Karnataka High Court
L. Nagaraj S/O L. Nagaiahswamy vs Sate Of Karnataka on 15 July, 2024
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9862
WP No. 147155 of 2020
C/W WP No. 104815 of 2018,
WP No. 115153 of 2019,
WP No. 103761 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO.147155 OF 2020(S-REG)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.104815 OF 2018
WRIT PETITION NO.115153 OF 2019
WRIT PETITION NO.103761 OF 2021
IN WP.NO.147155/2020:
BETWEEN:
1. L. NAGARAJ S/O L. NAGAIAHSWAMY,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: "D" GROUP EMPLOYEE,
R/O: 2ND WARD, NEAR POST OFFICE,
TEKKALKOTE - 583 122, TQ: SIRUGUPPA,
DIST: BALLARI.
2. G. MEHBOOB BASHA S/O G. ALLAHBAKSH,
Digitally signed
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: "D" GROUP EMPLOYEE,
by V N
BADIGER
R/O: 3RD WARD, NEAR JAMA MASJID,
Location: High TEKKALKOTE - 583 122, TQ: SIRUGUPPA,
Court of
Karnataka DIST: BALLARI - 583 101.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. SUNITHA P. KALASOOR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
VISHWESHWARAYYA PODIUM,
BENGALURU - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
2. DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL,
BALLARI - 583 101,
REPRESENTED BY PROJECT DIRECTOR.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9862
WP No. 147155 of 2020
C/W WP No. 104815 of 2018,
WP No. 115153 of 2019,
WP No. 103761 of 2021
3. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
TEKKALKOTE - 583 122,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF OFFICER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GANGADHAR J.M., AAG FOR
SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 10.03.2020 PASSED BY
3RD RESPONDENT PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE - Q. ISSUE A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS TO THE RESPONDENTS TO REGULARIZE THE SERVICES
OF THE PETITIONERS AS PER THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPALITIES
RULES 2004 AND ETC.,
IN WP.NO.104815/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. K. MEHABOOB PASHA S/O. K. KHADIRBASHA,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: POUR KARMIKA,
R/O: 5TH WARD, NEAR HAJ MASJID,
SIRUGUPPA, DIST: BALLARI.
2. K. ALAMBASHA S/O. K. KHADIRBASHA,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: POUR KARMIKA,
R/O: 5TH WARD, NEAR HAJ MASJID,
SIRUGUPPA, DIST: BALLARI.
3. B. DEEPIKA W/O B. MOUNESH,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: POUR KARMIKA,
R/O: 15TH WARD, YALLALINGANAGAR,
SIRUGUPPA, DIST: BALLARI.
4. SHAIKHSHAVALI S/O. A. SHAIKH HUSSAIN,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: POUR KARMIKA,
R/O: 17TH WARD, BEHIND BALAJI TALKIES,
SADASHIV NAGAR, SIRUGUPPA,
DIST: BALLARI.
5. R. RAVIKUMAR S/O. R. MARIYAPPA,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: POUR KARMIKA, R/O: 26TH WARD,
AMBA NAGAR, SIRUGUPPA, DIST: BALLARI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. SUNITHA P. KALASOOR, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9862
WP No. 147155 of 2020
C/W WP No. 104815 of 2018,
WP No. 115153 of 2019,
WP No. 103761 of 2021
AND:
1. SIRGUPPA TOWN MUNICIPALITY,
SIRUGUPPA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER.
2. PROJECT DIRECTOR/ADMINISTRATOR
FOR DIRECT RECRUITMENT,
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE, BALLARI,
REP. BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER.
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
4. DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMN.,
VISHWESHWARAYYA PODIUM,
OPP. COFFEE BOARD, BENGLAURU,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
5. MEMBER SECRETARY, POURA KARMIKA,
DIRECT RECRUITMENT AND
PLANNING DIRECTOR, DIST:DEVELOPMENT CELL,
BALLARI.
...RESPONDENTS
((BY SRI GANGADHAR J.M., AAG FOR
SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R2 TO R5;
SRI Y. LAKSHMIKANTREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI AGAINST THE ANNEXURE-"D" VIDE NO.JINAKOBA-
1/SIBBANDI/224/2017-18 DATED: 16.07.2018 ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 5 WITH RESPECT TO PETITIONERS AND ETC.,
IN WP.NO.115153/2019:
BETWEEN:
1. MOHAMMAD HUSEN S/O. VANTE AADAMSAM,
WARD NO.11, JANATHA COLONY, SANDUR, AGE : 42,
PURASABE SANDUR " D" GROUP EMPLOYEE.
2. M.G.RAJA S/O. M.G.HANUMANTHAMMA,
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9862
WP No. 147155 of 2020
C/W WP No. 104815 of 2018,
WP No. 115153 of 2019,
WP No. 103761 of 2021
WARD NO.8, DARGA MASSIDI,
SANDUR, AGE : 36 YEARS,
PURASABE " D" GROUP EMPLOYEE.
3. K.MANJUNATH S/O. K.S. HANUMKAPPA,
WARD NO.6, ELIGAR ONI, SANDUR, AGE : 44 YEARS,
PURASABE " D" GROUP EMPLOYEE.
4. VASANTH KUMAR M/O.LINGAMMA,
SANDUR, AGE: 37 YEARS,
WARD NO.3, AMBEDKAR COLONY,
SANDUR, PURASABE SANDRUR " D" GROUP EMPLOYEE.
5. K.KUMARSWAMY S/O. LATE LINGAPPA,
WARD NO.20, BHAGYA COLONY,
SANDUR, AGE : 43 YEARS,
PURASABE SANDRUR "D" GROUP EMPLOYEE.
6. N. SHIVARAJ S/O. LATE N GOWARAMMA,
WARD NO.20, BHAGYA COLONY,
SANDUR, AGE : 40 YEARS,
PURASABE SANDRUR "D" GROUP EMPLOYEE.
7. M. KUMARSWAMY S/O. LATE MUKKANNA,
WARD NO.19, DHARMAPUAR,
SANDUR, AGE : 46 YEARS,
PURASABE SANDRUR "D" GROUP EMPLOYEE.
8. K. HASEEN S/O. LATE DADA SAB,
WARD NO.8, DARGA ONI,
SANDUR, AGE : 45 YEARS,
PURASABE SANDRUR " D" GROUP EMPLOYEE.
9. T. RAJENDRAKUMAR S/O. LATE T.BIJJALAPPA,
C/O.LATE GIRIDHAR G (NMDC),
WARD NO.13, BHAGYA JYOTHI COLONY,
SANDUR, AGE : 46 YEARS,
PURASABE SANDRUR " D" GROUP EMPLOYEE.
10. T. SHIVANNA S/O. LATE MUKAPPA,
WARD NO.11, JANATHA COLONY,
SANDUR, AGE : 44 YEARS,
PURASABE SANDRUR " D" GROUP EMPLOYEE.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9862
WP No. 147155 of 2020
C/W WP No. 104815 of 2018,
WP No. 115153 of 2019,
WP No. 103761 of 2021
11. G.SUBRAMANYA S/O. LATE G.SHANMUKHARAO
WARD NO.13, LB COLONY, NEAR COURT,
SANDUR, AGE : 41 YEARS,
PURASABE SANDRUR " D" GROUP EMPLOYEE.
12. K.KUMARSWAMY S/O. SUBBAYYA,
WARD NO.7, VEERASAIVA KALIAN MANTAP,
SANDUR, AGE : 43 YEARS,
PURASABE SANDRUR " D" GROUP EMPLOYEE.
13. G.RAMCHANDRA S/O. G.MALLIKARJUN,
WARD NO.1, SRINIVAS TALKIES, SANDUR,
AGE : 39 YEARS,
PURASABE SANDRUR " D" GROUP EMPLOYEE.
14. S. JAYAMMA S/O. LATE BASAVARAJAGOUDA,
WARD NO.20, BCM HOSTEL JANATHA COLONY,
SANDUR, AGE : 43 YEARS,
PURASABE SANDRUR " D" GROUP EMPLOYEE.
15. B.M.KOTRESH S/O. LATE B.M.CHANNAYYA K.
AYYANAHALLI, (POST), KOTTUR, AGE: 40 YEARS,
PURASABE SANDRUR " D" GROUP EMPLOYEE.
16. B.S.KOTRESH S/O. LATE B.S.SHIVABASAPPA,
WARD NO.15, BACK SIDE IN VISHAL TAKIES,
SANDUR, AGE : 41 YEARS,
PURASABE SANDRUR " D" GROUP EMPLOYEE.
17. N.RAGHAVENDRA S/O. LATE N.NARASAPPA,
WARD NO.8, DARGA ONI, SANDUR, AGE : 39 YEARS,
PURASABE SANDRUR " D" GROUP EMPLOYEE.
18. VENKATESH S/O. HUDASLAMMA,
WARD NO.2, RAMASWAMY TEMPLE,
SANDUR, AGE : 42 YEARS,
PURASABE SANDRUR " D" GROUP EMPLOYEE.
19. D.RAMU S/O. D. SAOMANNA,
WARD NO.2, NEAR ADAVI SWAMY MASSIDI,
SANDUR, AGE : 32 YEARS,
PURASABE SANDRUR " D" GROUP EMPLOYEE.
20. B.NAGARAJ S/O.B.REVANNA,
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9862
WP No. 147155 of 2020
C/W WP No. 104815 of 2018,
WP No. 115153 of 2019,
WP No. 103761 of 2021
WARD NO.7, MAIN BAZAAR,
SANDUR, AGE : 45 YEARS,
PURASABE SANDRUR " D" GROUP EMPLOYEE.
21. B.M.BASAVARAJ S/O. B.M.MALLIKARJUN,
WARD NO.7, MAIN BAZAAR,
SANDUR, AGE : 31 YEARS,
PURASABE SANDRUR " D" GROUP EMPLOYEE.
ALL PETITIONERS ARE
R/O: SANDUR TALUK,
BALLARI DIST - 583 119.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. SUNITHA P. KALASOOR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNDER SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA VEDI,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
KARNATAK, VISHWESHWARAYYA PODIUM,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL,
BALLARI - 583 101,
REPRESENTED BY PROJECT DIRECTOR.
4. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
SANDUR - 583 119,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF OFFICER.
...RESPONDENTS
((BY SRI GANGADHAR J.M., AAG FOR
SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI K.RAGHVENDRA RAO AND V.VIDYA, ADVOCATES FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO:-A. ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING PASSED BY 4TH RESPONDENT PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE 'J' WITH RESPECT TO PETITIONERS.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9862
WP No. 147155 of 2020
C/W WP No. 104815 of 2018,
WP No. 115153 of 2019,
WP No. 103761 of 2021
IN WP.NO.103761/2021:
BETWEEN:
1. MARENNA S/O. SHENKRAPPA,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: 'D' GROUP EMPLOYEE,
R/O: 26TH WARD, AASHRAY KOLONY,
SIRUGUPPA, DIST: BELLARY - 583 101.
2. H.M.MAHESH S/O LATE MUKAMMA,
AGE : 50 YEARS, OCC: 'D' GROUP EMPLOYEE,
R/O : 27TH WARD , BESWESHWAR NAGER,
SIRGUPPA, DIST: BELLARY - 583 101.
3. SUNKAPPA S/O. DODDA SUNKAPPA,
AGE : 42 YEARS, OCC: 'D' GROUP EMPLOYEE,
R/O : 23RD WARD , SONIYA GANDI NAGER
SIRGUPPA, DIST: BELLARY - 583 101.
4. SWAMY S/O LAKSHMANA,
AGE : 48 YEARS, OCC: 'D' GROUP EMPLOYEE,
R/O : 23RD WARD , D.C.NAGAR, .SIRGUPPA,
DIST:BELLARY - 583 101.
5. M.EHABOOB S/O ABDUL AMID,
AGE : 44 YEARS, OCC: 'D' GROUP EMPLOYEE,
R/O : 9TH WARD K.G.ROAD
SIRGUPPA, DIST: BELLARY - 583 101.
6. OBALESH S/O. LAKSHMAN,
AGE : 42 YEARS, OCC: 'D' GROUP EMPLOYEE,
R/O : 23RD WARD , SONIYA GANDI NAGER,
SIRGUPPA, DIST: BELLARY - 583 101.
7. J.P.VIJAYABASKAR S/O. J.P.NARAYAN SWAMY,
AGE : 50 YEARS, OCC: 'D' GROUP EMPLOYEE,
R/O : 22ND WARD , SMS TOKIS, HINDEGEDE,
SIRGUPPA, DIST: BELLARY - 583 101.
8. D. PAMPAPETI S/O. D.SHEKAPPA,
AGE : 50 YEARS, OCC: 'D' GROUP EMPLOYEE,
R/O : 25THH WARD , AMBANAGER,
SIRGUPPA, DIST: BELLARY - 583 101.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9862
WP No. 147155 of 2020
C/W WP No. 104815 of 2018,
WP No. 115153 of 2019,
WP No. 103761 of 2021
9. RAMANJINI. V. S/O. ANJINEYA,
AGE : 45 YEARS, OCC: 'D' GROUP EMPLOYEE,
R/O : 3RD WARD,
DESHNOOR, DIST: BELLARY - 583 101.
10. P.R.RAGEVENDRA S/O. KAMALNABHACHAR,
AGE : 42 YEARS, OCC: 'D' GROUP EMPLOYEE,
R/O : 2NDH WARD , NEAR VADIRAJ GUDI,
SIRGUPPA, DIST: BELLARY - 583 101.
11. HUSAINI RRV S/O. YELLAPP,A
AGE : 42 YEARS, OCC: 'D' GROUP EMPLOYEE,
R/O : 5HT WARD , NEAR YELLAMMA GUDI, RRV
SIRGUPPA, DIST: BELLARY - 583 101.
12. RAMA S/O. SIDDAMMA,
AGE : 42 YEARS, OCC: 'D' GROUP EMPLOYEE,
R/O : 25TH WARD , AMBA NAGER
SIRGUPPA, DIST: BELLARY - 583 101.
13. NAGARAJ S/O. HONURAPPA,
AGE : 40 YEARS, OCC: 'D' GROUP EMPLOYEE,
R/O : 3RD WARD , HARIJAN KERI
DESHNOOR, DIST: BELLARY - 583 101.
14. SHANKRAPPA S/O. IRAPPA,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: 'D' GROUP EMPLOYEE,
R/O : 12TH WARD , VIJAY VITAL NAGER,
AMRUTESHWER GUDI,
SIRGUPPA, DIST:BELLARY - 583 101.
15. SEFFIKAN S/O. SHEMSHIRKHAN,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: 'D' GROUP EMPLOYEE,
R/O : 20TH WARD , MEHABOOBI KOLONY,
SINDANOOR, DIST: BELLARY - 583 101.
16. J.MALLAYYA S/O. BASAPPA,
AGE : 42 YEARS, OCC: 'D' GROUP EMPLOYEE,
R/O : 27TH WARD , BASAWESHWAR NAGER ,
NEAR DODDA BASAPPA TEMPLE, SIRGUPPA,
DIST: BELLARY - 583 101.
17. M. BALAPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: 'D' GROUP EMPLOYEE,
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9862
WP No. 147155 of 2020
C/W WP No. 104815 of 2018,
WP No. 115153 of 2019,
WP No. 103761 of 2021
R/O : 16TH WARD M V.SHESHAYYA
SIRGUPPA, DIST: BELLARY - 583 101.
18. M.SANGAMESHWER S/O. KUMAREPPA,M.,
AGE : 50 YEARS, OCC: 'D' GROUP EMPLOYEE,
R/O : 27TH WARD , SHRI NAGER NAGER,
SIRGUPPA, DIST: BELLARY - 583 101.
19. K.VASANTH S/O. SHIVALINGAPPA,
AGE : 41 YEARS, OCC: 'D' GROUP EMPLOYEE,
R/O: NEAR ANGANAVADI SCHOOL, ASRAYA KOLONY
SIRGUPPA, DIST: BELLARY - 583 101.
20. JANNI BASHA S/O. VELLI BASHA,
AGE : 42 YEARS, OCC: 'D' GROUP EMPLOYEE,
R/O : 20TH WARD , MSP TAKIS OPPOSITE,
SIRGUPPA, DIST: BELLARY - 583 101.
21. S. AALAMBASH S/O. LATE AALAMSAB,
AGE : 42 YEARS OCC: 'D' GROUP EMPLOYEE,
R/O : 21ST WARD , VIJAY NAGER KOLONY,
SIRGUPPA, DIST: BELLARY - 583 101.
22. V. HANUMESH S/O. RAMKRISHNA.V.,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: 'D' GROUP EMPLOYEE,
R/O : 16TH WARD , DRIVER KOLONY
SIRGUPPA, DIST: BELLARY - 583 101.
23. M.MALLIKARJUN S/O. LATE DODDA RAMAPPA,
AGE : 45 YEARS, OCC: 'D' GROUP EMPLOYEE,
R/O : 27TH WARD , BESEVESHWAR NAGER
SIRGUPPA, DIST: BELLARY - 583 101.
24. C.M.MALLIKARJUN S/O. LATE M.SIDDAPPA,
AGE : 41 YEARS, OCC: 'D' GROUP EMPLOYEE,
R/O : 26TH WARD , AASRAYA KOLONY,
SIRGUPPA, DIST: BELLARY - 583 101.
25. K. SHIVKUMAR S/O. KUMBAR VERESHAPPA,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: 'D' GROUP EMPLOYEE,
R/O : 9TH WARD , KUMBAR ONI, TEKKALKOTE,
SIRGUPPA, DIST: BELLARY - 583 101.
26. K .KADER BASHA S/O. K.HUSSEN SAB,
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9862
WP No. 147155 of 2020
C/W WP No. 104815 of 2018,
WP No. 115153 of 2019,
WP No. 103761 of 2021
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: 'D' GROUP EMPLOYEE,
R/O : 13TH WARD , KHB COLONY EWS 121,
SIRGUPPA, DIST: BELLARY - 583 101.
27. DURUGAPPA S/O TAYAMMA,
AGE : 42 YEARS, OCC: 'D' GROUP EMPLOYEE,
R/O : 26TH WARD , AASHRAY KOLONY,
NEAR SWS SCHOOL , SIRGUPPA,
DIST: BELLARY - 583 101.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. SUNITHA P. KALASOOR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
SIRUGUPPA - 583 104, REP. BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER,
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE
BELLARY - 583 101,
REP BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER.
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
4. DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMN,
VISHWESHWARAYYA PODIUM,
OPP. COFFEE BOARD, BANGALORE - 560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI GANGADHAR J.M., AAG FOR
SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.08.2021 VIDE
NO.NUM/NSC/SIBBANDI/2021-22 PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-K AND ETC.,
THESE WRIT PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9862
WP No. 147155 of 2020
C/W WP No. 104815 of 2018,
WP No. 115153 of 2019,
WP No. 103761 of 2021
ORDER
1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners are claiming to have been appointed to the post of Group-D employees, between the years 1993 and 2004.
2. The case of the petitioners is that, they were appointed against the sanctioned posts by a competent authority under the then prevailing provisions of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act') and they have continued to serve in the said posts for more than ten years and there has been no one time regularization of employees till date. Thus, the petitioners' stand for consideration of their request for regularization of their employment in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others1 (for short "Umadevi's case") and in the subsequent judgments, that have been rendered by the Apex Court, referring to paragraph No.53 of the Umadevi's case. 1 (2206) 4 SCC 1
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9862 WP No. 147155 of 2020 C/W WP No. 104815 of 2018, WP No. 115153 of 2019, WP No. 103761 of 2021
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the documents in the nature of correspondences, which ensued between the respondent authorities concerning the appointment of the petitioners, namely the correspondences at Annexures-B, C & D in W.P. No.147155/2020; Annexures-E, E1 & F in W.P. No.104815/2018; Annexure-C in W.P. No.115153/2019; & at Annexure-B series in W.P. No.103761/2021.
4. The representations made by the petitioners in all these petitions seeking regularization of their employment has met with the impugned orders dated 30.08.2019 relieving them from their services, produced at Annexures B, C & D in W.P.No.147155/2020 & Annexures- E, E1 & F in W.P.No.104815/2018. As regards petitioners in W.P. Nos.115153/2019 & 103761/2021, it is contended that petitioners therein are still continuing to work.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the Karnataka Municipalities (Recruitment of Officers and Servants) Rules, 1971, in that drawing attention of this
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9862 WP No. 147155 of 2020 C/W WP No. 104815 of 2018, WP No. 115153 of 2019, WP No. 103761 of 2021 Court to the definition of "appointing authority" as provided under Section 2(c) of the Karnataka Municipalities (Recruitment of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2010, submits that to the post carrying pay scale of Rs.1,310/- per month, the Municipal Council was the appointing authority and that as on the date when the petitioners who were appointed to the post of Group-D employees, their prescribed pay scale was not exceeding Rs.1,310/-, as such, they were admittedly appointed by the Competent Authority namely Municipal Council. It is her further contention that, all these appointments were against the sanctioned posts. She also refers to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Umadevi's case; in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and others2 and in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. M.L. Kesari3. Thus, she submits that, the petitioners indeed meet the criteria laid down by the Apex 2 2018 (8) SCC 238 3 2010 (9) SCC 247
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9862 WP No. 147155 of 2020 C/W WP No. 104815 of 2018, WP No. 115153 of 2019, WP No. 103761 of 2021 Court time and again for consideration of their request for one time regularization. Hence, she seeks for necessary direction in the matters.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents - authorities submit that, though the petitioners have produced the documents to show that they were employed, it is not clear from the records, if the appointments were against the sanctioned posts. It is their case that unless, the petitioners establishes the fact that the appointment was against the sanctioned posts, their case cannot be considered.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents further submit that on and after the publication, Rules known as the Karnataka Municipalities (Recruitment of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2010 by notification dated 13.01.2011, the competent authority for appointment of Group-D employees is the Deputy Commissioner and that since the petitioners were never appointed by the Deputy
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9862 WP No. 147155 of 2020 C/W WP No. 104815 of 2018, WP No. 115153 of 2019, WP No. 103761 of 2021 Commissioner, they cannot contend that there appointment was by the competent authority.
8. Thus, it is further submitted that, considering the appointment of the petitioners being one without authority, their services were placed in the additional posts and since their term expired, they were relieved from the services, as per the direction of the Deputy Commissioner. Hence, it is contended that, the mere length of the services rendered by the petitioner cannot be the criteria for consideration of regularization.
9. Heard. Perused the records.
10. Law with regard to the regularization of employees is well settled. The principles enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Umadevi (supra) at paragraph 53 of the said judgment and further clarification given by the Apex Court in the case of M.L. Kesari (supra) have been consistently followed.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9862 WP No. 147155 of 2020 C/W WP No. 104815 of 2018, WP No. 115153 of 2019, WP No. 103761 of 2021
11. In Umadevi's case (supra), paragraph No.53 reads as under:
"53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. NARAYANAPPA and R. N. NANJUNDAPPA , and B.N. NAGARAJAN and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one - time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme."
12. In the case of M L Kesari (supra), the Apex Court at Paragraph Nos.9, 10 & 11, it is held as under:
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9862 WP No. 147155 of 2020 C/W WP No. 104815 of 2018, WP No. 115153 of 2019, WP No. 103761 of 2021 "9. The term "one-time measure" has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi (3), each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-
wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularise their services.
10. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi(3) cases of several daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees were still pending before courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one-time regularisation process. On the other hand, some government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of the decision in Umadevi (3) , will not lose their right to be considered for regularisation, merely because the one- time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six-month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi (3) has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10-4- 2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one- time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9862 WP No. 147155 of 2020 C/W WP No. 104815 of 2018, WP No. 115153 of 2019, WP No. 103761 of 2021 to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi (3), the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one-time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of Umadevi (3), are so considered.
11. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi (3) is twofold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi (3) was rendered, are considered for regularisation in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily-wage/ad hoc/casual basis for long periods and then periodically regularise them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10-4-2006 [the date of decision in Umadevi ] without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularisation. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularisation within six months of the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularisation in terms of the above directions in Umadevi (3) as a one-time measure."
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9862 WP No. 147155 of 2020 C/W WP No. 104815 of 2018, WP No. 115153 of 2019, WP No. 103761 of 2021
13. In the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari and others, the Apex Court at paragraph Nos.7 & 7 it is held as under:
"7. The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi (3) was therefore twofold, namely, to prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the future and secondly, to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past. The fact that the State of Jharkhand continued with the irregular appointments for almost a decade after the decision in Umadevi (3) is a clear indication that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appointments, and whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed. This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularisation and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head. This is precisely what Umadevi (3) and Kesari sought to avoid.
8. If a strict and literal interpretation, forgetting the spirit of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3), is to be taken into consideration then no irregularly appointed employee of the State of Jharkhand could ever be regularised since that State came into existence only on 15-11-2000 and the cut-off date was fixed as 10-4-2006. In other words, in this manner the pernicious practice of indefinitely continuing irregularly appointed employees would be perpetuated contrary to the intent of the Constitution Bench."
14. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioners were appointed by the Municipal Council, which was the
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9862 WP No. 147155 of 2020 C/W WP No. 104815 of 2018, WP No. 115153 of 2019, WP No. 103761 of 2021 appointing authority during the period between 1993 to 2004, at which, the petitioners' claim to have been appointed to the post of 'D' group employees. There is also no dispute of the fact that the petitioners continued to serve till the impugned communications were issued in the year 2019, relieving them from their services upon the instructions/directions issued by the Deputy Commissioner. Thus, the petitioners have served more than 10 years.
15. This Court by order dated 10.07.2024, had sought for clarification from the counsel representing the respondent-authorities as to; whether the entry of the petitioners into their employment, was against the sanctioned posts and whether the same was in accordance with the applicable Rules or whether their appointments were irregular or illegal?
16. Today, counsel for the respondents also fairly submit that as on the date the petitioners claim to be have been appointed, the Appointing Authority were Municipal Council. However, they hasten to add, that their
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9862 WP No. 147155 of 2020 C/W WP No. 104815 of 2018, WP No. 115153 of 2019, WP No. 103761 of 2021 appointments were not against the sanctioned posts. Having said that, they are unable to point out as to the number of sanctioned posts that were available during the said period. This being the factual aspect of the matter, requires consideration at the hands of respondent- authorities referring to the records for the relevant period.
17. Length of service of the petitioner not being in dispute, the only question which may have to be ascertained by the respondent-authorities is whether all the petitioners were appointed against the sanctioned posts or only some of them. If the authorities on availability of records are able to come to the conclusion that the appointment of the petitioners were made against the sanctioned posts, they may also have to ascertain the number of sanctioned posts then available. They may thereafter consider their request for regularization.
18. With the above observation, these petitions are disposed off with the following directions:
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9862 WP No. 147155 of 2020 C/W WP No. 104815 of 2018, WP No. 115153 of 2019, WP No. 103761 of 2021
(i) The respondent-Deputy Commissioner to verify the records with regard to the number of sanctioned posts which were available on the dates of appointment of the petitioner and then initiate process of consideration of the cases of the petitioners individually as against the said sanctioned posts and pass such appropriate orders keeping in mind the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Umadevi (supra) at paragraph 53 of the said judgment, clarified in case of M L Kesari (supra).
(ii) It is made clear that the aforesaid process shall be completed within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(iii) The claim of the petitioners in
W.P.No.147155/2022 and
W.P.No.104815/2018 for reinstatement
would be considered only thereafter by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner.
(iv) It is also further made clear that if the petitioners in W.P.No.115153/2019 &
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9862 WP No. 147155 of 2020 C/W WP No. 104815 of 2018, WP No. 115153 of 2019, WP No. 103761 of 2021 W.P.No.103761/2021 have not been relieved as on the said date, no precipitative orders shall be passed till the determination of their cases as directed hereinabove.
The Court hopes that necessary assistance / instructions in these matters will be given by the office of the learned AAG to the Deputy Commissioner to interpret and implement the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Umadevi & M.L. Kesari (supra) to the facts concerning the cases at hand.
SD/-
JUDGE VNP,KGK/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19 MGSKJ 18.07.2024 ORDER ON 'BEING SPOKEN TO'
1. This matter is taken up for being spoken to upon the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents.
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9862 WP No. 147155 of 2020 C/W WP No. 104815 of 2018, WP No. 115153 of 2019, WP No. 103761 of 2021
2. Counsel for the respondents referred to Annexure- R5 produced along with the statement of objection filed by the respondent-State Government which is a purported notification bearing number VNE 150 TMT 94 dated 10.02.1995, in terms of which, the State Government has purportedly delegated certain powers of the Municipal Council and Municipal Corporations, to the Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner. Referring to the same, counsel of the respondents submit that the power to appoint Group 'D' employees in the Municipal Council and Municipal Corporations have been delegated to the Deputy Commissioner, who is required to make such appointment with the prior permission of the Government. Thus, it is contended that, when the matter was disposed of on 15.07.2024, the respondents' counsel could not bring this point for consideration before this Court. Hence, the matter was moved for being spoken to.
3. Counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, submits that, the said notification which is produced at
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9862 WP No. 147155 of 2020 C/W WP No. 104815 of 2018, WP No. 115153 of 2019, WP No. 103761 of 2021 Annexure-R5 has never been gazetted, as required to be published under the provisions of sub-Section (16) of Section 2 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act of 1964') in terms of which, a notification means, a notification published in the official gazette. That, until and unless it is published in official gazette it has no force of law. She also relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Agricultural University Vs.Ashok Kumar Prasad and Ors., passed in Civil Appeal No.6937/2004, dated 30.11.2009 in support of her aforesaid submission. Thus, according to the counsel for the petitioners, the said Annexure- R5 is merely a draft and has never seen the daylight as required under the Act. As such, she submits, the same has no legal effect and the same is non est in the eyes of law.
4. Further referring to section 388 of the Act, 1964 she submits that even for the sake of argument, it is accepted that, the said notification was issued in exercise of power under Section 388 of the Act, 1964 as shown
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9862 WP No. 147155 of 2020 C/W WP No. 104815 of 2018, WP No. 115153 of 2019, WP No. 103761 of 2021 thereunder, no powers as stated in the said notification could be delegated inasmuch as Section 388 of the Act, itself do not contemplate delegation of such power. Thus, she submits that the said notification cannot be given credence in the eyes of law.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-Authorities is unable to point out, if the said notification at Annexure-R5 was published, as required under the law.
6. Heard further.
7. Since, while disposing of the writ petition, this Court taking into consideration submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents, had observed that the petitioners herein, were appointed between the year 1993 and 2004 by the competent authority and issued directions to consider their case, the subsequent submission now made regarding delegation of powers, may also be required to be considered by the
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9862 WP No. 147155 of 2020 C/W WP No. 104815 of 2018, WP No. 115153 of 2019, WP No. 103761 of 2021 respondent-Authorities. Accordingly, the further direction is issued as under:
(i) While considering the request of the petitioner for regularisation as directed, the respondent-authority, shall pass specific order with regard to the said notification, that is, whether the said notification has been published or not in the official gazette as required under Section 2(16) of the Act, 1964;
(ii) If it is found that, the said notification was not gazetted, as required under the Act, the respondent authorities shall proceed further as if the appointment of the petitioners were made by the competent appointing authority, namely the Municipal Council.
SD/-
JUDGE kgk List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2