Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 under Section 7 establishes the Special Court, with a chairman, two judicial members, and two revenue members. The Act only prescribes minimum qualifications. The chairman must be a sitting or retired High Court Judge, the judicial member must be a sitting or retired District Judge, and the revenue members must hold or have held a post not below NC: 2025:KHC:47427 HC-KAR the rank of Deputy Commissioner. Neither Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act nor the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court (Conditions of Service of the Chairman and Members) Rules, 2017 prescribes any selection procedure or criteria beyond these basic qualifications. It is contented that complete absence of a selection procedure or criteria renders the entire process arbitrary, unfair and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The lack of transparency in selection and appointment to a judicial post undermines the rule of law. And is contrary to the settled principles established by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the High Court of Karnataka. Hence, the petition is filed seeking direction to the respondents to frame the appropriate regulations or guidelines for selection and appointment to the post in the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Courts.

6. Heard Sri.P.S. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Sashi Kiran Shetty, learned Advocate General for the State.

7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submit that Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India guarantee equality before law and equality of opportunity in public employment. This constitutional NC: 2025:KHC:47427 HC-KAR provision serves as the foundation for ensuring the appointment to the public offices are made in a fair, transparent, and non-arbitrary manner. It is submitted that the Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that the process of selection in making appointments to the public posts must comport with the principles of reasonableness under Article 14 and equality in public employment under Article 16. It is submitted that the selection process is inherently unfair, lacks transparency and ex-facie arbitrary. He also submits that the Government of Karnataka has completely failed to prescribe any selection process or qualification criteria to determine the appointment should be based on merits as required by law. To buttress his argument, he has placed a reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Renu and others v. District and Session Judge, Tishazri and another, reported in (2014) 2 S.C.R. 537, and State of A.P v. State of

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:47427 HC-KAR also submitted that complete failure to prescribe any selection criteria or process in complete abdication of duty of the State and leaves the selection/appointment entirely at the discretion of the appointing authority. He also submits that the Act prescribes the appointment for the post of chairman, shall be made after the consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court, no such consultation is even required for appointment as a judicial member. There are neither any safeguards or any transparency in the selection nor appointment, to the post of judicial member, thus rendering the entire selection process arbitrary. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.