RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) IN these seven writ petitions, the petitioners, who were the applicants for selection for appointment as Second division Clerks on the establishment of this Court, have questioned the legality of the selection and appointment of respondents nos. 2 to 384. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are as follow : Recruitment to the various posts on the establishment of the High court of Karnataka is regulated by Rules called the High Court of Karnataka (Conditions of Service and Recruitment)Rules, 1973, framed under Article 229 of the Constitution of India. Rule 7 of the rules and relevant part of Schedule III to the rules read : "rule 7. Method of Recruitment : Recruitment to a post or class of posts shall be made by the Chief Justice as enumerated in Schedule III to these rules. Provided the Chief Justice shall have powers to amend the method of recruitment from time to time by a general or special order. SCHEDULE III (Rule 7) SI. No Cadre Method of Recruitment 19. II Division Clerks (i) 90% by Direct Recruitment (after calling for applications and by interview) (Minimum qualification S. S. L. C.) (ii) 10% by promotion by selection of Class IV servants possessing the minimum qualification above prescribed and who have put in not less than five years of service. By notification dated 29-5-1978, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-A, applications were invited, inter alia, for the posts of about 40 Second Division clerks on the establishment of this Court. The relevant portion of the advertisement reads :"h. C. E. No. 300/1978 Recruitment of candidates for the posts of about 40 II division Clerks and 25 Typists-Copyists in the office of the High Court of Karnataka, bangalore (to fill up the existing vacancies and for inclusion in the waiting list ). Candidates seeking employment as II division Clerks, Typists and Typist-Copyists in Grade Rs. 300-10-340-15-400-20-500-25-600 extn. 20-700 and special Pay admissible to the posts of typists and Typist Copyist may submit their application to the undersigned along with attested copies of the following certificates (not returnable) on or before 30th June 1978. The candidates who intend to apply for the posts of II division Clerks as well as Typists copyists shall submit their applications separately for each category of post. The candidates who intend to apply for the posts of II division Clerks as well as Typists copyists shall submit their applications separately for each category of post. Qualification : a) A pass in S. S. L. C. or any equivalent examination for the post of II Division clerks. b) A pass in S. S. L. C. or equivalent examination and Senior Typewriting in english conducted by the Department of Public Instruction or equivalent examination for the post of Typists and typist-Copyists. "the petitioners, all of whom possessed the minimum qualification prescribed for the post, namely, S. S L. C. and who were eligible according to the rules and the conditions of eligibility set out in the advertisement, submitted their applications pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement. As stated by the petitioners in the writ petitions, no steps were taken to decide the number of persons to be interviewed and no list was prepared containing the names of persons sought to be interviewed. They have further stated that it was only some time in July 1983 they came to know that several persons had been appointed and the entire matter of appointment had been done secretly and in such manner that it would not come to the notice of other candidates. Immediately thereafter on 25-7-1983 one of the petitioners got addressed a letter from his counsel to the Registrar, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-B to the petition. In the said letter, it was stated that the said petitioner came to know that appointments had already been made and that his attempt to secure information from the office of the High court had been unsuccessful. In the letter, the Registrar was called upon to furnish the details about the appointments. The petitioners have stated that no reply was given to the said communication and therefore they presented W. P. Nos. 386 and 387 of 1984 on 1-9-1983. ( 3 ) WHEN the petitions came up before the Court on 5-9-1983, in view of the allegations made in the petitions, the advocate General was directed to take notice for the first respondent Thereafter, two objections were raised for the maintainability of the petitions. 386 and 387 of 1984 on 1-9-1983. ( 3 ) WHEN the petitions came up before the Court on 5-9-1983, in view of the allegations made in the petitions, the advocate General was directed to take notice for the first respondent Thereafter, two objections were raised for the maintainability of the petitions. They were : (i) the High Court of Karnataka, by its registrar should have been impleaded as respondent No. 1 and not the Chief justice; and (ii) the selected candidates had not been impleaded as respondents and therefore the petitions were bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties. The matter was posted for Orders before the court on 14-12-1983 and on that day, as far as the objection for the registration of the petitions was concerned, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in produt Kumar v Chief Justice, Calcutta high Court ( AIR 1956 SC 285 ) the office was directed to register the writ petitions. As regards the objection that appointed candidates had not been impleaded as respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioners pleaded that as no information regarding the names of persons selected and appointed was furnished inspite of asking for it vide Annexure-B, the petitioners were not in a position to implead the candidates appointed. On this aspect, a letter had been addressed on 24-11-1983 by the Registrar to the Advocate General. The relevant portion of that letter reads :"sir, sub:-W. P. No. . . . . . . . . . . . . /83 on the file of the High Court~c. Dharma-pala and another v. Chief justice. With reference to your letter No. 361 / agp/83-84 dated 16-11-1983 on the above subject, I am directed to state that the list of II Division Clerks appointed and working in the High Court office is not readily available and the same will have to be prepared with reference to the records available in this office. It requires time. I am therefore to request you kindly to move the Court and obtain one month's time to enable this office to give the required particulars. Yours faithfully, sd/- (M. B. Vishwanath)Additional Registrar. "in view of the above letter, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that a list of candidates appointed would be supplied to the petitioners by the 1st week of January 1984. On that day, the following order was made :"2. Yours faithfully, sd/- (M. B. Vishwanath)Additional Registrar. "in view of the above letter, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that a list of candidates appointed would be supplied to the petitioners by the 1st week of January 1984. On that day, the following order was made :"2. As regards the objection raised in the statement of objections to the effect that the petitioner has not impleaded necessary parties to the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the list of candidates selected and/or appointed has not been published and the information though sought for has also not been furnished till now, he has not been able to implead them as parties. 3. Sri S. V. Narasimhan, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the list of candidates appointed will be supplied to the petitioners' counsel by the first week of January 1984. The submission made is recorded. Post the petition for preliminary hearing in the 2nd week of January 1984. "thereafter, names of 55 persons were furnished stating that they were the persons selected and appointed pursuant to the advertisement. Thereafter, the petitioners impleaded the said 55 persons as respondents to the writ petitions. Thereafter, the other five writ petition Nos. 4695 to 4699 of 1984 were filed by five other applicants impleading the said 55 persons as respondents to the writ petitions. After the notices were served, rule nisi was issued and the petitions were referred to Division Bench under Section 9 of the Karnataka High Court Act and then only the matter has been posted before us for hearing ( 4 ) ON the 16th July 1987 when the matter came up for further hearing, as several particulars had not been furnished in the statement of objection, we called for certain particulars. The relevant portion of the order reads :"after hearing the cases for some time, we consider it necessary to call upon the first respondent to furnish the following documents and/or information. (1) Date of appointment of each of th respondents (Respondents 2 to 56) and also copies of the orders of appointments ; (2) Total amount received by way of Treasury Challan at the rate of Rs. 2 00 per application or Rs. (1) Date of appointment of each of th respondents (Respondents 2 to 56) and also copies of the orders of appointments ; (2) Total amount received by way of Treasury Challan at the rate of Rs. 2 00 per application or Rs. 1-00 per application in the case of applicants belonging to Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes, according to the accounts maintained in the Accounts section and the number of applications received calculated on that basis. (3) The order dated 11-1 -1983 pursuant to which the records relating to the recruitment concerned in this case is stated to have been destroyed ; (4) Criteria adopted for calling the candidates to the interview ; (5) How many persons were called for interview and the list of persons called for interview ; (6) Marks secured by the selected candidates, that is, respondents 2 to 56 in the qualifying examination, that is, SSLC, and (7) Copy of the list of selected candidates and the date on which it was published and how it was published. Prepare a carbon copy of this order and furnish the same to the learned high Court Government Pleader. Call these matters on 30-7-1987 at 2. 30 p m. "the reason for which we asked the particular regarding the total amount received by way of treasury challan along with the application was to find out as to how many applications had been received, as the Additional Registrar had stated in the statement of objections filed on behalf of the 1st respondent that more than one lakh applications had been received and the learned Counsel for the petitioners disputed the correctness of the figure and it also appeared to us, to be abnormally high. Accordingly, when on 24th August 1987 the matter came up for further hearing, an affidavit was filed by the Additional registrar on behalf of the first respondent. It reads :"1. In answer to point No. 1. (This hon'ble Court was pleased to direct to furnish the information with regard to the date of appointment of each of respondents i. e. respondents 2 to 56, and also the copies of the orders of their appointments ). I am herewith enclosing the list consisting the date of appointment of respondents 2 to 56 and also the copies of the orders of their appointment. 2. I am herewith enclosing the list consisting the date of appointment of respondents 2 to 56 and also the copies of the orders of their appointment. 2. In answer to point No. 2 (Total amount received by way of treasury challan at the rate of Rs. 2-00 per application or Rs. 1/- per application in the case of applicants belonging to scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe candidates according to the accounts maintained in the accounts section and the number of applications received calculated on that basis) :-I respectfully submit that the applicants were directed to remit the application fee directly in the Reserve Bank/ treasuries and to enclose the requisite challan to the application. While scrutinising the applications a check was made whether the requisite fee has been credited to the Bank. Such of those applications found wanting in this behalf were not considered at all, but no separate account was maintained. i further respectfully submit that the accounts section has not maintained separate accounts with regard to the fee collected on each application ; since the application fee was directly remitted to the treasury and the challans produced and as such this office is not in a position to furnish the information with regard to the total amount received by way of application fee. 3. In answer to point No. 3: (i. e. The order dated 12-1-1983 pursuant to which records relating to the recruitment concerned in this case are stated to have been destroyed) : i respectfully submit that on 11-1-83 the office put up the following note : "all the Civil and Criminal cases disposed off in the year 1977 (Part B files)have been enlisted in the destruction register which are ripe for destruction. For kind orders whether the old paper books and B part of the files may be declared as surplus and unwanted and a notice under Rule 69 of Civil Rules of practice and Circular orders may be published in the Karnataka Gazette and also be affixed on the notice board of the High Court office. For kind orders. . . . "i respectfully submit that the Hon'ble chief Justice had passed an order on 12-1-83 approving the same. I understand in obedience to the orders dated 12-1-83 the photostat copy of which is herewith produced, all the records relating to the recruitment were destroyed. 4. For kind orders. . . . "i respectfully submit that the Hon'ble chief Justice had passed an order on 12-1-83 approving the same. I understand in obedience to the orders dated 12-1-83 the photostat copy of which is herewith produced, all the records relating to the recruitment were destroyed. 4. In answer to point No. 4 viz (Criteria adopted for calling the candidates to the interview) I am stating the following facts : -More than one lakh of applications were received and on a consideration of all the relevant particulars furnished in the applications of all the candidates, the first respondent selected a reasonable number of candidates for interview on the basis of their relative merits. A reasonable number of most meritorious candidates were interviewed and selected to avoid unnecessary waste of time. ( 5 ) IN answer to point No. 5 viz (how many persons were called for interview)I am stating the following reply : -I am herewith furnishing the statement showing the number of candidates interviewed and the number of candidates selected for the post to the second Division Clerks along with respondents 2 to 56. ( 6 ) THE next point of information required by this Hon'ble Court is: -marks secured by the selected candidates that is, respondents 2 to 56 in the qualifying examination, that is, sslc ). In the list already furnished the marks obtained by selected candidates who had furnished their SSLC marks card are indicated ( 7 ) THE next point of information is regarding "copy of the list of selected candidates and the date on which it was published and how it was published. . . . ", i respectfully submit that no list of selected candidates was prepared and published. " in the statement annexed to the said affidavit, following information was furnished : "statement showing the number of candidates called for interviewed and the number of candidates selected for the post of Second Division Clerks along with respondents 2 to 56 pursuant to notification No. HCE. 300/78. SI. Names of candidates Names of candidates Remarks No. called for interview selected as and Date S. D. C. 1 2 3 1. S. B. Karaning 1. S. B. Karaning The candidates at SI. Nos. 2. C. Chindanandappa 1 to 20 belong to Scheduled 4 3. S. K. Lingaraju 6. K. Chikkanna 2. K. Chikkanna 5. K. G. Vandale 7. Chikabyraiah Caste. 4. S. B. Karaning 1. S. B. Karaning The candidates at SI. Nos. 2. C. Chindanandappa 1 to 20 belong to Scheduled 4 3. S. K. Lingaraju 6. K. Chikkanna 2. K. Chikkanna 5. K. G. Vandale 7. Chikabyraiah Caste. 4. G. Govindaiah 9. Samagar Janappa Appanna 3. Samagar Janappa Appanna 8. Rangappa Balappa Talwar 10. H. Gangappa 4. H. Gangappa 11. Venkataramaiah 12. B. K. Bevinagidad 5. B. K. Bevinagidad 13. S. Nanjundaswamy 14. Balakrishna Nagappa Ganadal 15. R. Mahadevaiah 16. K. Murthy 17. N Kasturi 18. B. Umesh 19. S. Lalitha 20. R. Prabhakar 21. S. Jayadevappa The candidates at SI. Nos. 22. K. Nanjaiah 23. Bagodi Yamanappa Durgappa 21 to 29 belong to Scheduled Tribes 24. Pujar Devendrappa Ramachandrappa 6. Pujar Devendrappa Ramachandrappa 25. K. Ramu 26. B. R. Shanthamma 27. C B. Guttedar 28. Ugrappa 29. Gujjal Sharnappa Balavantappa 30. Amjad Pasha 7. Amjad Pasha The candidates at SI. Nos. 31. Mareppa 30 to 37 are 32 T Venkatachalaiah 8. T. Venkatachaliah Law Graduates The candidates at SI. Nos. 33 Y. M Raghunandan 34 Mallayya 9. Mallayya 1 to 37 were interviewed 35 B Rudrappa 10. Rudrappa on 7-1-79. 36. K C. Ravindra 37. Dattatreya 11. Dattatreya 38. B. N. Ugraiah 12. B. N. Ugraiah Physically handicapped 39. Yellappa Rudrappa 13. Yellappa Rudrappa interviewed & appointed Kenchankkanavar Kenchankkanavar on 9-1-79. 40. 14. Alakunte Ravindra Alakunte Ravindra Annappa Annappa The candidates 41. Mukund Bijjurao Kalal 15. Mukund Bijjurao Kalal interviewed along with 42. P. Narayanappa 16. P. Narayanappa candidates at SI. Nos. 39 to 42 information not available. 43. K. M. Nanjappa 17. K. M. Nanjappa The information regarding 44. T. S. Basavaraju 18. T. S. Basavaraju the candidates interviewed 45. H. N. Prabhu 19. H. N. Prabhu along with the 46. M. Govindappa 20. M. Govindappa selected candidates at 47. R. Chandrasekharaiah 21. R. Chandrashekaraiah SI. Nos. 43 to 48 not 48. K. N. Basavaiah 22. K. N. Basavaiah available. 49. H. N. Chandrasekharaiah 23. H. N. Chandrasekharaiah Interviewed on 12-3-79 50. G. Shivalingaiah 24. G. Shivalingaiah the information regarding 51. B. R. Shivaramiah 25. B. R. Shivaramaiah the candidates 52. C. G. Ramachandraiah 26. C. G. Ramachandraiah interviewed along with the candidates at SI. Nos. 50 to 52 not available. 53. N. Savandaiah 27. N. Savandaiah (Interviewed and 54. B. N. Sonnappa Reddy 28. B. N. Sonnappa Reddy appointed on 20-6-79. 55. G. Gurappa 29. B. R. Shivaramiah 25. B. R. Shivaramaiah the candidates 52. C. G. Ramachandraiah 26. C. G. Ramachandraiah interviewed along with the candidates at SI. Nos. 50 to 52 not available. 53. N. Savandaiah 27. N. Savandaiah (Interviewed and 54. B. N. Sonnappa Reddy 28. B. N. Sonnappa Reddy appointed on 20-6-79. 55. G. Gurappa 29. G. Gurappa The candidates at 56. Madar Chandrappa Sl. Nos. 55 to 60 Udachappa 57. N. M. Karadigudda 30. N. M. Karadigudda and the candidates were called for interview 58. Basappa Lakshmappa 31. Basappa Lakshmappa at SI. Nos. 55, 57 were Karachannavar 59. Sanjivappanavar Karachannavar appointed on 7-7-79 and SI. No. 58 was interviewed Ramappa Hanamantappa 60. N. Ninge Reddy 61. Nayak Dundappa 32. Nayak Dundappa Interviewed and and appointed on Durgappa Durgappa appointed on 16-7-79. 62. M. Shivalingaiah 33. M. Shivalingaiah Interviewed and appointed on 23-7-79. 16-7-79. 63. A. N. Vijayalakshmi 34. A. N. Vijayalakshmi Interviewed on 1-8 79 and appointed on 7-8-79. 64. Kore Basanna 35. Kore Basanna Interviewed and 65. B. K. Puttamadaiah 36. B. K. Puttamadaiah Interviewed on 24-10-79 & appointed on 25-10-79. appointed on 23-8-79 66. Malage Babu 37. Malage Babu Interviewed and appointed on 30-11-79. 67. Ramachandrappa 38. Ramachandrappa Interviewed on 26-2-80 & appointed on the same day. 68. Sharadamma 39. Sharadamma Interviewed and appointed on 7-7-80. 69. Jagadeesh Hiremath 40. Jagadeesh Hiremath Appointed on 18-7-80. 70. A. Nagarajappa 41. A. Nagarajappa Interviewed and appointed on 29 9-80. 71. Annarao Siddappa 42. Annarao Siddappa Bhupale Bhupale 72. Nazir Ahmed Khan 43. Nazir Ahmed Khan lnterviewed and 73. B. Venkatesh 44. B. Venkatesh appointed on 74. B. R. Shanthamma 45. B. R. Shanthamma 10 11-80. 75. Bheemaray Basappa 46. Bheemaray Basappa Meelanayak Neelanayak 76. B. Thulasi Suvasini 47. B. Thulasi Suvasini Interviewed and appointed on 27-11-80. 77. R. S. Kshreesagar 48. R. S. Kshreesagar Interviewed on 20-11-80 appointed on 29-1-81. 78. M. Marudappa 49. M. Marudappa Interviewed and appointed on 10-2-81. 79. Venkatesh 50. Venkatesh Interviewed and appointed on 18-5-81. 80. Veerathimmaiah 51. Veerathimmaiah Interviewed on 24-7-81 and appointed on 4-8-81. 81. Muniyappa 52. Muniyappa Interviewed and 82. P. L Ramanna 53. P. L. Ramanna Interviewed and appointed on 5-1-82 appointed on 31-12-81 83 S. Rajagopalan 54. S. Rajagopalan Interviewed and 84. Nanjundaiah 55. Nanjundaiah appointed on 16-2-82 85. M. N. Doddasiddegowda 56. M. N. Dodda siddegowda Interviewed and 86. P. S. Krishnamurthy 57. 81. Muniyappa 52. Muniyappa Interviewed and 82. P. L Ramanna 53. P. L. Ramanna Interviewed and appointed on 5-1-82 appointed on 31-12-81 83 S. Rajagopalan 54. S. Rajagopalan Interviewed and 84. Nanjundaiah 55. Nanjundaiah appointed on 16-2-82 85. M. N. Doddasiddegowda 56. M. N. Dodda siddegowda Interviewed and 86. P. S. Krishnamurthy 57. P. S. Krishnamurthy appointed on 14-12-1981 87. B. S. Dakshinamurthy 58. B. S. Dakshinamurthy 88. Ashgar Ulla Shareef 59. Ashgar Ulla Shareef Interviewed and 89. R. N. Kulkarni 60. R. N. Kulkarni Interviewed and appointed on 15-12-81 appointed on 8-2-1982 90 M. Nagaraja 61. M. Nagaraja 91 A. Kenchappa 62. A. Kenchappa 92 S. M. Savle 63. S. M. Savle Interviewed and appointed on 11-1-82 93 K. S. Lingaraju 64. K. S. Lingaraju Interviewed and appointed on 13-1-82 94 M. S. Kallappa 65. M. S. Kallappa Interviewed and appointed on 15-12-81 95 R. H. Nayakar 66. R. H. Nayakar Interviewed and 96. Y. Shivappa Jotrannavar 67. Y. Shivappa appointed on 1-1-82 Jotrannavar 97. Nagabhushana 68. Nagabhushana 98. M. H. Ramaiah 69. M. H. Ramaiah Interviewed and 99. Narasimhamurthy 70. Narasimhamurty appointed on 24-9-82 100 N. Lakshminarasimhaiah 71. N. Lakshminarasimhaiah 101. Angisi Giriyappa 72. Angisi Giriyappa Interviewed and appointed on 23-6-79 102. N. Jayappa 73. N. Jayappa Interviewed and 103. Narasimhaiah 74. Narasimhaiah appointed on 22-9-82 The information so furnished disclosed that as many as 75 personswereappointed, though the information furnished to the petitioner as directed earlier, was that only 55 persons were appointed and accordingly they had been impleaded. When we asked the learned counsel for the first respondent to clarify as to how the particulars furnished disclosed more appointments than 55, the learned Advo-cate General appearing for the 1st respon-dent submitted that out of 75 persons, only 55 were working in the High Court and that 20 persons were those who had been transferred to sub-ordinate courts after their appointment pursuant to the advertisement-Annexure-A. Some of the counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitions were bad for non-joinder of those 20 persons as respondents to the petitions. Then we asked the learned Advocate General as to whether the list of 75 persons furnished was full and complete. He submitted that there were still large number of persons who had been appointed on the establishment of the High Court and who had been transferred to subordinate courts. Then we asked the learned Advocate General as to whether the list of 75 persons furnished was full and complete. He submitted that there were still large number of persons who had been appointed on the establishment of the High Court and who had been transferred to subordinate courts. In view of this submission, on 24-8-1987 we made a further order for furnishing further particulars. Relevant portion of the order reads :"for the aforesaid reasons, we issue the following directions to the first respondent : (i) A statement showing the names of all the candidates who were appointed pursuant to the advertisement dated 1-6-1978 (Annexure-A) including those who were transferred to subordinate courts together with the date of appointment of each of them on the establishment of the High Court and the date of transfer of each of them who have been transferred to the subordinate courts and their present posting, shall be furnished. (ii) To state as to whether the orders transferring those appointed on the establishment of the High Court pursuant to the advertisement dated 29-5-78 to the subordinate courts were made by the first respondent or by the High court. (iii) To secure and produce the explanation of the two officers namely sriyuths M. R. Vishwanath and J. Channaveerappa through sworn statements, as to how and why an a verment was made in the statement of objection to the effect that the records pertaining to the recruitment which is the subject matter of these petitions were destroyed pursuant to the orders of them Hon'ble the Chief Justice, when there was no such order. (iv) To produce the entire records relating to the recruitment, the process of which was commenced pursuant to the advertisement dated 29-5-1978 published on 1-6-78 vide Annexure-A. Prepare a carbon copy of this order and furnish the same to the learned advocate General forthwith. Call these matters on 15th October 1987 at 2-30 p. m "it became necessary for us to call for the explanation of the two Additional Registrars who had filed statement of objections in the case stating that the entire records relating to the recruitment in question had been destroyed, pursuant to the orders of the 1st respondent, though actually the order of the first respondent on which they relied, did not authorise them to do so. On 15-10-1987 when the matter came up, the two Additional Registrars filed affidavits admitting that there was no order of the first respondent for disposing of the records relating to the recruitment in question. Even so they stated that the records were disposed of, along with other records in respect of which there was an order of the first respondent and such disposal had been made under the bona fide belief that the order of the 1st respondent covered the records relating to the recruitment also, though actually it was not so. However, again it was stated that in view of the mistake committed in disposing of the records, no records relating to the recruitment were available. We express our strong displeasure both regarding the disposal of the records relating to recruitment though there was no order of the 1st respondent to do so, which discloses gross negligence as also regarding the inaccurate statement made in the statement of objection. Greater sense of responsibility should have been shown by the officers in their actions and in making the statement on behalf of the first respondent. On 15-10-1987 a statement showing the names of persons appointed pursuant to the advertisement which consists of 56 names retained on the establishment of this Court and 342 names of persons who were transferred to subordinate courts immediately after appointment was filed. In the statement 56 persons shown at SI. Nos. 1 to 55-A are those retained in the High Court. Among them persons at SI. Nos. 1 to 6 were appointed on 9-10-1979, those appointed last are at SI. Nos. 51 to 55. They were appointed on 24-9-1982. The number of appointments made to each of the districts are as shown in the following statement. SI. Nos. Nos. 1 to 55-A are those retained in the High Court. Among them persons at SI. Nos. 1 to 6 were appointed on 9-10-1979, those appointed last are at SI. Nos. 51 to 55. They were appointed on 24-9-1982. The number of appointments made to each of the districts are as shown in the following statement. SI. Nos. in the statement District to which transferred No. of persons transferred 1 2 3 56 to 86 Bangalore City 31 87 to 107 Mysore 21 4 111 to 131 Dakshina Kannada 21 132 to 147 Bellary 108 to 110-A Kodagu 16 148 to 170 (167 blank) Bangalore Rural 22 171 to 187 Hassan 17 188 to 199 Shimoga 12 200 to 217 Karwar 18 218 to 229 Bidar 12 230 to 240 Gulbarga 11 241 to 248 Chitradurga 8 249 to 265 Belgaum 17 266 to 276 Bijapur 11 277 to 298 Dharwad 22 299 to 321 (302 blank) Raichur 22 322 to 340 Mandya 19 341 to 367 Tumkur 27 368 to 398 Kolar 31 Total 342 The statement makes a shocking disclosure, in that, as against 40 posts advertised as many as 398 appointments had been made and among them 56 persons had been retained on the establishment of the High Court and the rest had been transferred immediately after their appointment to the subordinate courts, in that in most of the cases each of them was taken on duty on the establishment of the High Court in the Forenoon on which he reported for duty and in the afternoon he was transferred and placed at the disposal of the District Judge concerned with a direction to give posting against a vacancy of a Second Division clerk existing in the district and the statement indicates that in most of the cases they reported before the District judge concerned the very next day. The statement also indicates that the process of making appointment continued during the years 1980, 1981 and 1982 and the last of the appointments were in September, 1982, which shows that the advertisement of 1978 (Annexure-A) was kept alive for over four years. Thereafter the petitioners asked for time to implead all the selected candidates whose names were furnished in the statement and accordingly time was granted. Permission was also accorded for taking notice by publication in newspaper 'prajavani'. Thereafter the petitioners asked for time to implead all the selected candidates whose names were furnished in the statement and accordingly time was granted. Permission was also accorded for taking notice by publication in newspaper 'prajavani'. Accordingly, all those persons except those who are not in service have been impleaded as respondents. The respondents including the 55 persons impleaded are respondents 2 to 384. Notices have been served on them and number of them have put in appearance through their counsel and the matter came up for hearing on 19-11-1987. On that day, the learned counsel appearing for the additional respondents requested for time and accordingly the matters were adjourned to 3-12-1987 on which date the matter was heard and orders were reserved. ( 8 ) THE contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners are : (1) The recruitment rules provided that selection for appointment for the post of Second Division Clerk should be made by adopting the method of interview. This procedure was not followed. The selection was made on the basis of pick and choose method, in that without any basis whatsoever a few individual applicants were called for interview at frequent intervals and they were appointed on different dates as shown in the statement filed and there was violation of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution. (2) The petitioners who have secured more marks in the qualifying examination viz. , S. S. LC. were not even called for interview, whereas candidates who have secured less marks than the petitioners, as is discernible from the particulars furnished by the first respondent, had been selected and appointed and therefore the whole procedure was violative of Article 14 read with Article 16 (1) of the Constitution. (3) When number of posts advertised were only about 40, it was impermissible for making selection and appointment as against large number of posts and thereby opportunity to compete for the fresh vacancies was denied. (4) The appointment of persons on the establishment of the High Court and their immediate transfer in most of the cases on the very day they reported for duty to the subordinate court and again making appointment on the ground that vacancies were created by transfer, was without authority of law. By this process as many as 398 persons were appointed on the establishment of the High Court. By this process as many as 398 persons were appointed on the establishment of the High Court. (5) The authority for making selection and appointment for the posts of second Division Clearks in the subordinate courts was the Public Service commission and the appointing authority was the District Judge concerned under the Rules and these rules were circumvented and as many as 343 vacancies were filled up by transferring persons selected and appointed by the first respondent. ( 9 ) ELABORATING the contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted as follows : Having regard to the provisions of Article 14 which guarantees equality before law and equal protection of law to all persons and clause (1) of article 16 which provides equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment under the State, it was obligatory on the part of the 1st respondent to have decided the reasonable number of candidates to be interviewed. The ratio between the number of posts advertised and the number of persons to be called for interview could be 1 : 4 or any other reasonable ratio fixed by the competent authority. Such a list of candidates to be called for interview must be prepared according to the marks secured by the applicants in the qualifying examination and in this case the S. S. L. C examination. After interviewing all the candidates, the selecting authority should select such number of persons as are equal to the number of posts advertised on consideration of the merit in the academic examination and the performance at the interview and the list of candidates should be published. The appointments should be made strictly according to the ranking in such a select list. In the present case, not even one of the procedures necessary to ensure compliance with Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution had been followed. ( 10 ) THOUGH on an earlier occasion it was stated that the entire records had been disposed of, at the time of hearing, the learned Advocate General submitted that the records relating to the proceedings calling the candidates for interview and appointing them were available and that applications of only the selected candidates had also been preserved. They were produced at the time of hearing. They were produced at the time of hearing. The learned Advocate General appearing for the 1st respondent did not dispute that none of the aforesaid procedure required to be followed in making selection and appointment so as to ensure conformity to provisions of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution had been followed in this case. He did not dispute that : (1) no criteria for selecting the eligible applicants for interview had been evolved, (2) no ratio ragarding the number of persons to be called for interview was fixed, (3) no list of candidates to be called for interview was prepared, (4) no interview of all the candidates selected for being interviewed, was held, (5) no consideration of comparative merits of the candidates had been done, (6) no select list had been published, (7) that even among the seventyfive of the appointed candidates in respect of whom, the marks secured by them in the S. S. L. C. examination, was furnished the six petitioners have secured more marks in the SSLC examination, the particulars of which as furnished in a statement filed by the petitioners, is set out below: SI. No. Name Petitioner or Respondent Percentage of Marks in the S. S L. C. 1 2 3 4 1. C. Dharmapala Petitioner 37. 00 2. T. K. Yallanna " 41. 18 3. K. S. Sridhara Murthy " 35. 67 4. B. Yeshwant Kamat " 37. 67 40. 50 6. K. S. Narasimha Murthy " 7. Narasimhaiah Respondent-52 33. 64 42. 18 8. B. K. Puttamadaiah Respondent-20 34. 47 9. S. B. Karning Respondent-2 34. 94 10. Venkatesh Respondent-33 35. 05 11. Veerathimmaiah Respondent-34 35. 37 12. N. Jayappa Respondent-51 35. 40 13. B. R. Shivaramaiah Respondent-10 35 64 14. A. Nagarajappa Respondent-25 35. 75 15. M. Nagaraja Respondent-42 35. 76 16. 5. Munikrishnappa " Nazir Ahmed Khan Respondent-27 36. 00 17. R. N. Kulkarni Respondent-41 36. 35 18. Muniyappa Respondent-35 36. 47 19. Y. Shivappa Jotrannavar Respondent-53 36. 47 20. Angisi Giriyappa Respondent-55 36. 47 21. Kore Basanna Respondent- 19 37. 05 22. B. Venkatesh Respondent-28 37. 53 23. M. Marudrappa Respondent-32 37. 62 24. T. Venkatachalaiah Respondent-54 37. 76 25. G. Shivalingaiah Respondent-9 37. 88 26. B. Tulasi Suvasini Respondent-30 38. 12 27. B. N. Sonnappa Reddy Respondent-13 38. 35 28. C. G. Ramachandraiah Respondent-11 38. 82 29. Annarao Siddappa Bhupale Respondent-26 38. 94 30. Kore Basanna Respondent- 19 37. 05 22. B. Venkatesh Respondent-28 37. 53 23. M. Marudrappa Respondent-32 37. 62 24. T. Venkatachalaiah Respondent-54 37. 76 25. G. Shivalingaiah Respondent-9 37. 88 26. B. Tulasi Suvasini Respondent-30 38. 12 27. B. N. Sonnappa Reddy Respondent-13 38. 35 28. C. G. Ramachandraiah Respondent-11 38. 82 29. Annarao Siddappa Bhupale Respondent-26 38. 94 30. Jagadish Hiremath Respondent-24 39. 00 31. Agarulla Sheriff Respondent-40 39. 50 32. M. N. Doddasiddegowda Respondent 45 39. 37 33. M H. Ramaiah Respondent-50 40. 00 34. B. S. Dakshinamurthy Respondent-39 40. 25 35. Gurappa G. Respondent-14 40. 37 36. A. N. Vijayalakshmi Respondent-18 41. 29 37. B. R. Shantamma Respondent-29 41. 64 38 Nagabhushana Respondent-49 42. 11 Thus, without even calling the petitioners who had secured more marks in the qualifying examination, candidates who had secured less marks than the petitioners were called for interview and were selected and appointed. Further, as can be seen from the statement produced regarding the selection and appointment of 75 candidates extracted earlier, the procedure followed was that a few candidates were being called for interview at frequent intervals and selection and appointments were made. Except on or two occasions in the beginning on which the number of candidates called for interview were more than the candidates selected, on all other dates a few candidates were called for interview and they were all selected and appointed on the same day. Most of them were transferred to subordinate courts and again selection and appoints were made against those vacancies. It is by repeating such method, the appointments equal to ten times the number of posts advertised were made. The learned Advocate General frankly submitted that he was unable to support the legality or validity of the selection and the appointments made by the first respondent on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution and the bare requirement of those articles as laid down in the various decisions of the Supreme court. None of the Advocates who appeared for the large number of selected candidates who are respondents to the writ petitions, made any submission in support of the legality of the selection and appointment. None of the Advocates who appeared for the large number of selected candidates who are respondents to the writ petitions, made any submission in support of the legality of the selection and appointment. ( 11 ) APART from the procedure in making the selections, another important issue which arose in the context of the appointment of 398 persons as against the advertised 40 posts, was about the legality of the transfer of 343 persons appointed on the establishment of the high Court to the subordinate courts. ( 12 ) IT is not disputed that the selection and appointment to the posts of second Division Clerks in all the departments of the State Government was regulated by rules called the Karnataka Civil services (Ministerial Posts) Recruitment rules, 1966. The above rules regulate the selection of persons for appointment to the posts of First Division Clerks and second Division Clerks in all the departments of the State Government as these posts; having regard to the nature of the duties ; are regarded as posts common to all the departments of the State Government. The authority to make selection under the rules is vested in the Public service Commission. The procedure prescribed is; after the receipt of requisition from the heads of recruitment units in all the departments of the State Government, to hold a written examination as prescribed in the said rules. After the list of selected candidates is prepared, the Public Service Commission is required to allot the selected candidates to various units according to the requisition, having due regard to the option indicated by the candidates in their application and also having due regard to their merit. The aforesaid rules were made applicable to the judicial department also by rules called The Karnataka Subordinate Courts (Ministerial and other posts) (Recruitment)Rules 1977. It provided that ninety percent of the posts of Second division Clerks on the establishment of the subordinate courts should be filled up by direct recruitment in accordance with the Karnataka State Civil Services (Recruitment to Ministerial Posts) Rules, 1966. According to the provisions of the karnataka Civil Services (Classification, control and Appeal) Rules, every District judge is the appointing authority and consequently every District constitutes a recruitment unit. According to the provisions of the karnataka Civil Services (Classification, control and Appeal) Rules, every District judge is the appointing authority and consequently every District constitutes a recruitment unit. Therefore, no person could be appointed on the establishment of the subordinate courts unless a requisition was sent by the concerned District and Sessions Judge to the Public Service Commission and the list of selected candidates was sent by the Public Service Commission to the district and Sessions Judge concerned. It is only thereafter the concerned District and Sessions Judge has to make appointments of persons whose names are included in the list of selected candidates against the posts of Second Division clerks. Though this was the undisputed position in law, the authority of the Public service Commission to make the selection and the authority of the District Judge to make appointment, have been totally disregarded and the power of both the authorities of making selection and appointment respectively had been exercised by the first respondent. ( 13 ) THIS is a very serious violation of law, for, selection and appointment to 343 posts of Second Division Clerks on the establishment of Subordinate Courts have been made without advertisement and without the authority of law, as a result of which equality of opportunity to large number of qualified and eligible candidates who would have applied for selection and appointment as against posts in the respective districts was denied. ( 14 ) THE learned Advocate General submitted that the transfer has been effected by the first respondent relying upon the provisions contained in the rules, which reads :"5. Appointment by transfer : Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the High Court may appoint to a post:- (i) subject to rules, if any, made under article 229 of the Constitution of india, an officer holding a post of an equivalent grade, by transfer, from the office of the High Court ; or (ii) an officer holding an identical post, by transfer from another District or Division, accordingly as the post is in a District-wise cadre or Division-wise cadre". The above rule is not intended to replace or substitute the method of recruitment prescribed under the rules. It is, in the nature of things. The above rule is not intended to replace or substitute the method of recruitment prescribed under the rules. It is, in the nature of things. intended to be used sparingly and in the exigencies of public service, when the transfer of an official on the establishment of the High Court to the subordinate court becomes necessary, in public interest. In such a case the services of such an official has to be placed at the disposal of the High Court and thereafter his transfer to subordinate court has to be made by the High Court, as expressly provided in the Rules. It has to be so, for, the control over the subordinate courts is vested in the High court by virtue of Article 235 of the Constitution of India. In view of that article, the High Court is an independent authority having control over the subordinate courts, as distinct and separate from the first respondent who is the independent authority in respect of the establishment of the High Court by virtue of Article 229 of the Constitution. As stated earlier, one of the points in respect of which we wanted a reply was, as to whether the transfers were effected by the first respondent or by the High Court. The records produced disclose that the transfers were effected by the first respondent and not by the High Court. On this aspect of the matter it is sufficient to set out one of the orders, which throw light on two aspects, namely. (i) as to how 384 appointments were made as against 40 posts, and (ii) how they were transferred to subordinate courts. The order dated 7th March 1979 reads : "proceedings OF THE HIGH COURT of KARNATAKA BANGALORE read :1. High Court Notification no. HCE. 300/78 calling for the applications for the post of II Division Clerks on the establishment of High Court of karnataka, Bangalore. 2. High Court proceedings No. HCE. 300/78 dt. 6-3-79, transferring Sriyuths 1. Mukund Bijjurao Kallal, SDC, 2. Venkataramaiah. 3. T. V. Nanjundaiah, 4. S. Janardhana Murthy 5. G. V. Krishna and 6. S. N. Thimmaiah, II Division clerks of the High Court office to the subordinate courts. 3. Applications received for post of ii Division Clerks in the High Court office in pursuance of notification No. HCE. 300/78. ORDER No. HCE. 300/78 BANGALORE, DATED : 7 TH MARCH 1979 1. S. Janardhana Murthy 5. G. V. Krishna and 6. S. N. Thimmaiah, II Division clerks of the High Court office to the subordinate courts. 3. Applications received for post of ii Division Clerks in the High Court office in pursuance of notification No. HCE. 300/78. ORDER No. HCE. 300/78 BANGALORE, DATED : 7 TH MARCH 1979 1. Sri K. M. Nanjappa In the vacancy of s/o K. N. Mahadevaiah at P. O. Kandikere-562228 Chikkanayakanahally Tq. , Tumkur Dist. 2. T. S. Basavaraju, Sri Mukund Bijjurao Kalal, transferred. M. V. R. Compound IV Main Road, K. R. Extension, Tiptur, Tumkur. 3. K. N. Basavaiah, In the vacancy of Sri Venkataramaiah, transferred. S/o Ningaiah, Kempanahalli, Kunigal, Taluk Tumkur. In the vacancy of Sri T. V. Nanjundaiah transferred. Page 15 of 23 4. Sri H. N. Prabhu, S/o Nanjappa, Harachanahalli, Gudigondanahally Post, Tiptur taluk, Tumkur district. 5. M. Govindappa, In the vacancy of Sri S. Janardhana Murthy, transferred. S/o Melagiriyappa, Chinnaiahpalya, Thuppadakona Post, Sira taluk, Tumkur district. 6. R. Chandrashekaraiah, In the vacancy of G. V. Krishna, transferred. S/o A. Rangappa, Huliyar Road, Chikkanayakanahalli, Tumkur district. In the vacancy of Sri S. N. Thimmaiah, transferred. ( 15 ) ON 3-5-1979 a note was submitted themselves for duty in the High Court as directed. It reads : office within one week from the date of"submitted ss directed : receipt of this order, failing which the order of their appointment will be cancelled. They should also produce all the 1. Sri Goravar Yellappa Huchappa 2. Sri Bagappa Balappa Talawar original certificates in proof of their age and qualifications at the time of reporting 3. Sri Ugrappa 4. Sri G. H Mudiyannavar to duty. The marginally noted candidates have appeared before the Additional Registrar by ORDER OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE today the 3rd May 1979 as directed sd/- B. Mopuri Reddy, 7-3 79, vide this office memo of even additional Registrar. "number dated 27-4-1979 and they have the proceedings referred at item (2) of also submitted their representations the preamble to the order is available in paying for their transfers to their native the file. It discloses that immediately districts for the reasons slated therein, after the appointment of the said six persons, in case if they are appointed as Second they gave representation seeking division Clerks in the High Court Office. It discloses that immediately districts for the reasons slated therein, after the appointment of the said six persons, in case if they are appointed as Second they gave representation seeking division Clerks in the High Court Office. transfer to the subordinate courts and a for kind orders whether Sriyuths 1)note was put up as to whether their goravar Yellappa Huchappa, 2) Bagappa prayer made in the representation could balappa Talawar. 3) Ugrappa and be granted, and the first respondent passed 4) G. H. Mudiyannavar may be orders transferring them to subordinate appointed to officiate temporarily as courts and pursuant to the above order second Division Clerks in High Court they were transferred and the vacancies office on pay of Rs 300/- p. m. in so created were filled up by the aforesaid grade Rs. 300-700 in the existing order. A few other orders also disclose vacancies, subject to their transfer to the method of appointment as also the Subordinate Courts. transfer. For kind orders. Orders were passed by the first respondent approving the note. Accordingly, they were appointed and transferred to dharwad District. The names at SI. Nos 1 and 4 are at SI. Nos. 279 and 280 of the statement. They reported for duty at the High Court at Bangalore on 4-5-79 and at Dharwad on 5-5-1979. ( 16 ) ON 7-5-1979 the following note was put up : submitted as directed : sri Balakrishna Nagappa Ganadal, has appeared before the Additional registrar today the 4th May 1979 as directed in connection with his application for the post of Second Division clerk. The candidate has also submitted another representation praying for considering his application for the post of Second Division Clerk and also requests for transfer to any of the Subordinate courts in the State preferably to dharwad District for the reasons stated therein. For kind orders, whether Sri Balakrishna nagappa Ganadal, may be appointed to officiate temporarily as second Division Clerk in the High Court office on a pay of Rs. 300/- p. m. in grade Rs. 300-700 in the existing vacancy, subject to his transfer to the Subordinate court in due course : it was approved by the first respondent on the same day. Another note was put up on 8-5-1979. It reads :"submitted :-Sri Balakrishna Nagappa Ganadal, who has been appointed as II Dn. 300/- p. m. in grade Rs. 300-700 in the existing vacancy, subject to his transfer to the Subordinate court in due course : it was approved by the first respondent on the same day. Another note was put up on 8-5-1979. It reads :"submitted :-Sri Balakrishna Nagappa Ganadal, who has been appointed as II Dn. Clerk vide this office proceedings of even No. dated 7-5-1979 has reported to duty on the forenoon of 8-5-1979 and has also produced the original certificates in proof of his qualification and date of birth. He has passed the b. A. , degree examination and his date of birth is 25-3-1949. For orders, whether he may be taken to duty from the forenoon of 8-5-79". He reported for duty on 9-5-1979 in the office of this Court and on 11-5-1979 befroe the District Judge, Dharwad. His name is at SI. No. 280 of the Statement. ( 17 ) THE proceedings relating to one k. G. Ayyanna are found in the file. He was appointed by the 1st respondent on 2-5-1980. The proceedings read :"sri K. G. lyanna who was already interviewed, is appointed as a Second division Clerk in the High Court with immediate effect. "a note was put up on 3-5-1980. It reads :"submitted :-Sri K. G. lyanna who has been appointed as II Division Clerk vide this office proceedings of even No. dated 2-5-1980 has reported himself for duty on the forenoon of 3-5-1980 and he has produced all the original certificates in proof of his qualification, date of birth and caste. He has passed B. A. degree examination, his date of birth is 15-6-1951 and he belongs to Gowda Caste which is classified ss Backward Community. For kind orders, whether he may be taken to duty as II Division Clerk from the forenoon of 3-5-1980. Memo is also put up for kind signature. "the note was approving by the 1st respondent. Another note was put up on the same day. It reads :"submitted :-Sri K. G. lyyanna, II Division Clerk of this office has submitted an application praying for his transfer to any of the subordinate courts in the State preferably to Kodagu district. Memo is also put up for kind signature. "the note was approving by the 1st respondent. Another note was put up on the same day. It reads :"submitted :-Sri K. G. lyyanna, II Division Clerk of this office has submitted an application praying for his transfer to any of the subordinate courts in the State preferably to Kodagu district. For kind orders, whether Sri K. G. lyyanna, II Division Clerk of this office may be transferred and posted to the unit of the District Judge, Kodagu and the District Judge, Kodagu may be requested to post him in any of the existing vacancy in his unit. For kind orders on 'a'. "the note was approved by first respondent. Immediately after his reporting for duty on 3-5-1980, he was transferred to kodagu district by the order of the first respondent, where he reported for duty on 5-5-1980. His name is at SI. No. 110-A in the statement. ( 18 ) ALL other proceedings relating to appointment and transfers are similar. Page 17 of 23 ( 19 ) THE learned Advocate General could not and did not dispute that transfer had been effected only by the first respondent and that none of the transfers had been made by the High Court. He also did not and could not dispute that the rule providing for transfer was not intended to bypass the authority of the public Service Commission to make selection for appointment on the establishment of the subordinate courts and the power of the District Judge to make appointments to the posts, within his district. In any event when only 40 posts were advertised, selection and appointment for as many as 398 vacancies could not have been made. The resultant position is that none of the Advocates were in a position to say anything in support of the legality of the appointments of respondents 2 to 384. In any event when only 40 posts were advertised, selection and appointment for as many as 398 vacancies could not have been made. The resultant position is that none of the Advocates were in a position to say anything in support of the legality of the appointments of respondents 2 to 384. ( 20 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondents, however, made two submissions : (1) The petitioners were guilty of inordinate delay in presenting the petitions and therefore the petitions should be dismissed in limine, and (2) Even if on the facts and circumstances, the Court were to hold that the petitioners are not responsible for the delay and therefore it would be unfair and unjust to dismiss the petitions on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in presenting the petitions, the appointments of respondents 2 to 384 might not be quashed on humanitarian grounds as they have been in service for more than 5 to 6 years and some of them even from 8 years, as it would cause immense hardship and injury to them as they will be thrown out of employment and many of them would not be in a position to seek fresh selection for appointment, as they have became ineligible by age factor. ( 21 ) IN reply to the above objection, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted as follows : Every step taken subsequent to the receipt of the applications from the petitioners and others had been a guarded-secret. No information was being given to any one It is only some time in 1983 the petitioners came to know that some of the persons who were applicants along with the petitioners had been appointed and thereafter even when enquiries were made in the office of the High Court no one was giving any information. In these circumstances, the counsel for the petitioners had to address a letter to the Registrar seeking information. Even then it was not furnished. When the list of persons to be called for interview was not published and when interview was not held and when list of candidates selected for appointment was not published, it was not open to the respondents to raise the question of delay. Even then it was not furnished. When the list of persons to be called for interview was not published and when interview was not held and when list of candidates selected for appointment was not published, it was not open to the respondents to raise the question of delay. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that as the selection and appointments were to be made by the first respondent, the petitioners presumed that every step in the matter of selection would be taken as required by Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution and they could not even imagine that it would be done in the manner it has been done. ( 22 ) IT is ture that appointments were made right from 1979 till September 1982 and the writ petitions were filed in september 1983. But the question for consideration is whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, we would be justified in dismissing the writ petitions on the ground of delay and laches. With reference to the above objection, the crucial point for consideration is, what is the date from which the delay in presenting the petitions should be reckoned ? in matters relating to selection and appointment, it is always the date of publication of the list of selected candidates which should be the basis to find out as to whether there has been undue delay or laches as would justify the dismissal of the petition. In the present case, admittedly, no list of persons eligible to be called for interview was prepared. Normally, if large number of persons are called for interview and the dates for interview are fixed and the candidates begin to come for interview, the other applicants who have not received the notice for interview would come to know of the same. Admittedly, no such procedure was followed. Further, if the list of selected candidates was published in any one or more of ihe methods of publication or at least on the notice board, knowledge of it could be attributed to the applicants. In the present case, none of the steps which are bound to be taken in the matter of selection and appointment, having regard to articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution, were taken. The interview, selection and appointments were made piece meal, on various dates spread over for a period of about three years. In the present case, none of the steps which are bound to be taken in the matter of selection and appointment, having regard to articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution, were taken. The interview, selection and appointments were made piece meal, on various dates spread over for a period of about three years. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners were aware of the selection and appointments made and still they kept quiet. Apart from that as pointed out earlier even when the petitioners got a letter addressed through their counsel to the Registrar and requested him to furnish the information, no information regarding selection and appointment was given. Apart from that as stated earlier when the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent was called upon to furnish the names of persons selected so that they might be impleaded as respondents to the writ petitions, the Registrar addressed a letter to the Advocate General, the relevant portion of which is extracted earlier in which the registrar himself stated that he required more than a month to collect the information regarding the names of persons appointed on the establishment of the High court. That being the position of the registrar himself, it would be difficult to attribute the knowledge of the appointments made by the first respondent, to the petitioners and to hold that they were guilty of inordinate delay and laches in presenting the petition. We are also of the view that when the appointments made on the establishment of the High court are found to be in violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution, for the reason that none of the steps, required to be followed in making selection and appointment to ensure equality of opportunity in matters relating to selection and appointment to the applicants, was followed, dismissal of the petitions on the ground of delay, for which the method so adopted in making the appointments is solely responsible, would be, a travesty of law and wholly unjustified. ( 23 ) THE learned Advocate General and the counsel for the candidates appointed fervently pleaded that this court might at least on humanatarian consideration decline to set aside the appointments as the respondents 2 to 384 would be uprooted after 5 to 8 years of service, and as most of them have become overaged for selection and appointment. The learned Advocate General submitted that if the petitioners had secured more marks in the qualifying examination than some of those appointed a direction may be issued to the first respondent to appoint the petitioners also as second division clerks on the establishment of the High court. ( 24 ) WE are fully conscious of the hardship that would be caused to respondents 2 to 384, if we were to set aside their selection and appointment. But the question is, can we decline to do so, consistent with Rule of Law and the mandate of Article 16 (1) of the Constitution ? ( 25 ) AS is evident from the discussion made earlier actual number of appointments made are about ten times the posts advertised, which is patently violative of Article 16 (1) of the Constitution. Further, it is settled law that appointment made beyond the number of posts is void (See : State of Punjab v. Jagdeep Singh) ( AIR 1964 SC 521 ) In order to get over this effect, vacancies were created again and again by resorting to transfer of persons appointed on the establishment of the High Court, to subordinate courts. By this process fifty five persons were retained in the High Court and the rest were transferred to subordinate courts without authority of law. From this it is clear that large number of candidates who had acquired eligibility and some of whom might be more merited and waiting toapply forthe posts in the subordinate courts, have been denied of an opportunity to compete for selection as a result of preventing the reporting of those vacancies to the public service Commission by the District Judges concerned and consequently the Commission not advertising the posts. When the magnitude of violation of Articles 14 and 16 (1) is such and so patent, it becomes our bounden duty to set aside the appointments and direct the making of fresh selection. When the magnitude of violation of Articles 14 and 16 (1) is such and so patent, it becomes our bounden duty to set aside the appointments and direct the making of fresh selection. ( 26 ) A direction to appoint the petitioners in addition to the appointments already made against unadvertised and future vacancies would be a further violation of law. Such a course is strongly condemned by the Supreme Court in the case of Channabasavaiah v. State of mysore ( AIR 1965 SC 1293 ). In those cases what had happened was, sixteen writ petitions had been filed before this court challenging the legality of selection of 122 persons by the Public Service commission to Class-2 Gazetted posts. Out of these 24 persons were those rejected by the Commission but were included in the select list at the behest of the Government Being unable to support the legality of the selection, the government agreed to appoint those sixteen petitioners to class-2 posts. This compromise was accepted by this Court and a direction was issued to appoint those sixteen petitioners in addition to the twentyfour illegally selected candidates. Encouraged by the turn of events, fifty five persons filed writ petitions before the Supreme Court under Article 32 with the hope of getting appointments as secured by the sixteen petitioners before this court. The Supreme Court found fault not only with the appointment of 24 persons at the behest of the Government but also deprecated the acceptance of compromise in the matter of public appointments. The appointments of 40 candidates after more than two and half years were quashed. While doing so, hidayatulla, J. , (as he then was) said thus :"it is very unfortunate that these persons should be uprooted after they had been appointed, but if equality and equal protection before the law have any meaning and if our public institutions are to inspire that confidence which is expected of them we would be failing in our duty if we did not, even at the cost of considerable inconvenience to the Government and the selected candidates If any blame for the inconvenience is to be placed it certainly cannot be placed upon the petitioning candidates. . . . "these observations apply with greater vigour and force to the impugned appointments made to the establishment of this court and the subordinate courts. . . . "these observations apply with greater vigour and force to the impugned appointments made to the establishment of this court and the subordinate courts. If respondents 2 to 384 have put in 5 to 8 years of service, it is not the fault of the petitioners. Firstly, as pointed out earlier, there was delay because the whole process was a guarded secret. The petitioners presented the petitions immediately after they came to know of the appointments. Secondly, the disclosure of actual appointments was made in three instalments of 55, 75 and 398 respectively, as shown earlier. Thirdly, this court has taken four years to dispose of these petitions. For all these, the petitioners cannot be blamed and the rule of law cannot be allowed to suffer. Therefore, respondents 2 to 384, who have been the beneficiaries of violation of law, cannot be heard to contend that the benefits so secured should be allowed to be retained, merely on the ground that they have put in a few years of service. ( 27 ) IN the case of Channabasavaiah, as also in several other cases, actions of government/selecting Authorities in the matter of making selection/appointment to civil services and posts in violation of law have been annulled with strictures, by the courts. The appointments on the establishment of courts is no exception. The rule of law must prevail and take its own course. The Supreme Court has said in Channabasavaiah's case that in such circumstances the court would be failing in its duty, if it does not set aside the appointment made in contravention of law on the ground that it would cause considerable inconvenience to the persons so appointed. It is well settled that a consequence which flows from enforcement of law is no evil. Therefore, it is our duty; albeit painful; to annul the appointments of respondents 2 to 384, whatever be the inconvenience which would be caused to them. ( 28 ) IN this context, it is appropriate to refer to the necessity of strict observance of law by those in the highest echelons of administration, as stated by chandrapida, a King of Kashmir (680-688 ad) while making a suo-moto order stopping the act of his officers to demolish a hut belonging to a Charmakara (Cobbler), for construction of a temple (vide Rajatarangini, Chapter-4, verse-60)Legal and Constitutional History of India vol-1, pp. 672-673. 672-673. "if we, who are the judges of what is right and what is not right, act unlawfully, who then would abide by law ?". ( 29 ) FOR these reasons, we find no alternative than to set aside the appointments of respondents 2 to 384 and to direct fresh selection and appointments. ( 30 ) AS regards the number of posts in respect of which fresh selection should be made, we consider it appropriate to direct that fresh selection and appointments be made to fifty five posts on the establishment of the High Court as 55 vacancies had become available against which appointments were made from among the applicants who had submitted their application pursuant to advertisement (Annexure-A ). Further, the selection has to be confined to the petitioners and respondents 2 to 334 for two reasons. First, the application of all others have been destroyed, secondly, none of those have approached this Court seeking any relief. ( 31 ) AS regards the hardship pleaded in respect of those who do not get selected as against the 55 posts on the ground that they have become ineligible for making fresh application on the ground of age is concerned, it is obvious the learned counsel have over-looked the amendment to Rule 6 of the General Recruitment rules vide The Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) (Twentyseventh amendment) Rules 1986, promulgated on 5-9-1986. By the said amendment Rule 6 (3) (b) of the General Recruitment rules which provided for enhancement of maximum age limit for recruitment in respect of a person who is or was holding a post under the Government to the actual extent of service put in by him or five years whichever is less, had been amended and the ceiling is raised to ten years. Therefore, there might be none among respondents 2 to 384 who would not be eligible on the ground of age. Even assurming that there would be a few who have become ineligible on the ground of age, it is for the Government to consider as to whether relaxation from age qualification should be extended to them by amending the Rules. Therefore, there might be none among respondents 2 to 384 who would not be eligible on the ground of age. Even assurming that there would be a few who have become ineligible on the ground of age, it is for the Government to consider as to whether relaxation from age qualification should be extended to them by amending the Rules. ( 32 ) AS far as respondent No. 24-Sri Jagadish Hiremath is concerned, he has pleaded that his appointment was made under the scheme formulated by the government providing for appointment of son or daughter of a civil servant who died while in service, under indigent circumstances. He has stated that his father Sri S. R. Hiremath was a Court officer and he died, while in service, on 21-6-1980 under indigent circumstances and it was for that reason he was appointed. These facts are not disputed. Hence his appointment is not set aside. ( 33 ) BEFORE concluding, it is necessary to notice the challenge made to the validity of Rule 5 of the Rules. It reads :"5 Appointing Authority : all appointments to the service shall be made by the Chief Justice in his absolute discretion. "the learned Advocate General submitted that though the rule was so worded, the power was subject to Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution. He also submitted that in view of that incontrovertible position in law, the words 'in his absolute discretion' were deleted by The High court of Karnataka Service (Condition of service and Recruitment) (Second amendment) Rules 1985. The learned counsel appearing for the selected candidates also did not controvert the submission made by the learned Advocate general. Hence it became unnecessary to go into the question of the constitutional validity of Rule 5. ( 34 ) IN the result, we meke the following order: (i) The writ petitions are allowed, (ii) The selection and appointments of respondents 2 to 384 in W. P. Nos. Hence it became unnecessary to go into the question of the constitutional validity of Rule 5. ( 34 ) IN the result, we meke the following order: (i) The writ petitions are allowed, (ii) The selection and appointments of respondents 2 to 384 in W. P. Nos. 3e6 and 387 of 1984, except that of respondent No. 24, on the establishment of this Court are set aside and as a consequence the appointment by transfer of respondents 57 to 384 on the establishment of subordinate courts also stand set aside ; (iii) A direction shall issue to the first respondent to make fresh selection and appointment against the 55 posts of second division clerks on the establishment of the High Court confining the selection to the petitioners and respondents 2 to 384 (except respondent no 24) ; (iv) Respondents 2 to 384 (except respondent No. 24) are permitted to be continued in service till fresh selections are made, in public interest ; (v) The services of such of those whose appointments are set aside by this order and who are not selected in the fresh selection as against 55 posts, shall stand terminated on the last day of the month during which fresh appointments are made for the 55 posts on the establishment of the High Court ; (vi) The vacancies in the cadre of second division clerks on the establishment of the subordinate courts, caused as a result of setting aside the appointments of respondents 2 to 384, shall be filled up by the District Judge of the district concerned in accordance with law and steps in that direction shall be initiated immediately ; (vii) The service rendered ; whether in the High Court or in the subordinate court by such of the respondents who are selected ; prior to fresh appointment, shall be counted for purposes of leave, increments and pension, but not for seniority ; (viii) The process of fresh selection and appointments shall be completed within a period of six months ; (ix) Let copies of this order be prepared and sent to the District Judges incharge of each of the districts immediately.