Karnataka High Court
The Director vs Shri. Raghvendrarao S/O. Venkobrao on 3 July, 2024
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9034-DB
WA No.100252 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
WRIT APPEAL NO.100252 OF 2021 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
THE DIRECTOR
BELGAUM INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES(BIMS),
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BELGAUM-590001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VEERESH R. BUDIHAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI RAGHVENDRARAO S/O. VENKOBRAO
AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. ARTIST,
BELGAUM INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BELGAUM-590001.
2. SHRI RANGAPPA S/O. BHARAMAPPA GONNAGAR
AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER,
BELGAUM INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,(BIMS)
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BELGAUM-590001.
KM
3. SHRI YOGESHWAR S/O. DUNDAPPA WALI
SOMASHEKAR
AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER,
Digitally signed by K M
SOMASHEKAR
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
BELGAUM INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,(BIMS)
DHARWAD BENCH
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BELGAUM-590001.
4. SHRI SANJEEV S/O. RUDRAPPA IMOJI
AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. OFFICE ATTENDER,
BELGAUM INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,(BIMS)
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BELGAUM-590001.
5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY. ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
& FAMILY WELFARE (MEDICAL EDUCATION),
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
6. THE GOVERNING COUNCIL,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9034-DB
WA No.100252 of 2021
OF BELGAUM INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,(BIMS),
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BELGAUM-590001.
(R/BY ITS CHAIRMAN)
7. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
ANAND RAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001.
8. M/S. RANGANATH ENTERPRISES,
VISHAL NAGAR, 3RD CROSS, BELLARY.
(R/BY ITS PROPRIETOR)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4,
SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R5,
NOTICE TO R6 TO R8 ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
18.03.2021 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT IN
WP NOS.112095-112098 OF 2014 AND FURTHER TO DISMISS THE
SAID WRIT PETITIONS.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, S G PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra-Court appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, by respondent No.4/Belagavi Institute of Medical Sciences1, aggrieved by order dated 18.03.2021 passed in WP Nos.112095-2098/2014, wherein the resolution passed on Subject No.10 by respondent No.2 dated 21.06.2014 and Communication dated 2.7.2014 (Annexure-P) passed by respondent No.4/BIMS are quashed with a direction to respondents No.2 & 4 to continue the services of the 1 'BIMS', for short -3- NC: 2024:KHC-D:9034-DB WA No.100252 of 2021 petitioners on contract and consolidated salary basis, in terms of appointment order dated 30.06.2010 and extend all consequential benefits to them and further directed that if a request is made by the petitioners to regularize or absorb their services, it is expected that respondents No.2 and 4 shall consider the same in accordance with law.
2. Parties would be referred to as they stood before the learned Single Judge. Appellant herein was respondent No.4 and respondents No.1 to 4 were petitioners before the learned Single Judge.
3. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that, in terms of Annexure-C, dated 30.06.2010, petitioner No.1 was appointed as Artist, petitioners No.2 and 3 were appointed as Drivers and petitioner No.4 was appointed as Office Attendant. When they were working as such, respondent No.2-Governing Council of respondent No.4/BIMS passed resolution dated 21.06.2014 to appoint the petitioners and pay financial benefits through outsource agency. Challenging the said resolution dated 21.06.2014 and subsequent Communication dated 2.7.2014 along with prayer for a mandamus to respondents -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:9034-DB WA No.100252 of 2021 Nos.2 and 4 to continue and absorb the services of the petitioners and to extend all consequential benefits, the petitioners were before this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, learned Single Judge allowed writ petitions and quashed the resolution dated 21.06.2014 and subsequent Communication dated 2.7.2014 with a direction to respondents No.2 and 4 to continue the services of the petitioners on contract and consolidated salary basis, in terms of appointment order dated 30.06.2010 and extend all consequential benefits to them. Learned Single Judge also directed that if a request is made by the petitioners to regularize or absorb their services, it is expected that respondent No.2 and 4 shall consider the same in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.4/BIMS is in this intra-Court appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Veeresh R Budihal for appellant/BIMS, learned counsel Sri.A.S. Patil for respondents No.1 to 4/petitioners, learned Government Advocate Sri. G.K. Hiregoudar for respondent No.5 and perused writ appeal papers.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9034-DB WA No.100252 of 2021
5. Sri. Veeresh R Budihal, learned counsel for respondent No.4/BIMS would submit that the petitioners' appointment is stop gap ad hoc arrangement on contract basis, till regular appointments are made. It is submitted that the petitioners have no right to seek continuation of their services on contract basis or for absorption in respondent No.4/BIMS. Learned counsel would submit that direction of learned Single Judge to absorb the services of the petitioners is contrary to catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is further submitted that the petitioners were aware of nature of their appointment. Further, learned counsel inviting attention of this Court to Annexure-C, appointment letter dated 30.06.2010 would submit that the appointment order itself makes it clear that their appointments were on contract basis till the posts are filled up on regular basis. Thus, learned counsel would submit that the petitioners have no right to seek regularization or continuation of their appointments on contract basis. Thus, he prays for allowing the appeal.
6. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. A.S. Patil for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners sought continuation of their services on contract basis and further, no -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:9034-DB WA No.100252 of 2021 reason was assigned by respondent No.4/BIMS to shift the petitioners from contract appointment to that of appointment through outsource as Artist, Drivers and Office Attendant. Learned counsel referring to Annexure-C dated 30.06.2010 would submit that as there was difficulty in outsource appointment, the petitioners were appointed on contract basis till regular appointments are made. He further submits that without assigning any reason as to why the petitioners have to come through outsource agency, Governing Council of respondent No.4/BIMS passed impugned resolution dated 21.06.2014. Learned counsel inviting attention of this Court to learned Single Judge's order would submit that there is no positive direction to respondents No.2 and 4 to regularize or absorb the petitioners. Learned Single Judge has made an observation that if request is made by the petitioners to regularize or absorb their services, then respondent No.2 and 4 shall consider the same in accordance with law. Thus, learned counsel would submit that in terms of appointment order dated 30.06.2010, the petitioners are entitled to continue their services till regular appointments are made or till consideration -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:9034-DB WA No.100252 of 2021 of their request for absorption or regularization. Thus, he prays for dismissal of writ appeal.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of writ appeal papers, the only point that falls for consideration in this writ appeal is as to whether impugned order of learned Single Judge requires interference?
8. Our answer to the above point would be in the "negative" for the following reasons:
9. Under Annexure-C dated 30.06.2010, the petitioner No.1 was appointed as Artist, petitioners No.2 and 3 were appointed as Drivers and petitioner No.4 was appointed as Office Attendant on contract and consolidated salary basis, till the posts are filled up on regular basis. A reading of Annexure- C dated 30.06.2010 makes it abundantly clear that due to frequent changing of the staff by outsourcing agencies, the maintenance Directors' Chamber is affected and as such, the appointment was very essential. The posts against which the petitioners are appointed are sanctioned vacant posts. The impugned resolution without assigning any reason resolves to get the services of the petitioners through outsource agency. -8-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9034-DB WA No.100252 of 2021 No reasons are assigned for such resolution/decision, which is contrary to Annexure-C, appointment order dated 30.06.2010. Under Annexure-C, the petitioners were appointed on contract basis till posts are filled up on regular basis. Admittedly, there is no proposal for filling up the said posts on regular basis. Without there being any proposal to fill up the posts on regular basis, Governing Council of respondent No.4/BIMS could not have resolved to get the services of the petitioners through outsource agency. Thus, we do not find any error or illegality in the learned Single Judge's order.
10. Nextly, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge directed respondent No.4/BIMS to regularize the services of the petitioners. On going through the impugned order under appeal, it is very clear that there is no such positive direction to respondents No.2 & 4 to regularize the services of the petitioners. Learned Single Judge has only observed that if a request is made by the petitioners to regularize or absorb their services, respondents No.2 and 4 shall consider the same in accordance with law. Mere direction to consider would not have any adverse affect on respondent No.4. Therefore, if request is made by the petitioners for -9- NC: 2024:KHC-D:9034-DB WA No.100252 of 2021 regularization or absorption of their services, respondents No.2 and 4 are expected to consider the same in accordance with existing policy with regard to regularization of services keeping in mind latest decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to regularization.
11. With the above observations, writ appeal stands disposed off.
Pending applications are disposed off as not surviving for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE JTR CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 3