Our Notes:- For PLOT of Land meant for EMPLOYEES of COURTS holding PUBLIC OFFICE, CJI Dattu, CJI-In-Waiting T.S.Thakur committed illegality,irregularity, corruption, nepotism and favouritism in judicial institutions; by becoming Members of KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OP SOCIETY, Bangalore
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 979 OF 2014
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 26090 of 2011)
Renu & Ors. …Appellants Versus District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari & Anr. …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Dr. B. S. CHAUHAN, J.
Para-2: It has been suggested by the learned counsel appearing
in the matter that this court has a duty not only to check illegality,
irregularity, corruption, nepotism and favouritism in judicial
institutions, but also to provide guidelines to prevent the menace of
back-door entries of employees who subsequently are ordered to be
Katju’s allegations cannot be undermined: Justice AP Shah – Video
CJI in waiting
CJI H.L. Dattu & Gang of Criminal Contemners of ‘120 SCI & HC EMPLOYEE-CUM-JUDGES’: “The Judges With Plots” DNA News. 22nd Nov,2011 Full Page Article
Para-4:Our basic concern is that the appointments
in judicial institutions must be made on the touchstone of equality of
opportunity enshrined in Article 14 read with Article 16 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the
`Constitution’) and under no circumstance any appointment which is
illegal should be saved for the reason that the grievance of the people
at large is that complete darkness in the light house has to be removed.
The judiciary which raises a finger towards actions of every other
wing of the society cannot afford to have this kind of accusations
EMPLOYEE-CUM-CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA H.L. Dattu
Para -6: The aforesaid provision is in consonance with the legal
principle of “Rule of Law” and they remind us of the famous words of
the English jurist, Henry de Bracton – “The King is under no man but
under God and the Law”.
T.S. THAKUR, EMPLOYEE-CUM-CHIEF-JUSTICE-OF-INDIA-IN-WAITING
No one is above law. The dictum – “Be you
ever so high, the law is above you” is applicable to all, irrespective of
his status, religion, caste, creed, sex or culture. The Constitution is the
All the institutions, be it legislature, executive or judiciary, being created under the Constitution, cannot ignore it.
CJI H.L. Dattu & Gang of Criminal Contemners of ‘120 SCI & HC EMPLOYEE-CUM-JUDGES’: “Plot Thickens My Lord” DNA News. 23nd Nov,2011 Full Page Article
30. In today’s system, daily labourers and casual labourers have
been conveniently introduced which are followed by attempts to
regularise them at a subsequent stage. Therefore, most of the times
the issue raised is about the procedure adopted for making
appointments indicating an improper exercise of discretion even when
the rules specify a particular mode to be adopted.
There can be no doubt that the employment whether of Class IV, Class III, Class II or
any other class in the High Court or courts subordinate to it fall within
the definition of “public employment”.
Such an employment therefore,has to be made under rules and under orders of the competent authority.
32. It has been rightly said:
“Perfection consists not in doing extraordinary things,
but in doing ordinary things extraordinary well.”
34. We would like to make it clear that the High Court is a
constitutional and an autonomous authority subordinate to none.
I am hurt and mentally molested by the way 867 judges are day in and out gang raping the blindfolded justice God. The rape of the mother High Court cannot be tolerated by any right thinking person.
Therefore, nobody can undermine the constitutional authority of the
High Court, and therefore the purpose to hear this case is only to
advise the High Court that if its rules are not in consonance with the
philosophy of our Constitution and the same may be modified and no
appointment in contravention thereof should be made.It is necessary
that there is strict compliance with appropriate Rules and the
employer is bound to adhere to the norms of Articles 14 & 16 of the
Constitution before making any recruitment.
35. In view of the above, the appeal stands disposed of with the
i) All High Courts are requested to re-examine the statutory rules
dealing with the appointment of staff in the High Court as well
as in the subordinate courts and in case any of the rule is not in
conformity and consonance with the provisions of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution, the same may be modified.
ii) To fill up any vacancy for any post either in the High Court or
in courts subordinate to the High Court, in strict compliance of
the statutory rules so made. In case any appointment is made in
contravention of the statutory rules, the appointment would be
void ab-initio irrespective of any class of the post or the person
iii) The post shall be filled up by issuing the advertisement in at
least two newspapers and one of which must be in vernacular
language having wide circulation in the respective State. In
addition thereto, the names may be requisitioned from the local
employment exchange and the vacancies may be advertised by
other modes also e.g. Employment News, etc. Any vacancy
filled up without advertising as prescribed hereinabove, shall be
void ab-initio and would remain unenforceable and
inexecutable except such appointments which are permissible to
be filled up without advertisement, e.g., appointment on
compassionate grounds as per the rules applicable. Before any
appointment is made, the eligibility as well as suitability of all
candidates should be screened/tested while adhering to the
reservation policy adopted by the State, etc., if any.
iv) Each High Court may examine and decide within six months
from today as to whether it is desirable to have centralised
selection of candidates for the courts subordinate to the
respective High Court and if it finds it desirable, may formulate
the rules to carry out that purpose either for the State or on
Zonal or Divisional basis.
v) The High Court concerned or the subordinate court as the case
may be, shall undertake the exercise of recruitment on a regular
basis at least once a year for existing vacancies or vacancies
that are likely to occur within the said period, so that the
vacancies are filled up timely, and thereby avoiding any
inconvenience or shortage of staff as it will also control the
menace of ad-hocism.
Copy of the judgment be sent to the Registrar General/Registrar
(Administration) of all the High Courts by this Registry directly and
the said officer is requested to place the same before the Hon’ble
Chief Justice for information and appropriate action.
(Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)
February 12, 2014.
Epithet on Epitaph of Indian Judiciary
|CJI-In-Waiting T.S.Thakur: WAS RESPONDENTANT ; AND CJI Dattu , who was Advocate argued in f/o T.S.Thakur stating Thakur as an EMPLOYEE. IN ILR 1995 KAR 3139,
( 31 ) With regard to the allotment of sites to Judges, as We have stated above, We are of the opinion that this Court sitting in Article 226 of the Constitution cannot go into that question. It is settled law that no Writ will lie against a Co-operative Society as it is not a State under Article 12 of the Constitution. Clause -7 of the Bye-laws produced before us, as translated by the official translator, reads as follows:
( Page No. 3183 )
” 7. ELIGIBILITY FOR MEMBERSHIP :
Persons residing in Bangalore and interested in the development of this institution or those persons who are working in High Court or any Court coming under the jurisdiction of High Court, Bangalore and Society and the persons retired from the service and residing in the jurisdiction of the Society permanently (including Judges also) are eligible for the membership. Executive Committee (Panchayataru) is having full powers to accept or reject the applications received for membership.”
A reading of Clause – 7 of the Bye-laws, in our by no stretch of imagination can include the Judges of High Court or Supreme Court (sitting transferred, retired). Even assuming for a moment that certain Judges have been allowed to become members of the Society, it may be an irregularity in the conduct of the business of the Society. It is settled law, as we have already stated, that even though the allotment is made contrary to the Bye-laws, this Court cannot exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution as no Writ will lie against a Co-operative society. Even otherwise if two views are possible on the construction of Clause-7 of the Bye-laws, as held by the Supreme Court in AIR 1970 SC 245 ( 25. AIR 1970 SC 245 ) , it is only for the guidance of the Co-operative Societies and it is not a law so that this Court can set aside the allotment made to the Judges, as contended by the petitioners.
 Both Dattu & thakur, who claim as Employees are allotted with sites in their Assets declarations. Investigations reveal that that ILR 1995 KAR 3139, was “Given & Taken by FRAUD by all Judges of Karnataka High Court; i.e., to exemplify one fact is JUDICIAL LAYOUT, BANGALORE  IS TILL DATE 2015 IS NOT APPROVED AS PER VERY SUBMISSION OF SOCIETY’S, KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT’S SECRETARY SWORN AFFIDAVITS since 2003 IN KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN MANY PILs WP 40994/2002, [ Skulls in Courts] against KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSE BUILDING CO-OP SOCIETY, KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, BANGALORE-1. Because of which kind of ANARCHY is prevailing in India”
Due to Criminal Contempt of Court of CJIs, CJs, Lokayuktas , since 1992 ; INDIAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM HAS BECOME A PACK OF PLAYING CARDS!
- Send Suggestions for Improvement in “Collegium System” as per Supreme Court Order dated 05.11.2015
- Five pages: Complaint to Chief Minister of Anrachy of 867 Judges & Lokayuktas, Home Secretary direction to DGIG & DGIG Replies
………[ 5pgs.CM-DirectnToDgig.Reply ]
- Two Pages: Acknowlegdements of HC, SPP, Police Commissioner, DGIG etc., of having received 102 pages document filed in ACMM-VIII Court. [ 2pgs.Cc6711-12.102pgsHC-N-PoliceAckledgments ]
- Judicial Way Forward – SHUN JUDICIAL & POLITICAL Protection to 867 Corrupt Contemner Judges including CJIs Dattu, Next CJI Thakur :Corrupt Judges Collegium Theoretical
- President Pranab Mukherjee Vs CJI Appointments 2 Nov 2015
- Impartial Judiciary a Fundamental Right: R.N. Mittal (Mr. Justice) (Retd.) -Vs- Government Of The Nct Of Delhi on 1 March, 1999
- Result of putting on web made many including Karnataka Legislature speaking of RAMPANT CORRUPTION LOKAYUKTA & INDIAN JUDICIARY in 2005 GIST. Complete Karnataka Legislature debateis in MEMO FOR DISCHARGE IN C.C. NO. 6711/2012, A CASE BY Lokayukta P.R.O –Vs- Digvijay Mote. The select paras reads thus :- [44-A] The Karnataka Assembly Debated the Lokayukta Institutional Corruption vis-à-vis JUDICIAL Layout, LOKAYUKTA INSTITUTIONAL CORRUPTION, on 27th July, 2005 and the debate though amounts to Criminal Contempt and Constitution India forbids all State Assemblies under Article 211. The Article reads thus:-Restriction on discussion in the Legislature: “No discussion shall take place in the Legislature of a State with respect to the conduct of any Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court in the discharge of his duties”.[44-B] Karnataka Legislature speaking of RAMPANT CORRUPTION LOKAYUKTA & INDIAN JUDICIARY:- Lokayukta Institutional Corruption; which is as follows in SCANNED as is FORM at pages 27 to 42 [ Read More]; the debate was widely broadcasted on T.V., published many local and national news papers also. Despite Supreme Court, Karnataka High court, Karnataka Lokayukta having read the news neither any Judge nor P.I.L or Police Complaint was lodged against M.L.A.s or Speaker allowing debate against 867 Judges involved in JUDICIAL Layout , Bangalore.
- HUMBLE APPEAL TO PROVIDE FREE LEGAL AID TO ME BY A SENIOR ADVOCATE TO ASSIST ME TO CONDUCT MY CASE IN C.C. 6711/2012 : 20 June 2014
- CC 6711/12: Court order in Four pages; transferring case to Karnataka High Court on 22 Oct, 2013 [ 4pgs.6711-12.CrtOrder Sec 407 ]
- MEMO dated 24 August, 2013 in C.C.NO.6711 OF 2012; to make an Early Order & Report
- Application For Transfer To High Court u/s 479 r/w 407 of Cr.P.C
Filed on 31.7.13 in CC 6711/12. P.R.O, LOKAYUKTA Vs Digvijay Mote
- C.C. 6711/2012.Charges.6/6/12.Judge.Nagalinganagouda Patil . Framed. Cancelled Etc.Pages 15 .