- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5259 WP No. 103680 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 103680 OF 2018 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. JOOCHINI VANISHRI W/O ULLI VIRUPAKSHI AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: NEAR UJJINI SCHOOL, NEAR BHOVI COLONY, TQ: HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, DIST: BALLARI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINAND A PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI, TALUK AND DIST: BALLARI. 2. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-01. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, TALUK AND DIST: BAGALKOT. 4. THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5259 WP No. 103680 of 2018 HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT A-3/132, GROUND FLOOR, SECTOR-07, ROHINI, NEW DELHI-110085. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.A.SUBRAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3; VIDE ORDER DATED 23.09.2021, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER BEARING NO.09/2017/ADM DATED 17.01.2018 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY REINSTATE THE PETITIONER TO HER POST OF THE PROCESS SERVER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an office order bearing No.09/2017/ADM dated 17.01.2018 passed by respondent No.1 discharging her from service. 2. The petitioner had applied for the post of Process Server and was selected. She was also issued with an order of appointment and she reported to duty. The respondent No.1 sought a report from the respondent No.3 whether 10th examination conducted by respondent No.4 is equivalent to SSLC examination conducted by the Karnataka School Examination and Assessment Board (henceforth referred to as - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5259 WP No. 103680 of 2018 'State Board'). The respondent No.3 forwarded the same to the respondent No.2 for its opinion and in reply, respondent No.2 informed the respondent No.3 that both of them were not equivalent. On the basis of the same, respondent No.1 passed the impugned office order discharging the petitioner from service for not possessing the minimum qualification prescribed. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when an order of discharge is passed under Rule 6 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977, it has to be approved by the next higher authority. He contends that in so far as the petitioner is concerned, the next higher authority is the Administrative Judge of the High Court and therefore, that had to be placed for approval before the Administrative Judge. He further contends that the petitioner had worked for a period of four months and that she was not paid the salary for the four months. He also contends that the petitioner is now aged more than 38 years and therefore, there is no possibility of she being employed under the State. Hence, he prays that the case of the petitioner may be considered sympathetically in the light of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5259 WP No. 103680 of 2018 fact that the very same certificate is considered as equivalent by the State Government for providing appointment in other departments. 4. The writ petition is opposed by the respondent No.1, who has filed statement of objections contending inter alia that the candidates were required to possess SSLC qualification or equivalent qualification and that the petitioner had submitted a certificate issued by the National Institute of Research and Development Council, New Delhi and claimed that the same was equivalent to SSLC examination conducted by the State Board. Based on the said certificate, she was selected and thereafter, a communication was addressed for verification whether the qualification of the petitioner was equivalent to SSLC. It is stated that since the respondent No.3 had specifically indicated that the qualification possessed by the petitioner was not equivalent to SSLC, the respondent No.1 was compelled to pass the impugned office order in view of Rule 2(1)(h) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977, which defined "equivalent qualification" as "qualification notified by the Government to be equivalent to a - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5259 WP No. 103680 of 2018 qualification prescribed in respect of any post in the Rules regulating recruitment to any State Civil Service." 5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 reiterated the above contentions and submitted that when the petitioner did not possess prescribed qualification, the impugned office order passed by the respondent No.1 is just and proper. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 7. The petitioner was selected on the basis of her representation that the qualification that she possessed was equivalent to a pass in SSLC examination that was prescribed. The respondent No.1 has taken out steps to secure information whether the qualification possessed by the petitioner was equivalent to SSLC examination prescribed. The respondent No.3 has indicated categorically that the qualification of the petitioner was not equivalent to that of SSLC. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1. This Court cannot don the role of an - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5259 WP No. 103680 of 2018 adjudicator to adjudicate whether both the qualifications are equivalent or not. In so far as the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that when an employee is discharged under Rule 6 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977, it has to be placed for approval before the higher authority, in the instant case, it was the Principal District Judge who was the appointing authority and therefore, discharge of the petitioner was not required to be placed before the higher authority and when there is no one higher than the Principal District Judge in the District Courts. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 is just and proper and does not warrant any interference. 8. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. 9. However, if the salary payable to the petitioner is not paid, the respondents shall take immediate steps to pay salary, which shall at any rate, be not beyond a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR