WA/1002/2026 of SUDHA BASALINGAPPA KUNDARIMANI Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 3 June 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K.SINGH)

These present intra Court appeals have been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 25.02.2026 passed by the writ Court in WP.No.29418/2024 C/W WP.No.11730/2025, WP.No.27366/2025 and WP.No.27549/2025.

HC-KAR

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court.

3. The petitioners filed the writ petitions challenging the order whereby the services of the petitioners came to be terminated on the ground that their appointments were against the statutory prescriptions governing the service conditions of the service of Processor Server.

4. The candidates who lost the opportunity to be appointed as Process Server, though they fit within the parameters of the provision i.e., Rule 5(ii) and (vii) of 1982 Rules, aggrieved by the selection process were before the writ Court challenging the selection list.

5. The writ Court having found that the selection made is just opposite to the rules stated supra i.e., Rule 5(ii) and (vii) of 1982, Rules, extracting the same in paragraph No.7 held that the Appointing Authority shall prepare the selection list of the candidates eligible for

HC-KAR

appointment to the post of Process Server strictly on the basis of marks obtained in the interview in the order of merit. In the event two or more candidates secure equal marks in the interview, a candidate who is older in age shall be placed higher in the order of merit. Accordingly, having found merit in the writ petitions filed by the petitioners in WP.No.11730/2025, WP.No.27366/2025 and WP.No.27549/2025 allowed the petitions as per the conclusions arrived at paragraph Nos.10 and 11 which are as under: "10. In W.P. No. 11730/2025, the petitioner secured 7 marks in the interview, whereas the selected candidate, namely the private respondent, secured only 3 marks. Contrary to Rule 5(vii) of the 1982 Rules, the private respondent was appointed to the post of Process Server. Hence, the appointment order dated 15.02.2025 vide Annexure–G is liable to be quashed.

11. Insofar as W.P.Nos.27366/2025 and 27549/2025 are concerned, the petitioners and the selected candidates secured equal marks in the interview, i.e., 7 marks each and 8 marks each, respectively. As per Rule 5(vii) of the 1982 Rules, where two candidates secure equal marks, the candidate who is older in age must be placed higher in the order of merit. Since the petitioners in W.P.Nos.27366/2025 and 27549/2025 are older in age than the respective private respondents, the petitioners are entitled to be appointed in place of the private respondents. Hence, the appointment orders issued in favour of the private

HC-KAR

respondents vide Annexure–A in the said writ petitions are liable to be quashed."

7. The writ Court insofar as WP.No.29418/2024 is concerned in view of the order passed in WP.No.11730/2025 dismissed the said writ petition. Further, directed the respondent authorities to issue appointment orders in favour of the petitioners in WP.No.11730/2025, WP.No.27366/2025 and WP.No.27549/2025, if they are otherwise eligible in accordance with law.

8. However, at the request of the learned counsel appearing for private respondents who are appellants herein, on the premise that private respondents worked for 1½ years and they are not instrumental in their appointment would be deprived of employment and there cases may be considered, sympathetically. In that regard, the writ Court reserved liberty to the private respondents/appellants herein to approach the competent authority and work out their remedy, if any, available

HC-KAR

under the law. It is this common order passed by the writ Court is called in question in these batch of writ Appeals.

10. Heard Smt.Hiremath Prabhavathi Murtyunjaya, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri. M.N.Sudev Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri. Chandan Gowda Patil, learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.5.

11. The main contention of learned counsel for the appellants even as per their grounds in paragraph Nos.15 and 16 which reads are hereunder: "15. After verifying genuinity of qualifying examination marks card from the respective education department appointment order was issued by the Respondent No.3. Accordingly, the appellant has been working as a Process Server in the Chief Judge Small Causes Court at Bengaluru. If the order passed by the Single Judge in writ petition is executed she and her family members will be put to great hardship. There is no fault on the part of the Appellant.

16. It is submitted that, on the submission made by Counsel appearing for the present appellant in writ petition the Learned Single Judge has provided liberty to the present appellant to approach Competent Authority. That liberty would not help the appellant in getting relief of accommodation elsewhere as her appointing authority i.e., Respondent No.3 has no

HC-KAR

authority or power to accommodate appellant elsewhere. Therefore, interference by this appellate court is necessary. Therefore, appellant herein humbly request to consider this appeal on humanitarian ground and accommodate the Appellant in the vacant post available in the Chief Judge Small Causes Court at Bengaluru or City Civil Court, Bengaluru."

12. They are before this Court to consider their case on sympathy basis only on the premise that they were selected candidates and worked for 1½ years and for no fault of them now they are out of service and sought to allow the appeal.

13. Further, it was contented by the learned counsel for the appellants that there are seven vacant posts available as against the Process Server in City Civil Court and direction may be issued to accommodate them in the said post and sought to dispose of the appeals.

14. The learned counsel for the contesting respondent as well as the Government advocate argued in support of order passed by the writ Court.

HC-KAR

15. We after consideration of rival submissions are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the writ Court does not call for any interference as the same is strictly in accordance with the Rule especially Rule 5(ii) and 5(vii), 1982 Rules, no exception can be taken to the said order. The writ Court having considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant reserved liberty to work out their remedy before the competent authority.

16. Without commencing on the said liberty and saving the liberty, these writ appeals are dismissed as they sans merit.

Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE

Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17