1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO.1216 OF 2024 BETWEEN SRI MASTER RKGMM MAHASWAMIJI DISTRICT JUDGE MEMBER AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 3rd FLOOR, MULTI STORIED BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. MASTER RKGMM MAHASWAMIJI, PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND 1 . THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE 01 2 . THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LAW AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS VIDANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560 01 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.S. NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, AG ALONG WITH SRI. MOHAMMED ZAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE OFFICE OF HON'BLE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE b) THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER 2 DATED 28.06.2024 (S-RES) AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY GRANTING THE RELEIFS PRAYED AT b) TO e) AT PRAYER COLUMN OF THE WP IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 09.10.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, RAJESH RAI K, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) This intra Court appeal is filed by the appellant-party-in- person challenging the order dated 28.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4719/2023, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. 2. The facts apposite for consideration as borne out from the pleadings are as under: The appellant was appointed as a District Judge through direct recruitment along with seven other candidates on 24.03.2008. He is presently serving as a Member, Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru. It is his case that he is the senior most District Judge having put in continuous service of more than 14 years. His grievance is for the expunction of observations made in the note dated 14.11.2013 and for functional promotion as District Judge (selection grade and 3 also super time scale). In terms of the Government Order dated 22.04.2006, he was only conferred with selection grade, however, super time scale was denied to him. 3. It is his further case that he submitted one more representation on 25.04.2019 seeking grant of super time scale. The Administrative Committee-I/Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) has called for 5 judgments of 5 years of the appellant and after considering the said judgments and the overall performance of the appellant, the Committee took a view that the appellant does not deserve to be granted functional promotion as a District Judge (super time scale) as the quality of the judgments of the appellant was poor and therefore, denied the restoration of his seniority in the grade of District Judge (super time scale). 4. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant submitted a representation dated 11.02.2021 seeking to expunge the view taken by the DPC. However, the said representation was considered and rejected on 08.03.2021. 5. The appellant thereafter submitted second representation on 15.05.2021, which was also rejected by the DPC on 15.06.2021. 4 6. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing a Miscellaneous Application in No.1088/2021 in W.P.(Civil) Diary No.11109/2020. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while disposing of said writ petition reserved the liberty to the appellant to approach the DPC for the relief of reconsideration of his case for functional promotion as District Judge (super time scale). 7. Pursuant to the same, the appellant submitted third representation dated 03.09.2021. The DPC again rejected the appellant’s representation on 23.11.2021 on the ground that no fresh grounds were made out. Thereafter, he submitted fourth representation on 15.12.2021 to review the resolution and expunge the view taken by the committee or to treat the said observation as advisory in nature and to grant justice. The committee passed a fourth resolution on 16.06.2022 by rejecting the representation on the ground that no reasons were assigned compelling the committee to review its earlier decisions. The appellant therefore submitted one more representation on 12.08.2022, which was also rejected vide resolution dated 22.11.2022. Again appellant's request submitted on 19.12.2022 seeking clarification was also dealt 5 with by the Committee, and the same was also rejected on 10.01.2023. 8. Being aggrieved by the endorsement issued by respondent No.1, the appellant has filed the writ petition questioning the original decision dated 22.10.2019 passed by the DPC and also sought quashing of subsequent resolutions dated 23.11.2021, 16.06.2022 and 22.11.2022. A mandamus was also sought in the said petition against respondent No.1 to grant benefit of financial upgradation i.e., super time scale promotion from selection grade promotion by assessing suitability/merit. 9. The learned Single Judge, after considering the grievance of the appellant elaborately, has dismissed the writ petition. Hence, challenging the said order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant is in this appeal. 10. We have heard Sri. Master RKGMM Mahaswamiji, the appellant/Party-in-Person, the learned Senior Counsel, Sri S.S. Naganand appearing for respondent No.1, and Sri Shashikiran Shetty, learned Advocate General for respondent No.2. 6 11. The primary contention of the appellant/Party-in- Person is that the denial of super time scale promotion to him is in violation of principles of natural justice and the DPC has failed to consider the Gazette Notification issued on 27.02.2006 and 23.03.2006 by the Secretary to Government, Law, Justice and Human Rights Department and also the law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of RAJAGOPALA GANGADHARA SAJEKAN Vs. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE & OTHERS - ILR 2001 KAR 29 in respect of grant of promotion as District Judge (super time scale). 12. He further contended that the DPC lacks competency in securing five extra judgments which were not part of relevant ACRs, and therefore, the five judgments, being legally inadmissible and against Karnataka Civil Service Rules, the resolution declining super time scale promotion to the appellant is one without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. He also contended that the promotion to the cadre of District Judge (super time scale) cannot only be made on seniority-cum-merit basis, but also the same should be based on aptitude for work and readiness to take up responsibility, conduct and dignity inside and outside the Court, reputation 7 regarding honesty, integrity and impartiality and general assessment of the work and conduct. 13. According to the appellant, though he has served in the judiciary with unblemished history for a period of 14 years, the DPC, without considering the other aspects, so also without securing other judgments, ought not to have drawn the conclusion that the quality of the judgments of the appellant was poor. In order to buttress his argument, he relied on the following judgments: 1. Dayaram Asanand Gurusahai Vs. State of Maharashtra - (1984) 3 SCC 36 2. Rajagopal Gangadhar Sajekhan Vs. The High Court of Karnataka - ILR 2001 KAR 29 3. All India Judges Association Vs. Union of India & Others - AIR 2002 SC 1752 14. Per contra, Sri S.S.Naganand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 contended that the original DPC proceedings dated 06.11.2019 were challenged by the appellant before the Hon'ble Apex Court in WP(C) Dairy No.11109/2020 seeking similar relief claimed in the writ petition and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not inclined to grant any relief to the appellant. Despite the appellant had 8 approached the learned Single Judge without any changed circumstances. 15. He further contended that respondent No.1 in terms of the guidelines laid down in the case of All India Judges Association cited supra and also in terms of recommendation made by the First National Judicial Pay Commission (FNJPC) resolved to call for five untested judgments to decide the merit of the appellant while considering his case for grant of super- time pay scale in the cadre of the District Judge. After due assessment of judgments submitted, the DPC has opined that the quality of the judgments of the appellant was poor. Hence, the primary aspect for promotion as District Judge (super time scale) was dealt with both on merits and seniority, wherein the case of the appellant has not passed the test of merit. As such, the Full Court has rightly passed the resolution dated 06.11.2019 accepting the recommendation made by the DPC on 22.10.2019, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In such circumstances, there is no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 9 16. Sri Shashikiran Shetty, learned Advocate General by reiterating the contentions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the selection process for the District Judge (super time scale) is fundamentally rooted in the principle of "merit-cum-seniority". As such, after evaluating the five judgments of the appellant, the DPC came to the conclusion that the quality of judgments of the appellant was poor and that the test of merit-cum-seniority has not been passed by the appellant. He also contended that the merit of the Judge has to be evaluated primarily through his judgments and command on the law. The appellant being not qualified on that ground, the DPC has rightly rejected his case. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 17. We have carefully considered the contentions of the respective parties and perused the records produced before us, so also the order of the learned Single Judge. 18. Before dwelling into the merits of the case, it is relevant to extract the minutes of the meeting held by the DPC on 22.10.2019: EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE 1 HELD AT 5.15 PM., ON TUESDAY, THE OCTOBER 22, 10 2019, IN THE CONFERENCE HALL OF THE PRINCIPAL BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT AT BENGALURU XXX XXX Item No.1 To consider the representation of Sri Master RKOMM Mahaswamiji, presently working as Pri District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, for granting him functional promotion as District Judge (Super Time Scalel and also for restoration of his semority and letter dated 31:08.2019 of the Deputy Registrar, Supreme Court of India along with representation dated 07.07.2019 requesting for grant of Super Time Scale promotion and etc RESOLUTION The Committee considered the case of Sri Master RKGMM Mahaswamiji, presently working as Principal District and Sessions Judge Shivamogga, for granting him functional promotion as District Judge (Super Time Scalej The Committee also considered the 11 grievance made by him in his representation regarding the failure to grant him functional promotion as District Judge (Super Time Scale). Administrative Committee-I in its meeting held on February 21, 2019 resolved to grant Functional Promotion to the Judicial Officer as a District Judge (Selection Grade) on and from February 25, 2013 ie., the date of eligibility and his seniority was restored accordingly. This resolution was approved by the Full Court on April 17, 2019. Administrative Committee 1 in its meeting held on June 11, 2019 resolved to direct the Registry to place all the records including judgments and ACRs of the Judicial Officer for considering his case for grant of Functional Promotion as District Judge (Super Time Scalej It was resolved that in view of Government Order dated April 22, 2016 and the recommendation of First 12 National Judicial Pay Commission (FNJPC), accepted by Apex Court, cases of District Judges for conferring Selection Grade and Super Time Scale will have to be considered on the basis of merit-cum- seniority' and as such, the subject was resolved to be placed in next meeting of Administrative Committee-I for consideration. Administrative Committee I in its meeting held on July 18, 2019 had perused the GO dated April 22, 2006 and recommendations of FNJPC accepted by the Apex Court in the matter of ALL INDIA JUDGES' ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS US UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in 2002 (3) KAR.L.J. 26 (SC), whereunder it has been observed that "... Subject to the various modifications in this judgment, all other recommendations of the Shetty Commission are accepted..." and as such resolved that for conferting Selection Grade and Super Time Scale assessment- will-be on 'merit-cum-seniority. 13 In the light of above order, Administrative Committee-1 in its meeting held on July 18, 2019 directed the Registry to place copies of the judgments of said Judicial Officer, his ACRs and other service records for the consideration of the Committee. In the meeting of Administrative Committee-1 held on August 6, 2019, it was noted that only four judgments had been called for. It was resolved that one more judgment should be called for and thereafter the subject be placed the committee for before consideration. It was further resolved to get the first judgment of the year 2017 in a criminal case delivered by the said Judicial Officer by downloading the same from the National Judicial Data Grid. In the meeting held on September 5, 2019, Administrative Committee-I resolved to postpone consideration of the subject, as some of the 14 members had expressed the view that time was needed to go through the judgments. The Committee was of the view that as 'merit-cum- seniority' is the criterion, Selection Grade and Super Time Scale promotions cannot be granted only upon considering remarks made in ACRs, Vigilance Statement and Disposal Statement of the eligible officers. For considering merits, appraisal of judicial performance is also necessary which be made only after considering the quality of judgments of the eligible Judicial Officer. The Committee perused the entire service record of the Judicial Officer and the live judgments delivered by him. The Members of the Committee were of the view that the quality of his judgments was poor, After making appraisal of judicial performance of the said Judicial Officer and after considering his overall performance, the Committee 15 was of the view that the Judicial Officer does not deserve to be granted functional promotion as a District Judge (Super-time Scale). Hence, question restoration of his seniority in the grade of District Judge (Super-time Scale) does not arise. The attention of the Committee was also invited to the representation made by the said Judicial Officer to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India on July 7, 2019. In the said representation, one of the grievances made by the Judicial Officer is that the procedure for calling for judgments and assessment of the judgments of the District Judges who are in the zone of consideration for grant of functional promotion as a District Judge (Super-time Scale) was never followed and only in his case that the judgments were called for appraisal. The Committee was of the opinion that the functional 16 promotion must be considered on merit-cum-seniority basis in view of the reasons already recorded. The performance and merit of a Judicial Officer cannot be assessed without considering the quality of the judgments rendered by him/her. Therefore, the Committee was of the view that there is no merit in the contention of Sri Master RKGMM Mahaswamiji that while considering his case for grant of functional promotion, the judgments rendered by him should not be looked into. The other grievance in the representation regarding the failure to consider his case for elevation does not arise at all. 19. As could be gathered from the above, the DPC has perused the entire service record of the appellant and five judgments delivered by him and thereafter, the DPC opined that the quality of the judgments of the appellant was poor. The said finding of the DPC was based on the legal reasoning, adjudicative skill and overall judicial competence met with high standards expected at the super time scale level. 17 20. The contention of the appellant that the Committee ought to have relied solely on the Annual Confidential Reports (ACR) cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the ACR is also recorded on the basis of the quality of judgment of a Judicial Officer including other aspects. Nonetheless, the resolution of the DPC was affirmed by the Full Court of the High Court. The Committee's minutes reflects that the performance of the appellant was evaluated, as per the relevant guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of All India Judges Association cited supra as well as the report of the FNJPC. 21. It is also equally important to note that the challenge made by the appellant with regard to the resolution of the DPC before the Supreme Court was dismissed, and so also the review petition. Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted liberty to the appellant in the aforesaid Miscellaneous Application to approach the Committee for reconsideration of his case for functional promotion, as rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1, the appellant failed to urge changed or compelling circumstance to reconsider his claim for functional promotion as District Judge (super time scale). 18 22. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has exhaustively discussed the aforesaid aspects and held that there was no compelling ground for interference with the resolution of the DPC recommending denial of functional promotion to the appellant as District Judge (super time scale). We find no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is our view that evaluating the judges' performance should be primarily through their judgments i.e., the methodology applied, command of law and the language. The overall judicial competence with high standards is expected from the District Judge for his/her promotion to the super time scale and the ACRs of a Judicial Officer are also primarily based on the evaluation of the judgments of the officers. The said fundamental principle cannot be deviated. The quality of the judgment is a central component for evaluating the career of a Judicial Officer apart from other factors. The evaluation is a complex and highly confidential process that combines a judicial demeanor with administrative skill of a Judicial Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, time and again have held that maintaining and enhancing the quality at the bottom of the judicial system would strengthen the faith of the public in general in the 19 judiciary. The judgment of a judge itself assesses his knowledge and intellectual ability apart from other aspects. The guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges Association cited supra and so also the report of FNJPC specifically dealt with these aspects. In the instant case, since the DPC based on such evaluation, had assessed the quality of the judgments of the appellant as "poor", it is certainly a factor to the Committee not to recommend the appellant for functional promotion as District Judge (super time scale). Further, granting of super time scale promotion to the District Judge is rooted on fundamental principle i.e., the merit-cum-seniority and the said aspect had been correctly dealt with by the DPC and has rightly been appreciated by the learned Single Judge. As such, we find no good grounds to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. SD/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS