If the interpretation which is sought to be given by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants is to be accepted, then it is likely to disturb the ratio in the cadre

strength of sanctioned strength. When the Rules say that posts of EEs shall be filled in from two channels i.e. AEEs and AEs in the proportion of 66-2/3 and 33-1/3 respectively we cannot ignore the intention of the Rules."

¶19From the above discussion, it is very clear that Rule 7 r/w. Schedule III of 1973 Rules mandates that a ratio of 2:1 has to be applied to the vacancies that arise at the time of appointment or promotion to the post in the cadre of Assistant Registrars. Once the Section Officers and Court Officers enter the common cadre of Assistant Registrar, they get fused and blended into a single cadre and their source of recruitment loses significance. Unless the rules specifically provide for maintaining the said ratio with reference to the cadre strength, such requirement cannot be read into the Rules. In the absence of any such provision in the Rules, the prescribed ratio is

required to be maintained at the time of filling up the vacancy.

¶20As per the records made available to the Court, before the amendment of the 2013 Rules, recruitment to the post of Assistant Registrar from the cadres of Section Officers, Court Officers, and Senior Judgment Writers was in the ratio of 2:1:1. As per the said quota, promotions were accorded to the eligible Section Officers, Court Officers, and Senior Judgment Writers in the ratio of 2:1:1 until the year 2013.

¶21After the Rule was amended on 15.02.2013, the promotion to the cadre of Assistant Registrar was made from Section Officers and Court Officers in the ratio of 2:1. Since 2013 till today, the same ratio has been maintained and at no point of time has any excess promotion been made either from the cadre of Section Officers or Court Officers.

¶22With respect to the judgment relied upon by the respondent in W.P. No. 4808/2022, disposed of on

26.11.2024, the Karnataka Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules provided that 50% of the vacancies in KAS Group-A (Junior Scale) posts were to be filled by promotion and the remaining 50% by direct recruitment. The said rule was amended in 1995, whereby the expression "arising vacancies" was specifically omitted with the intention of applying the quota against the fixed cadre strength. In compliance with the object of the amendment, the Government issued an Official Memorandum dated 23.03.2016. Therefore, this Court upheld the said Official Memorandum. The said matter has also been challenged before the Apex Court in SLP Nos.8261/2025, 7030/2025, 23831/2025 and 19819/2025, in which leave has been granted and the matters are pending consideration.

¶23In view of the above, the impugned intimation is liable to be quashed.

¶24Accordingly, the following order:

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

(ii) The impugned intimation dated

25.04.2025 vide Annexure-A is quashed.

Sd/- (H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

CM/-

1, IN,THE,HIGH,COURT,OF,KARNATAKA,AT,BENGALURU, thDATED,THIS,THE,11 ,DAY,OF,MARCH,2026, BEFORE, THE,HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,H.,T.,NARENDRA,PRASAD, WRIT(PETITION(NO.(34531(OF(2025(S-RES)( , BETWEEN:( , 1., B,LATHA, , AGED,ABOUT,50,YEARS, , W/O,RAMEGOWDA,B,N, , 2., PADMA,T, , AGED,ABOUT,48,YEARS, , W/O,NAGARAJA,H,M, , 3., RAGHAVENDRA,B,S, , AGED,ABOUT,50,YEARS, , S/O,B,M,SHANKAR, , 4., SHYAMALA,N, , AGED,ABOUT,51,YEARS, , W/O,S,RAMAMOHAN, , 5., GAYATHRI,S, , AGED,ABOUT,54,YEARS, , W/O,S,V,RAMGOPAL, , 6., HEMALATHA,R,B,, , AGED,ABOUT,50,YEARS, , D/O,LATE,BASANAGOUDA, , 7., K,R,GANGADARAIAH, , AGED,ABOUT,50,YEARS, , S/O,LATE,RAMAKRISHNAIAH, , 8., DHANA,LAKSHMI,S, , AGED,ABOUT,51,YEARS, , W/O,PRAKASH, , 9., SAVITHA,DEVI,T.E, 2, , AGED,ABOUT,,52,YEARS, , W/O,MAILARAPPA,K,SHAVI, , 10., NATARAJA,S,N, , AGED,ABOUT,51,YEARS, , S/O,LATE,NAGARAJ,S, , 11., J,AROKIANATHAN, , AGED,ABOUT,49,YEARS, , S/O,,JOSEPH, , 12., GIRIDHARA,M, , AGED,ABOUT,49,YEARS, , S/O,MANJUNATHA, , 13., MANJUNATHA,Y,H, , AGED,ABOUT,47,YEARS, , S/O,LATE,K,HUCHEGOWDA, , 14., R,SIDDARAJU, , AGED,ABOUT,48,YEARS, , S/O,RAMAIAH, , 15., FAKIRAPPA,SALI, , AGED,ABOUT,48,YEARS, , S/OMAHADEVAPPA,SALI, , 16., DEVIRI, , AGED,ABOUT,52,YEARS, , W/O,NAGARAJ,S, , 17., N,NAGASHREE, , AGED,ABOUT,41,YEARS, , W/O,,BHARATHKUMAR,S, , 18., SIDDANAGOWDA,N,A, , AGED,BOUT,48,YEARS, , S/O,A,NAGESHAPPA, , 19., N,SUKANYA, , AGED,ABOUT,49,YEARS, , W/O,K,RAMU, , 20., RAMESH,K, , AGED,ABOUT,48,YEARS, , S/O,KRISHNAMURTHY, , 3, 21., KARUNAKARA,K,S, , AGED,ABOUT,50,YEARS, , S/O,,LATE,SANJEEVA,BHANDARI, , 22., DORESWAMY,A,N, , AGED,ABOUT,49,YEARS, , S/O,LATE,NANJEGOWDA, , 23., SAVITHA,R,S, , AGED,ABOUT,40,YEARS, , W/O,NARENDRA,BABU,N, , 24., REVATHI,,M, , AGED,ABOUT,43,YEARS, , W/O,RAMESH,K, , 25., SAMPOORNA,J,K, , AGED,ABOUT,43,YEARS, , W/O,GIRIS,B,MANGANNAVAR, , 26., BHARATHI,S, , AGED,ABOUT,47,YEARS, , W/O,LATE,,JAYAPRAKASH, , 27., SATISH,REDDY,K,V, , AGED,ABOUT,51,YEARS, , S/O,LATE,VENKATA,REDDY, , 28., B,S,NAGARAJA, , AGED,ABOUT,44,YEARS, , S/O,B,SUBRAMANYAM, , 29., K,SHANTHALA,NAIK, , AGED,ABOUT,52,YEARS, , W/O,SHRIDHAR,NAIK, , 30., THEJASHWINI,S,N, , AGED,ABOUT,47,YEARS, , W/O,N,MANJUNATH, , 31., VANISHREE,V, , AGED,ABOUT,43,YEARS, , W/O,DEVARAJU, , 32., GEETHA,R,C, , AGED,ABOUT,41,YEARS, , W/O,GIRISH,K, 4, , 33., YASHAVANTH,G,M, , AGED,ABOUT,40,YEARS, , S/O,LATE,GOPAL,RAO,K, , 34., ROOPA,S, , AGED,ABOUT,43,YEARS, , W/O,ASHWATH,K,R, , 35., SOWMYA,RANI,J, , AGED,ABOUT,43,YEARS, , W/O,SURESH,B,K, , 36., BINDU,R, , AGED,ABOUT,43,YEARS, , W/O,SATISH,BABU,S, , , ALL,THE,ABOVE,PETITIONERS,ARE,, , CURRENTLY,WORKING,IN,THE, , ESTABLISHMENT,OF,THE,, , HIGH,COURT,OF,KARNATAKA, , AS,COURT,OFFICERS,,AT,THE,PRINCIPAL,BENCH, , BENGALURU-560001., ...,PETITIONERS, , (BY,SRI.,PRITHVEESH,M,K,,ADVOCATE,FOR, SRI,SAMEER,SHARMA,,ADVOCATE), , AND, , THE,HON'BLE,HIGH,COURT,OF,KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED,BY, REGISTRAR,GENERAL,,HIGH,COURT,OF,KARNATAKA, HIGH,COURT,BUILDINGS, OPPOSITE,VIDHANA,SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR,VEEDHI,,BENGALURU-560,001., ...,RESPONDENT, , (BY,SRI.,D,R,RAVISHANKAR,,SENIOR,ADVOCATE,FOR, SMT.,KRUTIKA,RAGHAVAN,,ADVOCATE,), , THIS,WRIT,PETITION,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLES,226,AND,227, OF,THE, CONSTITUTION,OF, INDIA,PRAYING, TO, ISSUE,,A,WRIT,, OF, CERTIORARI, OR, ANY, OTHER, APPROPRIATE, WRIT, ORDER, , OR, DIRECTION,QUASHING,INTIMATION,BEARING,NO.,HCE,873/2013,(SO, &,CO),DATED:,25.04.2025,,ISSUED,BY,THE,RESPONDENT,AS,BEING, ARBITRARY,, ILLEGAL,, AND, CONTRARY, TO, THE, HIGH, COURT, OF,, KARNATKA SERVICE (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE AND RECRUITMENT RULES 1973 (ANNEXURE-A). THIS WRIT PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 19.02.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD CAV ORDER This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the intimation dated 25.04.2025 vide Annexure-A issued by the Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, to the petitioners. By the said intimation it was communicat