Karnataka High Court
S.T. Siddaraju vs State Of Karnataka on 25 October, 2024
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:43156-DB
WP No. 18870 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 18870 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1. S.T. SIDDARAJU
S/O LATE THAMMAIAH SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
DTP OPERATOR
WORKING ON OOD BASIS
IN THE OFFICE OF THE
FINANCE DEPT., VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001
2. C. SHIVANNA
S/O CHIKKA BYATANNA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT
Digitally signed by
SHAKAMBARI GOVT. PRINTING PRESS
Location: HIGH R.V.COLLEGE POST
COURT OF
KARNATAKA MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 059
3. S. VENKATESH
S/O LATE SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
ASSISTANT BINDER
WORKING IN GOVT. PRINTING PRESS
R.V.COLLEGE POST
MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 059
4. N. NINGARAJU
ASSISTANT OFFSET MACHINE MINDER
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:43156-DB
WP No. 18870 of 2021
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
WORKING IN GOVT. PRINTING PRESS
R.V.COLLEGE POST, MYSORE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 059
5. GOVINDARAJU B.V
S/O VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
ASSISTANT OFFSET PRINTER
WORKING IN GOVT. PRINTING PRESS
R.V.COLLEGE POST
MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 059
6. VENKATESHA T
S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
ASSISTANT BINDER
WORKING IN GOVT. PRINTING PRESS
R.V.COLLEGE POST
MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 059
7. C.B. MAHESH
S/O CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
WORKING IN GOVT. PRINTING PRESS
R.V.COLLEGE POST
MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 059
8. SMT. A.M. GANGAMMA
W/O B. SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
ASSISTANT BINDER
WORKING IN GOVT. PRINTING PRESS
R.V.COLLEGE POST
MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 059
9. SRI. D. SUBBARAYAGOWDA
S/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
ASSISTANT BINDER
WORKING AGAINST THE POST OF FDA
WORKING IN GOVERNMENT
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:43156-DB
WP No. 18870 of 2021
PRINTING PRESS
VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHAILENDRA M.R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001
BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
2. EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
PRIMARY AND HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION
6TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
3. THE DIRECTOR OF
PRINTING, STATIONERY AND
PUBLICATIONS IN KARNATAKA
GOVERNMENT CENTRAL PRESS
8TH MAIN, R.V.COLLEGE POST
MYSORE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 059
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO ORDER DATED 14TH
SEPTEMBER 2020, PASSED IN APPLICATION NOS.5723-
5735/2018 OF KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, AT ANNEXURE - A AND PERSUSE THE
SAME AND QUASH THE 4TH SEPTEMBER 2020, PASSED IN
APPLICATION NOS.5723-5735/2018 OF KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, AT ANNEXURE - A,
AND ALLOW THE APPLICATIONS BY GRANTING THE PRAYERS
MADE THEREIN, BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY
OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION, AS THE CASE MAY BE AND ETC.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:43156-DB
WP No. 18870 of 2021
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 14.09.2020 in Application Nos.5723-5735/2018 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, 'Tribunal') are before this Court whereby applications filed by the petitioners for regularization of their services is dismissed.
2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Shailendra.M.R., for petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.H.K.Kenchegowda for respondents 1 to 3. Perused the writ petition papers.
3. Learned counsel Sri.Shailendra.M.R. for petitioners would submit that the petitioners were appointed on daily wage basis in the 3rd respondent - the -5- NC: 2024:KHC:43156-DB WP No. 18870 of 2021 State Government, Printing, Stationary and Publications Department during the period from 1987 to 1990. The appointment of the petitioners was against the sanctioned posts by competent Authority. As the petitioners fulfill the criteria prescribed in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS VS. UMADEVI AND OTHERS1, the petitioners would be entitled for regularization of their service. Learned counsel would invite attention of this Court to endorsement dated 11.12.2017 (Annexure-A6) wherein the petitioners' request for regularization is rejected solely on the ground that the petitioners are not appointed against the sanctioned posts. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioners were in fact appointed against the sanctioned vacant post and in support of his contention, he would invite our attention to Annexure-R1 produced along with counter statement said to have been filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal. Learned counsel would 1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 -6- NC: 2024:KHC:43156-DB WP No. 18870 of 2021 submit that the information furnished to the petitioners under RTI indicates that there are sufficient vacant posts during the year 1993-94 and as such he submits that petitioners were appointed against vacant sanctioned posts. Thus, he submits that action of the respondents in rejecting the cases of the petitioners for regularization is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable. Hence, he prays for allowing the writ petition.
4. On the contrary, learned Additional Government Advocate supports the order passed by the Tribunal and further submits that there is no material to establish that the petitioners were appointed against the vacant sanctioned posts. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the cases of the petitioners and similarly situated persons could be considered for regularization only if they fulfill the criteria prescribed in judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph 53 of the UMADEVI'S case supra. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:43156-DB WP No. 18870 of 2021
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point that would arise for our consideration is as to, Whether interference is required with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal?
6. The answer to the above point would be in the Negative for the following reasons:
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in UMADEVI case supra has made it clear that a temporary employee or daily wage employee would be entitled for consideration of his/her case for regularization, only if he/she fulfills the criteria that appointment shall be against vacant and sanctioned post; by competent authority; and if he/she fulfills the qualification prescribed for the post. In the instant case, petitioners have failed to establish that their appointment was against the sanctioned vacant posts. The material produced by the petitioners relates to the year 1993-94 vacancies, whereas the petitioners according to them, were appointed on daily wage basis during the year -8- NC: 2024:KHC:43156-DB WP No. 18870 of 2021 1987-90. Unless the petitioners prove that their appointment is on daily wage basis against the sanctioned vacant post, they would not be entitled for regularization.
8. The Tribunal referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in UMADEVI case supra and subsequent judgments has rightly come to the conclusion that there is no document to support the pleadings and that they fulfill the condition prescribed in UMADEVI case supra.
9. We do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE PSJ,NC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26