K. Jagannatha Shetty, J. - (1.) The review petitions are against the order dated 30 April 1990, dismissing Special Leave Petitions Nos.3131-37,/88 and other connected petition. The Special Leave Petitions are directed against the decision of the Karnataka High Court dated 21 January 1988 by which the petitioners were unseated by quashing their appointments. The Court while dismissing the Special Leave Petitions, however, issued certain directions as under:"The SLPs are rejected but with the following directions: The High Court shall intimate the State Public Service Commission the total vacancies in the cadre of Second Division Clerks on the establishment of Subordinate Courts and the Public Service Commission shall then immediately take up the process of selection of candidates for appointment to such vacancies. To avoid delay the Public Service Commission may take up this process exclusively for filling-up the vacancies in the establishment of the subordinate judiciary. All these procedures shall be completed with allotment of candidates to respective districts within eight months from today. 2. The candidates whose appointments have been set aside by the High Court are entitled to relaxation of age as provided under Rule 6(3)(b) of the General Recruitment Rules and they shall not be disturbed till they are selected or displaced by the new recruits. 3. So far as appointment against vacancies in the High Court is concerned it is left to the Chief Justice to take immediate action."
(2.) The instant review petitions have been presented with the plea that the directions issued by this Court though merciful are not likely to enure to the benefit of a large number of petitioners. It is said that a majority of the petitioners have already crossed the age of 40 years, and they will not get the benefit of age relaxation even if it is allowed up to 10 years under Rule 6(3) (b) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977. It is also stated that all the petitioners have put in more than 10 years of service. They have over the years acquired considerable experience in office administration and it would cause them irreparable injury if they are thrown out of employment. It is further stated that the majority of the petitioners may not come any where near the zone of selection in the event of a fresh selection in spite of their high qualifications and long experience, since there would be lakhs of candidates for fresh recruitment. With these and other grounds, the petitioners seek a review of the entire matter.
(3.) On 17 July 1990 notice was issued on the review petitions and upon service they were admitted with the following observations "The review petitions are admitted. The orders of this Court and the High Court are kept in abeyance. Counsel for the High Court to state whether the present petitioners could be appointed in suitable posts and whether the affected employees both in the High Court and also in the Subordinate Courts could be allowed to continue in service purely on compassionate and humanitarian consideration, since uprooting them at this stage will bring them untold miseries and to their families. Most of these persons are over aged and they are not liable to get exemption under R. 6(3)(b). Some of them have already been promoted. Some have acquired high qualifications. All of them have gained experience for more than 10 years. These facts were not brought to our attention when we disposed of the special leave petitions. This is a human problem and it requires a very sympathetic consideration. Counsel for the High Court will assist this Court how best to tackle this problem." ;