Karnataka High Court Intervenes in Anjali Devi’s Appointment as Prosecution Director
The Karnataka High Court recently issued an interim stay on the order from the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KAT), which had raised objections regarding Anjali Devi’s role as the in-charge Director of Prosecution and Government Litigation. This development comes from the case Anjali Devi v. State of Karnataka.
On August 28, a Division Bench consisting of Justice R Devdas and Justice K Manmadha Rao suspended the KAT order dated August 13. The High Court declared, “There shall be an interim order of stay of the impugned order dated 13.08.2026 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Bengaluru, till the next date of hearing.”
Background of the Dispute
The issue originated from a petition filed by Anjali Devi, who contested the interim directive of the KAT that arose from a petition submitted by Deputy Director Anjana Chavan of the Prosecution Department. The crux of the dispute involved the appointment procedures for the Director of Prosecution and Government Litigation.
Previously, on January 5, the KAT had nullified applications from Anjana Chavan and another officer, Laxmibai Yelasangikar, instructing the State to reconstitute the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). This was to ensure all eligible officers were considered for the Director position in compliance with existing laws and Cadre and Recruitment Rules. The tribunal had mandated the completion of this process within two months and allowed the current incumbent, Anjali Devi, to continue under Rule 32 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSR) during this period.
Despite this directive, after Anjali Devi took child-care leave, the State reassigned additional responsibilities to Chavan on February 4 under Rule 68 of the KCSR. Upon returning, Devi attempted to reassume her duties, but Chavan retained her role. Devi then appealed to the Additional Chief Secretary, who confirmed Chavan’s temporary leadership while Devi remained Deputy Director.
More Read
However, on July 16, the State reinstated Devi as the in-charge Director. Chavan contested this order at the KAT, which held that the two-month deadline for the DPC was missed, thus questioning the legitimacy of Devi’s appointment.
High Court’s Decision
The Karnataka High Court refuted the notion that the missed deadline automatically favored Chavan’s claim to the position. The Bench remarked, “Merely because the DPC proceedings were not completed within the stipulated time, the second respondent cannot claim to be placed as in-charge Director.”
The Court emphasized that allowing Chavan’s claim solely based on procedural delays would necessitate evaluating the merits of both claims prematurely. The Bench added that Chavan’s grievances regarding the State’s non-compliance with the KAT’s orders did not warrant her appointment as Director without a fair adjudication process or the completion of DPC proceedings.
More Read
In conclusion, the Court recognized Devi’s prior appointment based on KAT’s directions and stayed the Tribunal’s August 13 order until further proceedings. The High Court also clarified that the stay would not affect the parties’ standing in any ongoing contempt proceedings and that the DPC process as directed by the KAT should continue unabated.
[Read Order]
