<p>Ramesh Mayanna Gowda had petitioned the Court saying that the appointment had been given to people who had not applied for the post and to those who did not possess the relevant educational qualifications. Advocate for the petitioner, M S Padmarajaiah argued that Chief Justice should be named as a respondent in the case, as there were amendments to the recruitment procedures even though the Chief Justice did not have the authority to amend it.<br /><br />Countering the argument, Counsel for the High Court S S Naganand said that the Chief Justice had nothing to do with the case and could not be named as a respondent, as the recruitment process had been conducted by the Registrar.</p>
<p>Ramesh Mayanna Gowda had petitioned the Court saying that the appointment had been given to people who had not applied for the post and to those who did not possess the relevant educational qualifications. Advocate for the petitioner, M S Padmarajaiah argued that Chief Justice should be named as a respondent in the case, as there were amendments to the recruitment procedures even though the Chief Justice did not have the authority to amend it.<br /><br />Countering the argument, Counsel for the High Court S S Naganand said that the Chief Justice had nothing to do with the case and could not be named as a respondent, as the recruitment process had been conducted by the Registrar.</p>
