Karnataka High Court
Sri N Krishnamurthy vs The Karnataka State Pollution Control ... on 17 April, 2026
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:21289
WP No. 21292 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.21292 OF 2025 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI N KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O. GATTU NARASIMHALU,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER,
KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
NO.49, PARISARA BHAVANA,
CHURCH STREET,
BANGALORE - 560 001
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRITHVEESH M.K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
NO.49, PARISARA BHAVANA, CHURCH STREET,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally (BY SRI. A. MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE)
signed by
CHANDANA THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION
BM
OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE
Location: RESPONDENT AND ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER DIRECTING THE
High Court RESPONDENT TO EXTEND SERVICE WEIGHTAGE TO THE PETITIONER
of Karnataka IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORDER DATED 07/06/2023 BEARING NO.
MANIMA 03 ADABI 07/349 (ANNEXURE V) AS WELL AS THE
GOVERNMENT ORDERS DATED 12/11/2009 BEARING NO. FEE 2 EPC
2008 (ANNEXURE - F) AND GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 23/04/2014
BEARING NO.AAPAJE 195 EPC 2012 (ANNEXURE - N) AND
CONSEQUENTLY APPOINT/REGULARIZE/ABSORB HIM TO THE POST OF
ASSISTANT ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER ALONG WITH ALL
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS, FROM DUE DATE, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:21289
WP No. 21292 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
"a) Call for the records from the Respondent;
b) Issue a writ or order directing the Respondent to extend service weightage to the Petitioner in accordance with the Order dated 07.06.2023 bearing No.MaNiMa 03 Adabi 07/349 (Annexure-V) as well as the Government Orders dated 12.11.2009 bearing No.FEE 2 EPC 2008 (Annexure-F) and Government Order dated 23.04.2014 bearing No.AaPaJe 195 EPC 2012 (Annexure-N) and consequently appoint / regularize / absorb him to the post of Assistant Environmental Officer along with all consequential benefits, from due date, in the interest of justice and equity;
c) Pass any other Order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the cost of writ petition, in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Environmental Officer in the year 1997 and since his request for extending service weightage in terms of the government order at Annexure - F dated 12.11.2009 -3- NC: 2026:KHC:21289 WP No. 21292 of 2025 HC-KAR and government order at Annexure - N dated 23.04.2024 was not accepted by the respondent - Board, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.4630/2011, which was disposed of vide final order at Annexure - H dated 30.03.2011 as hereunder:
" Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the petition is disposed of finally.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents who had sought to file statement of objections have not done so. In any event having regard to the relief sought, statement of objections are nor warranted.
4. The petitioner claim to have rendered more than thirteen years of service as a contract employee. He is a holder of B.E. Degree in Civil Engineering. He was appointed as Civil Engineer in the first respondent Board on contract basis for a period of three months. Thereafter, he has been continued in the cadre of Civil Engineer. Which was re - designated as Assistant Environmental Officer from time to time by issuing fresh orders without any break. The last such extension was upto 31.03.2011. It is the petitioner's claim that more than sixty employees are working on such basis since the year 1997 in various cadres including the petitioner. The petitioner had made representations along with others requesting to enhance the basis pay and regularise their service as their services were required and their appointment were against substantive vacancies. The respondents have undertaken performance review committee meetings from -4- NC: 2026:KHC:21289 WP No. 21292 of 2025 HC-KAR time to time to assess the continued performance of the petitioner and other an their services have been found satisfactory at al times. Which is why they have been continue in service. It is in that background that representations was made to regularise the services of the petitioner in line with the directions issued by the Apex Court in UMA DEVI AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [2006(4)] SCC 1] since the petitioner claims that he satisfies the following conditions namely, that his appointment was against substantive vacancy. Secondly he is qualified to be appointed to the post. Thirdly, he has completed more that ten years in that cadre and continued to work and that his services have not been continued on contract basis by virtue of interim order granted by this Court or any other Court. However, the representation of the petitioner is pending consideration and no orders are passed. Therefore, the present petition seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his case.
5. It is for the respondents to pass appropriate orders. If it is found that the petitioner is entitled and is eligible for such regularisation and in the light of the decision of ht apex Court in UMADEVI's case. Accordingly, the respondents are direction to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of his representation dated: 13.10.2010 at Annexure-"K" and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of."-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:21289 WP No. 21292 of 2025 HC-KAR
4. Subsequently, in relation to the contractual employees including the petitioner herein, this Court in W.P.No.27983/2012 and connected matters dated 21.08.2012, held as under:
"O R D E R Learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondent No.2 in W.P. Nos.27983-27984 of 2012.
2. Sri Ajay Kumar Patil, learned counsel is directed to take notice for respondent No.1 in W.P. Nos.27983-27984 of 2012.
3. Petitioners in these writ petitions have called in question the Government order dated 17.07.2012 produced at Annexure `X`, wherein the request of the petitioners for regularization of their services has been rejected.
4. Petitioner in W.P.No.38300/2010 is an association of contract employees of the first respondent - M/s. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (for short, `the Board`). This Association has sought for mandamus directing the respondents therein not to complete the recruitment by the Board by considering the applications received in response to the notification published in `Vijaya Karnataka` daily news paper on 06.10.2010 till the claim of 107 contract employees of the first respondent for regularization is decided and for a direction to the first respondent to regularize the services of the members of the petitioner- association by absorbing them into service and to grant all the benefits that are available to the regular employees employed by -6- NC: 2026:KHC:21289 WP No. 21292 of 2025 HC-KAR the first respondent.
5. It is not in dispute that the request for regularization of the contract employees of the first respondent - Board is now negatived by the order impugned in the connected writ petition Nos.27983- 27984 of 2012.
6. Since the issue involved in these petitions being common, they are taken up together for disposal.
7. The brief facts as stated by the petitioners is as under:
There were about 107 contract employees working in the first respondent - Board in groups `C` and `D` cadres. They have put in about more than ten years of continuous service as contract employees against the regular vacancies. However, they are not getting the benefits like housing allowance, pension etc., as their services were not regularized by the Board.
The contract employees made a representation to the first respondent - Board for regularization of their services.
The Board passed a resolution on 06.01.2010 to recommend the same to the State Government for regularisation of the services of the contract employees. In this regard, a legal opinion was also sought for and the Advisory Committee empowered the Chairman of the Board to take the decision in the matter of regularization of the services of the contract employees with a strong recommendation to the State Government.-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:21289 WP No. 21292 of 2025 HC-KAR It is stated that, all the contract employees fulfilled the necessary criteria for regularization of their services, namely, the criteria specified in the judgement of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2010 SC 2587 in the matter of STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS Vs. M.L. KESARI AND OTHERS as per Para No.5 therein.
Though the Board had passed the resolution on 06.01.2010 and also made recommendation for regularization of the services of the contract employees, however, the Board issued a notification dated 06.10.2010 inter alia calling for applications in respect of the posts for which these contract employees were working. As such, the Association of the contract employees aggrieved by the said notification, filed writ petition in W.P. No.38300/2010 for stopping the process of recruitment in pursuance of the notification dated 06.10.2010.
This Court, by interim order dated 23.02.2011, noticed that some of the contract employees had made applications for recruitment in pursuance of the notification dated 06.10.2010 and some had not made application and the State Government had also passed an order dated 12.11.2009 inter alia granting approval for extension of weightage at 4% of marks for each satisfactorily completed year of service rounded up to next integer and age relaxation extended by the Government order dated 05.08.2002 as amended from time to time to those employees working on contract basis as on the date of notification issued for recruitment, who have not availed the said benefit earlier and the benefit shall be applicable to all the categories of posts -8- NC: 2026:KHC:21289 WP No. 21292 of 2025 HC-KAR advertised on one time basis against which they are working. The Government also ordered that in case the total percentage after adding the weightage exceeded 100%, then it shall be limited to one hundred percent. Having regard to the Government order extending the weightage for the contract employees, this Court permitted the contract employees working in the Board to make applications, if they had not already made and such applications would be considered by the Board keeping in mind the Government order dated 12.11.2012 extending the weightage.
This Court had also observed that though the contract employees did not qualify to apply to the respective posts advertised as per the notification dated 06.10.2010 in view of the amended Cadre and Recruitment Rules, and directed the Board to consider the cases of contract employees, who had applied treating their applications as having been made under the Cadre and Recruitment Rules of 1992 (for short, `the Rules of 1992`), so as to avoid any prejudice that would be caused to the contract employees, who have made an application for direct recruitment and were not qualified under the amended Cadre and Recruitment Rules of the respondent - Board.
In Writ Petition No.38300/2010, the relief sought for by the petitioner is to stay the recruitment proceedings till their request for regularization of service is considered and disposed of by the State. The main grievance of the petitioner - association in said writ petitions is that their case for regularization be considered before the recruitment process is begun. if the process of -9- NC: 2026:KHC:21289 WP No. 21292 of 2025 HC-KAR recruitment continues, the very purpose for which, their request for regularization has been recommended by the Board to the State, could be frustrated and they would be denied of the said benefit.
8. Having regard to these circumstances, it is appropriate to answer the question as to, "Whether the contract employees employed by the Board are entitled for regularization as claimed by them ?"
9. The impugned order dated 17.06.2012 produced at Annexure `X` in W.P. Nos.27983 and 27984 of 2012 becomes relevant for consideration.
10. The State Government, by the said impugned order has considered the grievance of these contract employees in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in M.L. KESARI`s case referred supra and has found that from amongst 107 contract employees, only three employees have completed 10 years of continuous service as on 10.04.2006 and the remaining employees have not completed 10 years of service as on the said day and accordingly, by the said impugned order, services of three employees, namely, (1). Sri Rudrappa Kamatar (2). Sri H.T. Srinivasa and (3) Sri T. Shivanna have been regularized.
11. The entire case of the petitioner is based on the decision of the Apex Court in M.L. KESARI`s case. It is appropriate to refer to the said decision. The Apex Court, having regard to the principles enunciated in the judgement reported in 2006 AIR SCW 1991 in the matter of SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS Vs. UMADEVI AND OTHERS, held that,
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21289 WP No. 21292 of 2025 HC-KAR as one time measure, an option was given to the State government to regularise the services of the employees, who had worked for 10 years or more in a duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any Court or Tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than 10 years. Such appointment is not illegal, and the employee is qualified to be appointed to be considered for regularisation as a one time measure.
12. Now, by the impugned order as per Annexure `X` in W.P Nos.27983 and 27984 of 2012, the Government finds that out of 107 employees presently working on contract basis in the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, only three employees have completed 10 years of continuous service as on 10.04.2006 and their case for regularization was considered as per the decision of the Apex Court in M.L. KESARI`s case.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner - Association submitted that, these contract employees have been working against sanctioned posts. All of them were qualified to be appointed to the respective posts as per the Rules of 1992 and have completed necessary period of service for regularization and their cases also come within the norms specified by the Apex Court both in UMADEVI`s case as well as M.L. KESARI`s case.
14. In M.L. KESARI`s case, the Apex Court has only reiterated the principles enunciated in UMADEVI`s case. However, the benefit is extended, which was
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21289 WP No. 21292 of 2025 HC-KAR otherwise one-time measure in UMADEVI`s case by observing that the employees, will not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one- time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in para 53 of the judgment in UMADEVI`s case (AIR 2006 SC 1806) = (para 44 in 2006(4) SCC 1) has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily- wage/adhoc/those employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10.04.2006, 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 the judgement in UMADEVI`s case, but did not consider the cases of some employees, who were entitled to the said benefit, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise would be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of the judgement in UMADEVI`s case, are so considered. Hence, it is clear that one-time consideration is not limited to six months from the date of decision in UMADEVI`s case, but one- time consideration means consideration of the grievance of all the employees, who are entitled for regularization in terms of para 53 of the judgment in UMADEVI`s case, till it is so considered by the employer.
15. The criteria to be fulfilled by the employee, who has been engaged either on adhoc or daily wages, for consideration of his / her case for regularization is that he / she should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any Court or Tribunal. In case, where
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21289 WP No. 21292 of 2025 HC-KAR the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, though such appointment may be irregular, employee concerned is entitled for consideration and he must have completed 10 years of continuous service as on 10.04.2006.
16. Now, the impugned order dated 17.06.2012 produced at Annexure `X` specifically states that out of 107 contract employees, only three employees have completed 10 years of continuous service as on 10.04.2006.Admittedly, completion of 10 years of continuous service as on 10.04.2006 is one of the main criteria to be fulfilled by the contract employees / daily wagers. If the said condition is not fulfilled, the consideration of other condition may not arise.
17. Petitioner - Association has not at all produced any material to show that other than three contract employees mentioned in Annexure `X`, the other employees have also completed the continuous service of 10 years as on 10.04.2006. Thus, there is no ground on which the Government can regularize the services of the remaining contract employees. Though they might have put in number of continuous years of service, they have not completed minimum of 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006. Hence, their case do not fall under the norms stated in M.L.KESRI'S case.
18. The other circumstance was that from amongst 107 contract employees, some of them have already made an application for direct recruitment and the Government by its order dated 12.11.2009 referred to in the interim order passed by this Court dated
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21289 WP No. 21292 of 2025 HC-KAR 23.02.2011, has extended the benefit of weightage of four percent of marks for each satisfactorily completed year of service rounded up to next integer.
19. During the pendency of this writ petition, this Court by interim order has permitted those employees, who had not made application in response to the notification dated 06.10.2010, to make an application for direct recruitment and further observed that the qualification prescribed under the Rules of 1992 be considered as the requisite qualification. Having regard to the continuous service put in by the contract employees and the previous qualification prescribed and having regard to the vacancies, against which they were engaged on contract basis, this Court also made an observation that in respect of the contract employees, who have applied for direct recruitment in response to the notification dated 06.10.2010, their applications shall treated as having been made under the Rules of 1992.
20. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner - Association submitted that, the weightage given as per the Government order dated 12.11.2009 should not be confined to the posts in which the contract employees were working, but also in respect of all the posts to which they apply. The weightage should be extended irrespective of the posts for which they have applied or in which they were working. The said benefit should be continued not only once, but also for the future recruitment. He also contended that as far as the qualification for recruitment as per the notification dated 06.10.2010 or for any subsequent recruitment, it should be only according to the qualification prescribed under the Rules of 1992.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21289 WP No. 21292 of 2025 HC-KAR
21. Learned Government Pleader submitted that, first of all, qualification prescribed in notification dated 06.10.2010 cannot be altered and if the recruitment is to be made in pursuance of the notification dated 06.10.2010, necessarily, the applicant must fulfill the requisite qualification as per the Cadre and Recruitment Rules of 2010 (for short, `the Rules of 2010`) and not the Rules of 1992. But, he does not deny that this Court has permitted the contract employees to make applications and had directed the Board to treat the said application as having been made under the Rules of 1992. He also submitted that the Government has extended the benefit of weightage of four percent marks to the contract employees as one-time measure and it cannot be made available for all the future recruitment.
22. Learned counsel for the first respondent - Board also submitted that he has no objection to consider the case of the contract employees by giving weightage as per the Government order dated 12.11.2009. However, he submitted that it is only an one-time measure. The Board has no jurisdiction to extend the benefit for subsequent period. He also submitted that since this Court by the interim order had directed the Board to treat the applications made by the contract employees as having been made under the Cadre and Recruitment Rules of 1992, the same will be considered under the recruitment Rules of 1992.
23. No doubt, the recruitments are required to be made in accordance with the qualification as prescribed under the Cadre and Recruitment Rules prevailing as on the date of the issue of the notification. But, in so far as
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21289 WP No. 21292 of 2025 HC-KAR the contract employees in these writ petitions are concerned, it is not in dispute that they have been working for several years and they might not have completed 10 years of continuous service as on 10.04.2006. However, at the time when they were recruited, they were all qualified for the respective posts. But for the shortage of length of service as on 10.04.2006, some of them became ineligible for regularization. At the same time, the very same posts have been advertised for direct recruitment. If they were all qualified when they were recruited and have been working in the said posts, their experience itself could be treated as a qualification. It is in this regard, this Court, having noticed that only some of the contract employees had made applications in response to the notification dated 06.10.2010, permitted the other contract employees, who had not made applications to make applications and directed the Board to treat the same as having been made under the Rules of 1992 and not under the Rules of 2010.
24. In my opinion, though the order dated 23.02.2011 is an interim order, it is passed by this Court keeping in mind the fact that the contract employees have been continuously engaged by the Board against clear vacancies and they were all qualified. Treating the said qualification as requisite qualification, their applications have been directed to be considered. In my opinion, applications of these contract employees have to be treated as having made in conformity with the qualification prescribed under the Rules of 1992.
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21289 WP No. 21292 of 2025 HC-KAR
25. Learned counsel appearing for the Board also fairly submitted that, all the applications of the contract employees have been considered under the Rules of 1992. He had also filed details of the contract employees to be benefited from the weightage along with a memo. He also submitted that except for the post of Field Assistant, in respect of other posts, the qualification, which was prescribed under 2010 Rules is the same qualification, which is prescribed under 1992 Rules. There may not be any difficulty in considering the applications of all the contract employees, who have made application for direct recruitment.
26. Apart from this, even for the post of Field Assistant also, applications of the contract employees have been considered in terms of the qualification prescribed under the Rules of 1992. Apart from considering them under the Rules of 1992, they have been benefitted by the weightage as per the Government order dated 12.11.2009. In my opinion, this statement of the Board clearly satisfies the grievance of the petitioner for consideration of their case under the Rules of 1992. Even other wise, having regard to the special circumstances and these employees were appointed on the bases of the qualification as prescribed then i.e., in 1992, hence they deserve special consideration.
27. As far as extension of the weightage as per the Government Order dated 12.11.2009 for the subsequent recruitments is concerned, both the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the Board submitted that the said extension of weightage would not only be contrary to the Government order, but it
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21289 WP No. 21292 of 2025 HC-KAR would jeopardise the future recruitment. Such consideration would be voilative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
28. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the weightage given under the Government order dated 12.11.2009 should also be available for any other post, there is no merit in this contention as the purpose of giving weightage was to respect the length of service rendered by such employees in the concerned post, considering their experience in the said post, the weightage is sought to be given. The Government orders dated 12.11.2009 and 05.08.2002 were all made for the benefit of the contract employees and to see that as far as possible, their interest is protected. But, it does not mean that the weightage given to a particular post can be extended to any other post, for which, the contract employees has no experience, nor such benefit could be extended from time to time.
29. The Government Order dated 12.11.2009 itself speaks that it is a one-time measure and even according to the judgement of the Apex Court in UMADEVI`s case, if the daily wages / adhoc / contract employees are qualified and fulfill the norms prescribed therein for regularization, their case shall be considered as a one-time measure. The Apex Court reconsidered the judgement in UMADEVI`s case in so far as the norms prescribed therein are concerned and held that one-time measure would be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of the judgement in UMADEVI`s case. Once cases of such employees are considered and given
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21289 WP No. 21292 of 2025 HC-KAR benefit of weightage and also qualification, I do not think there can be any justification to extend the said benefit again and again. If they do not qualify despite giving of such benefit, it cannot be said that such weightage and benefit should be extended till they are selected.
30. Since in this case, the Board stated that it would extend the benefit of weightage as per the Government Order dated 12.11.2009 and the applications of the contract employees would be considered as if made under the Rules of 1992 and if the selection is made by considering those two criteria, one-time consideration stands fulfilled.
31. Apart from this, the learned counsel for the Board also made submission that even if the contract employees, who have made applications for direct recruitment are not selected, they will not be disturbed from their services as contract employees and they would be continued. This submission is also placed on record.
32. Having regard to these circumstances, I pass the following Order:-
(1) The contract employees except three, namely,(1) Sri Rudrappa Kamatar (2) Sri H.T. Srinivasa and (3) Sri T. Shivanna, Second Division Assistants, all others are not entitled for regularization in terms of the Government Order dated 17.06/07.2012.
(2) In respect of the contract employees, who have made applications in response to the notification dated 06.10.2010
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21289
WP No. 21292 of 2025
HC-KAR
and who have made applications in
pursuance of the interim order dated
23.02.2011 in W.P. No.38300/2010, their applications shall be considered in terms of the qualification prescribed under the Cadre and Recruitment Rules of 1992 and (3) The weightage as prescribed by the Government under the Government Order dated 12.11.2009 be given to such applicants, who have made application for direct recruitment. (4) If the applicants, who had applied for direct recruitment, and who have been selected and appointment orders have been issued, the same is not disturbed. It is only in respect of the contract employees, whose applications are yet to be decided, the recruitment authority shall dispose of the applications in terms of the above observations. In respect of the contract employees, whose selection process is completed in terms of the above observations, the appointment orders be issued forthwith.
(5) The Board is at liberty to fix the seniority of the applicants, who have been selected taking in to consideration merit and other criteria.
Hence, Writ Petition Nos.27983-27984 of 2012 stand dismissed. Writ Petition No.38300/2010 stand disposed of in terms of the above order."
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21289 WP No. 21292 of 2025 HC-KAR
5. As can be seen from the aforesaid order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the service weightage was directed to be extended in favour of the contract employees, who are identically / similarly situated to the petitioner. Subsequently, when the said benefit was not granted in favour of the petitioner and his services was also not regularized, the petitioner once again approached this Court in W.P.No.47643/2012, which was allowed and disposed of by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court, vide Annexure - M dated 04.07.2017 as hereunder:
"The petitioner is before this court seeking for a writ of mandamus and for a direction to the respondents to consider awarding weightage as per Annexure-G; and thereafter to consider his case for regularization as Assistant Environmental Officer in the respondent Board and regularize his services in accordance with law.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Civil Engineer under contract basis in the respondent-Board, 15 years ago. As per Government Order, dated 12.11.2009, his services are not regularized. Hence, he had filed Writ Petition No.4630/2011 before this Court seeking writ of mandamus to regularize his services.
3. This Court by the order dated 30.3.2011 directed that in respect of the contract employees who have made applications in response to the notification dated 6.10.2010
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21289 WP No. 21292 of 2025 HC-KAR and who have made applications in pursuance of the interim order dated 23.2.2011 in W.P.No.38300/2010 shall be considered in terms of the qualification prescribed under the Cadre and Recruitment Rules 1992 and weightage as prescribed under the Government order dated 12.11.2009 be given to such applicants.
4. Thereafter the respondent filed W.P.No.27983- 984/2012. This Court by order dated 21.8.2012 directed the respondent that the contract employees, except three, are not entitled for regularization and weightage as prescribed under the Government Order. The petitioner made a representation to the respondents vide annexure -A, for which the respondents issued an endorsement stating that the petitioner is not qualified, and therefore, not eligible for the post of Assistant Environment Officer vide Annexure-D. Further the petitioner filed an application along with representation vide Annexure-E contending .that as per G.O. dated 12.11.2009, he is entitled for weihtage of 4 marks and his percentage comes to 95.87. The respondent without considering the weightage as per Government proceedings vide Annexure-G, has published lost of ineligible candidates and the petitioner is shown at Sl.No.13 as not eligible for weightage. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this Writ petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for both sides.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that weightage given as per the Government order dated
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21289 WP No. 21292 of 2025 HC-KAR 12.11.2009 should not be confined to the post in which the contract employees were working and should be extended to all irrespective of the posts for which they have applied for in which they were working. The said benefit should be continued not only once, but also for the future recruitments. He further contended that with regard to qualification for recruitment as per the notification dated 6.10.2010 or for any subsequent recruitment, it should be in accordance with the qualification prescribed under the Cadre and Recruitment Rules 1992. Hence, prays for a direction to the respondents.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as per Cadre and Recruitment Rules, 2010, applicant must fulfill the requisite qualification, but the qualification prescribed in the notification dated 6.10.2010 cannot be altered. He has also submitted that the Government has extended the benefit of weightage of 4% marks to the contract employees as one time measure and it cannot be made available for all future recruitments and the Board has no objection to consider the case of the contract employees by giving weightage as per the G.O. Dated 12.11.2009. He has further submitted that at the time when they were recruited, they were all qualified for the respective posts, but for the shortage of length of service as on 10.4.2006 some of them were not eligible for regularization. If they were all qualified, as per their experience from the date of recruitment in the said post itself could be treated as a qualification. Accordingly, the petitioner is not eligible for regularization. Hence, prays for dismissal of the petition.
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21289 WP No. 21292 of 2025 HC-KAR
8. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that as per 1992 Cadre, Recruitment & Condition of Service Regulations, one should possess a first class Degree in Environment /Public Health/Chemical Engineering and a First Class degree in M.Sc., ( Zoology, Botany,Geology, Microbiology), and preference shall be given to the candidates having experience in the field of Pollution Control/Hazardous waste handling and related activities. As the petitioner has possessed second class degree in Civil Engineering, his application has been rejected on the ground of not possessing the prescribed qualification as per Rules. Hence , question of consideration of the representation of the petitioner does not arise.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents referred to the connected matter in W.P.No.27983-984/2012 disposed of on 21.8.2012 wherein it has been held that:
XXXX XXXX XXXX
2. In respect of the contract employees who have made applications in response to the notification dated 06.10.2010 and who have made application in pursuance of the interim order dated 23.02.2011 in W.P.No.38200/2010, their applications shall be considered in terms of the qualification prescribed under the Cadre and Recruitment Rules of 1992 and Xxx xxxx xxx
10. Therefore, he submitted that this Court has itself made it clear that the application is to be considered in the light of the regulations. As per the Regulations referred to above initially the petitioner was not eligible to the post.
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21289 WP No. 21292 of 2025 HC-KAR Accordingly his application was not considered. Hence, prays for rejecting the application.
11. It reveals from the record that the petitioner is a contract employee vide Government Order dated 12.11.2009 and extension was made on 9.11.2012. In this petition the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents to consider the weightage as per Annexure-G and to consider his case for regularization as an Assistant Environmental Officer in accordance with law. This Court by an interim order dated 23.2.2011 noticed that some of the contract employees had made applications for recruitment in pursuance of the notification dated 6.10.2010 and the State Government had also passed an order dated 12.11.2009 inter alia granting approval for extension of weightage at 4% of marks for each satisfactory completed year of service which is rounded up to next integer and age relaxation extended by the Government order dated 5.8.2002 to those who are working on contract basis.
12. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that the respondent has no objection to consider the case of the contract employees by giving weightage vide Government order dated 12.11.2009. But the recruitments are to be made in accordance with the qualifications prescribed under the Cadre and Recruitment Rules prevailing as on the date of issue of notification.
13. Now the question is whether in the case of this nature the order dated 12.11.2009 and the Government
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21289 WP No. 21292 of 2025 HC-KAR order dated 16.7.2012 prescribing 4% weightage shall be provided or not?
14. As could be seen from the records that the respondents have failed to follow the Government order giving weightage of 4% marks for each completed year of service and adding it to the qualified marks, then the petitioner is entitled for regularization. When the petitioner possesses basic qualification and also experience, i.e., 20 years of service, at this juncture by considering the Government order dated 12.11.2009 and 23.4.2014, the same is to be extended to the benefit of this petitioner and other candidates who have served for a considerable length of time for more than 15-20 years. Considering all these factors, that the petitioner has completed 20 years of service and possessed degree qualification and after adding 4% weightage to his qualifying service, he would definitely be eligible for regularization. Under these circumstances, I hold that the petitioner is eligible for award of 4% weightage given under the Government order dated 12.11.2009 and 23.4.2014.
15. In similar matters, the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 2001 Supreme Court 706 in para 26 held as under:
26.In the light of the aforesaid decisions we now proceed to examine the proposed scheme.
Under Clause 1 it is proposed that all daily wage workers, whether skilled, semi - skilled or unskilled who have completed 10 years or more of continuous service with a minimum of 240 days in each
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21289 WP No. 21292 of 2025 HC-KAR calendar year as on 31st December, 1999 is to be regularized and be put in the time scale of pay applicable to the corresponding lowest grade in the university. However, the said regularization is subject to some conditions. Under Clause 1(a) such employee is eligible only if he possess the prescribed qualifications for the post at the time of their appointment. The strong objection has been raised to this eligibility clause. The submission is, those working for a period of 10 or more years without any complaint is by itself a sufficient requiste qualification and any other rider on the facts of this case would prejudice these workers. We find merit in this submission. We have perused the qualifications referred in the aforesaid recruitment rules according to which, qualification for Peon is that he should study up to 8th Std., for Operator- cum-Mechanic, should have Diploma in Mechanic having sufficient knowledge of vehicle repairing experience in automobiles or tractors. Dealers workshop for two years, for Chowkidar, he must be literate and have good physique. Literate is not defined. For Plumber to have I.T.I. Certificate.
We feel that daily rate workers who have been working on the aforesaid posts for such a long number of years without complaint on these posts is a ground by itself for the relaxation of the aforesaid eligibility condition. It would not be appropriate to
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21289 WP No. 21292 of 2025 HC-KAR disqualify them on this ground for their absorption, hence Clause 1(a), need modification to this effect."
16. The judgment referred by the learned counsel for the respondent in 2004 STPL 11485 SC in the case of Umarani Vs. Registrar, Co-operative Societies and others, at para 29 it is held that :
Regularisation in our considered opinion, is not and cannot be the mode of recruitment by any "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of Constitution of India or anybody or authority governed by a statutory Act or the Rules framed thereunder. It is also now well settled that an appointment made in violation of the mandatory provisions of the statute and in particular ignoring the minimum educational qualification and other essential qualification would be wholly illegal. Such illegality cannot be cured by taking recourse to regularization.
17. This judgment has no application to the present facts and circumstances of the case for the reason that in the said judgment it has been referred, the regulation shall not be ignored in respect of minimum educational qualification and other essential qualifications, as otherwise it would be wholly illegal. Such illegality cannot be cured by taking recourse to regularization. The respondent earlier issued notification and incidentally the petitioner was not eligible to make such application. However, he is eligible only in view of the Government order dated 12.11.2009 and
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21289 WP No. 21292 of 2025 HC-KAR 23.4.2014. Under these circumstances, the judgment referred to by the respondent has no application.
18. The question would be whether direction to be issued to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for the purpose of regularization in response to the notification issued calling for application for selection and appointment. Said notification was issued in the year 2010. The petitioner has made application and the same has not been considered since he was not having 60% minimum marks. But 4% weightage is to be added with qualifying service and also the marks obtained in the degree examination, then it would come to first class, then the petitioner would be entitled for consideration of his case. In the light of the above, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner by adding 4% weightage marks in terms of Government orders dated 12.11.2009 and 23.04.2014 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Accordingly the petition is allowed."
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge, the respondent - Board preferred an appeal in W.A.No.5141/2017 whereby the petitioner gave up his relief of adding 4% weightage marks in terms of the aforesaid government orders dated 12.11.2009 and 23.04.2014, which was recorded by
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21289 WP No. 21292 of 2025 HC-KAR this Court which disposed of the said appeal in W.A.No.5141/2017 dated 09.01.2020 vide Annexure - P as hereunder:
" Aggrieved by the order dated 04.07.2017 passed by the learned counsel for the respondent in W.P.No.47643 of 2012, the respondents therein have filed this appeal. That the learned Single Judge has committed an error in allowing the writ petition by directing the respondents to add 4% weightage marks.
2. Heard learned counsels.
3. After arguing the matter for sometime, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits that even though the learned Single Judge has directed consideration of the case of the Writ Petitioner by adding 4% weightage marks, in terms of the Government orders dated 12.11.2009 and 23.04.2014, he does not press the said relief. He submits that the appellant herein may be directed to consider the case for the purpose of regularisation without reference to weightage marks.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has no grievance with regard to considering such a request or a representation to be made by the respondent therein. Consequently, the respondent is permitted to make a fresh representation in terms of the present order, which the appellants shall consider the same in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Therefore, it is not necessary to go to the merits of the matter.
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21289 WP No. 21292 of 2025 HC-KAR With the above observations, the writ appeal is disposed off."
7. Subsequently, petitioner submitted representations at Annexures - Q and Q1 dated 01.02.2000 and 09.06.2020, which culminated in an endorsement at Annexure - R dated 07.09.2020 rejecting the claim of the petitioner, who approached this Court in W.P.No.9543/2021 which was allowed and disposed of by this Court vide final order dated 14.12.2022 remitting the matter back to the respondent - Board, for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
"The petitioner, working as Assistant Environmental Officer on contract basis in respondent-Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (for short "Board") is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the endorsement bearing No.ªÀiÁ¤ªÀÄ 06 DqÀJ 10/1127 dated 07.09.2020 by which, petitioner's request to consider his case for appointing him as Assistant Environmental Officer by granting service weightage in terms of amended Regulations as well as Government Order dated 12.11.2009 (Annexure-G).
2. Heard learned counsel Sri.M.K.Prithveesh, for petitioner and Sri.Gururaj Joshi, learned counsel for respondents. Perused the writ petition papers.
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21289 WP No. 21292 of 2025 HC-KAR
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed on contract basis as Assistant Engineer on 21.11.1997. Subsequently, the post of Assistant Engineer was re-designated as Assistant Environmental Officer by order dated 10.12.1997. The Government, by its order dated 05.08.2002 amended Karnataka State Pollution Control Board Cadre, Recruitment and Conditions of Service Regulations, 1992 (for short "1992 Regulations") making provision for award of service weightage of 4 marks for each satisfactory completed year of service for contract Assistant Environmental Officers during the regular recruitment. The Government Order was also passed on 12.11.2009 clarifying the award of weightage to the contractual engineers. Subsequently, respondent-Board under public notice dated 06.10.2010 invited applications to fill up various posts in the Board including that of Assistant Environmental Officer. The petitioner is said to have filed his application for the post of Assistant Environmental Officer and claimed service weightage while considering his case for appointment. Since the petitioners' case was not considered by awarding service weightage, the petitioner was before this Court in W.P.No.47643/2012. This Court, by order dated 04.07.2017 directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner by adding 4% weightage marks in terms of Government Order dated 12.11.2009 and 23.04.2014 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The writ appeal filed by the Board against the said order was disposed of on 09.01.2020 directing the respondent-Board to
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21289 WP No. 21292 of 2025 HC-KAR consider the representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law.
4. In pursuance of the said order, Annexure-A impugned Endorsement dated 07.09.2020 is issued rejecting request of the petitioner for awarding service weightage. The petitioner is before this Court questioning the said endorsement on the ground that Member Secretary of the Board has no jurisdiction to consider the representation of the petitioner and to issue impugned endorsement, since the Appointing Authority in respect of Assistant Environmental Officer is Board and not the Member Secretary. Learned counsel also would submit that the petitioner would be entitled for service weightage since he is working on contract basis from 1997 and if the Board awards service weightage, the petitioner would be within the zone of consideration for appointment as Assistant Environmental Officer.
5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Gururaj Joshi submits on instructions that the impugned endorsement dated 07.09.2020 is by the Secretary of the Board and there is no proceedings drawn by the Chairman while issuing endorsement. But the learned counsel Sri.Gururaj Joshi submits that in W.A.No.5141/2017 disposed of on 09.01.2020 (Annexure-Q), the petitioner waived his right for awarding of 4% weightage and therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled for service weightage.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is working as Assistant Environmental Officer in the respondent-Board on contract basis since 1997. In pursuance of the public
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21289 WP No. 21292 of 2025 HC-KAR notice dated 06.10.2020, the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Environmental Officer. Since the petitioner was not selected, he was before this Court in W.P.No.47643/2012 which was disposed of on 04.07.2017 with the following directions:
"In the light of the above, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner by adding 4% weightage marks in terms of Government Orders dated 12.11.2009 and 23.04.2014 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
7. The respondent-Board aggrieved by the said order filed W.A.No.5141/2017 which was disposed of on 09.01.2020 recording submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and directing respondent-Board to consider the request or representation to be made by the respondent i.e., petitioner herein. The direction to consider the request or representation by the Board would mean that consideration shall be by Competent Authority. In respect of appointment to the post of Assistant Environmental Officer, the Appointing Authority is the Board. When the Chairman is the Appointing Authority in relation to Assistant Environmental Officer, request of the petitioner for awarding weightage shall be considered by the Competent Authority i.e., Board.
8. Admittedly, request of the petitioner is not considered by the respondent-Board, but it is considered by the Member Secretary and endorsement is also issued by the Member Secretary. Member Secretary has no jurisdiction to consider the request of the petitioner since
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21289 WP No. 21292 of 2025 HC-KAR Member Secretary is not the Appointing Authority in relation to Assistant Environmental Officer. Therefore, only on the ground of incompetency, the impugned endorsement requires to be set aside with a direction to the respondent- Board to consider the request or representation of the petitioner for awarding service weightage for consideration of his appointment as Assistant Environmental Officer. In pursuance of the public notice dated 06.10.2010, whether the petitioner would be entitled for service weightage or whether the petitioner has waived of his right for service weightage is to be considered by the respondent-Board in accordance with law. Hence, the following order:
(a) Endorsement bearing No.ªÀiÁ¤ªÀÄ 06 DqÀJ 10/1127 dated 07.09.2020 is quashed.
(b) Respondent-Board is directed to consider the request of the petitioner at Annexure-R dated 01.02.2020 and Annexure-R1 dated 09.06.2020 and pass orders in the light of the orders passed by this Court in the earlier proceedings and in accordance with law, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.
All contentions of the parties on merits is kept open."
8. Subsequently, petitioner submitted further representations at Annexures - T1 and T2 dated 04.01.2023 and 21.04.2023, pursuant to which, the respondent - Board passed an
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21289 WP No. 21292 of 2025 HC-KAR order at Annexure - V dated 07.06.2023 extending the weightage in favour of the petitioner as hereunder:
¸ÀASÉå: ªÀiÁ¤ªÀÄ 03 D© 07/349 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 07.06.2023 «µÀAiÀÄ: ²æà J£ï. PÀȵÀÚªÄÀ Æwð EªÀgÄÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ°è ¸À°è¹zÀ UÀÄwÛUÉ DzsÁgÀzÀ ¸ÉêÉUÉ PÀÈ¥ÁAPÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀAiÀĹì£À ¸Àr°PÉ ¤ÃqÀĪÀ §UÉÎ.
¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£É:
²æà J£ï. PÀȵÀÚªÄÀ Æwð EªÀgÄÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 20.05.2023 gÀAzÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼Æ À gÀÄ ¦ÃoÀªÅÀ jmï Cfð ¸ÀASÉå:
9543/21 PÉÌ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 24.12.2022 gÀAzÀÄ wÃ¥Àð£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅzÁV, ¸ÀzÀj wæð£ÀAvÉ WÀ£À ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ ªÀµÀðA¥Àæw ±ÉÃ.4 gÀAvÉ PÀÈ¥ÁAPÀ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä CºÀðjgÀĪÀÅzÁV, DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉñÀzÀAvÉ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ°è ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ ¸ÉêÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß DzsÀj¹ ªÀµÀðA¥Àæw ±ÉÃ.4 gÀAvÉ ¸ÉêÁ PÀÈ¥ÁAPÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¸À®Ä ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¥Àj¸ÀgÀ C¢üPÁj ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ £ÉêÀÄPÀ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀAvÉ PÉÆÃj ªÀÄ£À« ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. jmï ¦nµÀ£ï ¸ÀASÉå: 9543/2021 PÉÌ ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ ¤ÃrzÀ wæð£À GzÀÝgÀt PɼÀPÀAqÀAwzÉ.
8............ In pursuance of the public notice dated 06.10.2010, whether the petitioner would be entitled for service weightage or whether the petitioner has waived of his right for service weightage is to be considered by the respondent - Board in accordance with law. Hence, the following order:
(a) Endorsement bearing No.Manima 06 ADA 10/1127, dated: 07.09.2020 is quashed.
(b) Respondent Board is directed to consider the request of the petitioner at Annexure-R dated: 01.02.2020 and Annexure-R1 dated 09.06.2020 and pass orders in the
- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21289 WP No. 21292 of 2025 HC-KAR light of the orders passed by this Court in the earlier proceedings and in accordance with law, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.
jmï ¦nµÀ£ï ¸ÀASÉå: 9543/2021 UÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 24.12.2022 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ ¤ÃrzÀ DzÉñÀzÀ ¥ÁågÁ 8 gÀ°è G¯ÉèÃT¹gÀĪÀAvÉ, ²æà J£ï. PÀȵÀÚªÄÀ Æwð EªÀgÄÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ°è ¸À°è¹zÀ UÀÄwÛUÉ ¸ÉêÉUÉ PÀÈ¥ÁAPÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ¥ÀjUÀt¹, F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ DzÉò¹zÉ.
DzÉñÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ jmï ¦nµÀ£ï ¸ÀASÉå:9543/2021 UÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 24.12.2022 gÀAzÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ DzÉñÀ ºÁUÀÆ ²æÃ. J£ï. PÀȵÀÚªÀÄÆwð EªÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¸À¯ÁVzÉ. ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£É ¸ÀASÉå: ¦¹© 06 DqÀJ 10/2022 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 06.10.2010 gÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁw C¢ü¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è w½¹gÀĪÀAvÉ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ UÀÄwÛUÉ £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: FEE 2 EPC 2008 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 12.11.2009 & ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: FEE 4 EPC 2000 (A) ¢£ÁAPÀ: 05.08.2002 gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ UÀÄwÛUÉ DzsÁgÀzÀ ¸ÉêÉUÉ PÀÈ¥ÁAPÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀAiÀĹì£À ¸Àr°PÉ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä CºÀðjgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ²æÃ. J£ï. PÀȵÀÚªÄÀ Æwð EªÀgÄÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 24.11.1997 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ°è UÀÄwÛUÉ CzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¹«¯ï EAf¤AiÀÄgï ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ £ÉêÀÄPÀ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ ºÁUÀÆ PÁ®PÁ®PÉÌ UÀÄwÛUÉ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £À«ÃPÀj¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
¢£ÁAPÀ: 06.10.2010gÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁw C¢ü¸Æ À ZÀ£É ºÉÆgÀr¹zÀ ¢£ÁAPÀPÉÌ ²æÃ. J£ï. PÀȵÀߪÀÄÆwð EªÀgÄÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ°è MlÄÖ 12 ªÀµÀð 1 wAUÀ¼ÀÄ 7 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À UÀÄwÛUÉ ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀPÁðj DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: FEE 2 EPC 2008 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 12.11.2009 gÀ£éÀAiÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ £ÉêÀÄPÁw C¢ü¸Æ À ZÀ£É ¸ÀASÉå: ¦¹© 06 DqÀJ 10/2022 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 06.10.2010 UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, 1 ªÀµÀðPÉÌ 4% PÀÈ¥ÁAPÀzÀAvÉ MlÄÖ 48% PÀÈ¥ÁAPÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ
- 37 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21289 WP No. 21292 of 2025 HC-KAR ¸ÀASÉå: FEE 4 EPC 2000 (A) ¢£ÁAPÀ: 05.08.2002 gÀ£éÀAiÀÄ ªÀAiÀĹì£À ¸Àr°PÉ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä C£ÀĪÉÆâ¹zÉ."
9. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite having extended the benefit of weightage in favour of the petitioner, who submitted subsequent representations at Annexures - W and W1 dated 07.07.2023 and 12.10.2023, the respondent - Board is neither extending the benefit of weightage in favour of the petitioner nor implementing or giving effect to its own order at Annexure - V dated 07.06.2023 nor regularising or taking steps to regularise the services of the petitioner, who had been undisputedly working as Assistant Environmental Officer from 1997 for almost a period of 30 years and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would reiterate the various contentions urged in the statement of objections and submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. A perusal of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the material on record will indicate that even according to the
- 38 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21289 WP No. 21292 of 2025 HC-KAR respondent - Board itself, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of weightage as directed by the respondent in the endorsement at Annexure - V dated 07.06.2023. It is also an undisputed fact that the petitioner has been working as an Assistant Environmental Officer from 1997 onwards till date and he is due to attain the age of superannuation on 30.06.2026. It is also not in dispute that aforesaid order at Annexure - V dated 07.06.2023 has not been revoked, cancelled, varied or modified or withdrawn by the respondent even till today.
12. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition directing the respondent to give effect to and implement the aforesaid Order at Annexure - V dated 07.06.2023 and either grant weightage to the petitioner in terms of the said order for the purpose of recruitment or take steps to regularise the services of the petitioner as permitted by this Court in W.A.No.5141/2017 dated 09.01.2020 and pass appropriate order / take appropriate decision within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
- 39 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21289 WP No. 21292 of 2025 HC-KAR
13. Subject to the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37