“Lack Of Criteria Violates Articles 14, 16”: Karnataka High Court Directs State To Frame Rules For Appointments To Courts For Land Grabbing Cases

The Karnataka High Court recently directed the State government to frame, in three months, appropriate guidelines for selection and appointment of Chairperson and Members to the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Courts.

Justice Ashok S Kinagi, while allowing a petition filed by a former district judge, Devananda Puttappa Nayak said, "The impugned notice or advertisement issued by the respondents is without any procedure or guidelines for the selection in the case of multiple candidates applying for the same post. The State Government is interested with the powers to make rules regarding the appointment, it has not specified any procedure under which the selection is likely to be undertaken. The failure to prescribe any selection criteria or process is the dereliction of duty on the part of the State and results in the infringement of fundamental rights to an equal opportunity in public employment.”

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 the rank of Deputy Commissioner.

The petitioner had applied for the post of judicial member on August 08. It was argued that neither Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act nor the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court (Conditions of Service of the Chairman and Members) Rules, 2017 prescribe any selection procedure or criteria beyond these basic qualifications.

Thus, the 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 State government questioned the maintainability of the petition stating that in the light of clear statutory prescription under Section 7 of the 2011 Act, the absence of separate recruitment rules cannot be a valid ground to challenge the process, nor can it give rise to any apprehension of arbitrariness or lack of transparency.

Disagreeing, the High Court held that “The advertisements itself should specify the schedule of the requirement process and it should be published with certainty and clarity. The post of the advertisements should also specify the rules under which the selection is to be made and in the absence of the rules, common the procedure under which the selection is likely to be undertaken.”

Referring to Apex court judgment in Supreme Court Advocates on Record and Another v. Union of India (2015), it said, “In the present matter on hand the State has not specified the eligibility criteria of the members who are similarly qualified and who have qualified the minimum requirement qualification for the post of Judicial Member at Special Court, as provided under Section 7 of the Act of 2011.”

It added “There is an ambiguity in the selection procedure and thus the Public notice dated 16.07.2025 is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The said Act leaves the selection of the appointment commentary at the discretion of the appointing authority i.e., State, which is against the rule of law.”

Appearance: Senior Advocate P.S Rajagopal for Advocate Kashyap N Naik for Petitioner.

Advocate General K Shashikiran Shetty a/w AGA B P Radha for Respondents.

Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Vikram Huilgol.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 403

Case Title: DEVANAND PUTTAPPA NAYAK AND STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 26355 OF 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order