Karnataka High Court
Sri Keshavaiah C L vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 July, 2012
Author: Subhash B.Adi
Bench: Subhash B Adi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH B ADI
WRIT PETITION NOS.10745-10756/2012(S-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NOS.18144/2011 & 23468-469/2011,
15031-15046/2011 & 20779-20790/2011
IN W.P.NOS.10745-10756/2012(S-RES)
BETWEEN :
1 SRI KESHAVAIAH C L
S/O LAKKAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
WORKING AS OFFICIAL IN-CHARGE SUPERVISOR
KARNATAKA STATE COIR DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED, GUBBI TALUK
GUBBI, TUMKUR DISTRICT
2 SRI M NAGENDRA NAIK
S/O M MANA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
WORKING AS OFFICIAL IN CHARGE SUPERVISOR
KARNATAKA STATE COIR DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED, HAGELEGERE
HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT
3 SRI PRAKASH
S/O GVIJJEGOWA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
WORKING AS OFFICIAL IN CHARGE SUPERVISOR
KARNATAKA STATE COIR DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED, G YARADHAKERE
KADUR (T) CHIKKAMGALORE DISTRICT
2
4 SRI K G RUDRE GOWDA
S/O LATE RANGAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
WORKING AS OFFICIAL IN CHARGE SUPERVISOR
KARNATAKA STATE COIR DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED, BINDIGENAVILE
VILLAGE, NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DIST
5 SRI M N HANUMGE GOWDA
S/O NANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
WORKING AS OFFICIAL IN CHARGE SUPERVISOR
KARNATAKA STATE COIR DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED, HOLE NARASIPURA
HASSAN DISTRICT
6 SRI CHANDRE GOWDA T N
S/O LATE NANJUNDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS OFFICIAL IN CHARGE SUPERVISOR
KARNATAKA STATE COIR DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED, KILORDAHALLI THONDA
SIRA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT
7 SRI C H MAHESH
S/O HANUME GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS OFFICIAL IN CHARGE SUPERVISOR
KARNATAKA STATE COIR DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED, BAGESHPURA
ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT
8 SRI BASAVARAJU
S/O NANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
WORKING AS OFFICIAL IN CHARGE SUPERVISOR
KARNATAKA STATE COIR DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED, GANDASI HAND POST
ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT
9 SRI MAHALINGAIAH
S/O RANGAIAH
3
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
WORKING AS OFFICIAL IN CHARGE SUPERVISOR
KARNATAKA STATE COIR DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED, BAGIVAL
ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT
10 SRI MAHADEV SHASTRI
S/O LTA SIDDARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
WORKING AS OFFICIAL IN CHARGE SUPERVISOR
KARNATAKA STATE COIR DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED,
MYSORE JAIL MYSORE
11 SRI INDRAJIT ISLAVATH NAIK K
S/O T R K NAIK
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
WORKING AS OFFICIAL IN CHARGE SUPERVISOR
KARNATAKA STAT COIR DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED, GANDASI VILLAGE
ARASIKRE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT
12 SRI HARISH KUMAR T
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
WORKING AS OFFICIAL IN CHRGE SUPERVISOR
KARNATAKA STATE COIR DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED, JAKKAHALLI
H D KOTE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT ...PETITIONERS
( By Sri. M S BHAGWAT & D PAVANESH, ADVS., )
AND :
1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560001
2 THE KARNATAKA STTE COIR DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED
4
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
VITC BUILDING, KASTURABA ROAD
BANGALORE-560001. ...RESPONDENTS
( BY SRI. V SRINIVAS, ADV. FOR R2;
SRI. RAGHAVENDRA G. GAYATHRI, HCGP FOR R1)
WRIT PETITION NOS.10745-10756/2012 ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS & DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO REGULARIZE THE SERVICES OF THE PETITIONERS
IN THE CADRE OF SUPERVISOR WITH EFFECT FROM 14.2.11, THE DATE
ON WHICH 17 PERSONS WERE REGULARIZED WITH ALL
CONEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.
IN WP NOS.18144/2011& 23468-469/2011
BETWEEN :
1 SRI H.N SOMASHEKAR
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O NANJE GOWDA, WORKING AT KARNATAKA
STATE COIR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,
CHIKKAGANDASI UNIT, GANDSI POST & HOBLI
ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT
2 SRI BASAVARAJ H S
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O SHIVE GOWDA
WORKING AT KARNATAKA
STATE COIR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD
GANDASI HAND POST UNIT, LANANAKERE POST,
GANDSI HOBLI,ARASIKERE TALUK,HASSAN DIST
3 SRI H N KANTHA
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O H NANJAPPA
WORKING AT KARNATAKA
STATE COIR DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD., ADIHALLI UNIT
BAGESHPURA POST, GANDSI HOBLI,
ARASIKERE TALUK,
5
HASSAN DISTRICT. ...PETITIONERS
( BY SRI. D L JAGADEESH & AJAY M D, ADVS. )
AND :
1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
THE COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR STREET,
BANGALORE 560 001
2 THE KARNATAKA STATE COIR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
LTD., V I T C BUILDING,
KASTURBA ROAD,
BANGALORE 560 001 ...RESPONDENTS
( BY SRI. H M MURALIDHAR FOR M/S SREERANGA ASSTS., FOR R2; SRI.
RAGHAVENDRA G.GAYATHRI, HCGP FOR R1 )
WRIT PETITION NOS.18144/2011 & 23468-468/2011 ARE FILED
UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER
THEREPRESENTATIONGIVEN BY THE PETITIONERS AT ANNEX.B,
DATED 14.07.2010 AND TO REGULARIZE THEIR SERVICES IN THE
CORPORATION FORTHWITH; AND COMPLY THE ORDERS AND
DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NOS.12617-
12619/2010 (S-RES), W.P.NO.25610/2009 (S-RES)AND IN W.A.NO.1486/2010
(S-RES) AS PER ANNX- A, C & D.
IN W.P. NOS.15031-15046/2011
BETWEEN :
1 SRI B CHANDRA NAIK
S/O BHEEMA NAIK
R/AT MELLENAHALLI (TOTADAMANE)
YADAVAPURA POST
ARSIEKRE TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
6
2 K C KOTTURAPPA S/O LATE CHANNABASAPPA
R/O KONDALAMAGE K
KETHANKERE PSOT
KANAKANTE HOBLI
ARASIKERE TALUK,
HASSAN DSITRICT.
3 SRI D S RAJASHEKARAPPA S/O SHIVALINGAPPA
DUMMANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
ARASIKERE TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
4 SRI B N SHIVANNA S/O LINGANNA
R/AT BYRAGUNDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHALUVANAHALLI POST
ARASIKERE TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
5 SRI T N GOVINDRAJU S/O CHIKKATHIMEGOWDA
NUGEHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT.
6 SRI R SIDDAIAH S/O RANGAIAH
R/AT YADEVANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
ARSIKERE TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
7 SRI H S SHIVANNA S/O SIDDAIAH
R/AT HGALAHALLIV ILLAGE,
K HONALAGERE POST
MADDUR TALUK,
MANDYA DSITRICT.
8 SRI K M KARIYANNA S/O MUNINARASAIAH
R/AT DODDAKACHIGENEHALLI
GOPALAPURA POST
GUBBI TALUK,
TUMKUR DSITRICT.
9 SRI L H PARAMESHWARA NAIK S/O HIREYA NAIK
R/AT LINGADANA HALLI,
7
KURUVANKA POST
ARSIKERE TALUK,
HASSAN DSITRICT.
10 SRI J S HAJA NAIK S/O SEVA NAIK
R/AT MANDARI ANDK POST TAVAREKERE
TALUK CHIKKAMGALUR DISTRICT.
11 SRI G V DODDE GOWDA S/O KUNTERAIAH
R/AT NARAYANGATTE HALLI
TALALURK POST ARASIKERE TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
12 SRI PRABU S/O MOTTAIAH
THIMMASADNRA LALAGATTA POST
CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
13. SRI D THIMMEGOWDA S/O DODDA GOWDA
R/AT HOBALAPURA AND POST
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
14 SRI P H PRASANA KUMAR S/O HANUMATHAPPA
R/AT PANCHANA HALLI AND POST
KADUR TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGLUR DISTRICT.
15 SRI H E MALLIAKRJUNA S/O ESHWARAPPA
R/AT HOSAHALLI,
MADULU POST
ARSIKERE TALUK,
HASSAN DSITRICT.
16 SRI S DHARMASHIVAPPA S/O SONNE GOWDA
R/AT SANKADANAHALI
JAJUR POST ARSIKERE TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT. ...PETITIONERS
( BY SMT.P V KALPANA, ADV. )
8
AND :
1 STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESETNED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTREIS AND COMMERCE
M S BUIDLING, BANGALORE 1
2 THE KARNATAKA STATE COIR DEVELOPMENT CORP. LTD.,
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
VITC BUDLING, KASTURBA ROAD,
BANGALORE 1
3 SRI P SHANKAR NAIK S/O PEERA NAIK
R/AT SIDRAHALLI GGUNDA POST
ARSIKERE TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
4 SRI B H ANANTHRAJU S/O HANUMAIAH
R/AT C/O B R CHADNRASHEKAR
TEACHER, RENUKA NILAYA
SUDASH NAGAR,
ARSIKERE TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
5 SRI H M NAGEGOWDA S/O MALALIGOWDA
R/AT HIRISAMDURA CHIKKAYARAGANALU
POST GANGASI HOBLI ARASIKERE
HASSAN DISTRICT.
6 SRI B S RAJASHEKARAPPA S/O SHANKARAPPA
R/AT BELAVALLY KOLAGUNDA POST
JAVAGAL HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
7 SRI BASAVAKUMAR S/O REVANA
R/AT BISALEHALLY HIRIYUR POST
ARAKALGUD TALUK
HASSAN DSITRICT.
8 SRI B H GOVINDEGOWDA S/O HANUMANTHEGOWDA
BELAGUDI KUHDUR POST
9
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DSITRICT.
9 SRI H K RAJASHEKAR S/O KALLAPPA
HOSAHALLI MADAL POST
ARASIKERE TALUK,
HASSAN DSITRICT.
10 SRI K S PRASANA KUMAR S/JO KC SHIVAKUMAR
SUPERVISOR
BAGEVALU ARASIKERE TALUK,
HASSAN DSITRICT.
11 SRI H M THOTAPPA S/O MALLAPPA
R/AT JAVOOR HOSAHALLI TARIKERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMANGALORE DISTRICT.
12 SRI K B DASAHRATH
FATHERS NAME NOT KNWON
SUPERVISOR/INCHARGE THE KARNATAKA
COIR DEVELOPMENT CORP. LTD.,
HARAPPANAHALLI AND TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DSITRICT.
13 SRI DHANANJAYA S/JO THIMMEGWODA
R/AT THITAMARANAHALIL
MYNAKANAHASAHALLI POST
CHANAPATANA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
14 SRI H R SRINIVAS S/O RAMEGOWDA
R/AT HONAKUMARANAHALLI
LALANAKERE POST
GANDASI HOBLI
ARSIKERE TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
15 SRI M N MALAPPA S/O MAHESHWARAPPA
R/AT SINGATAGERE POST
KADUR TALUK,
CHICKKAMAGALORE DISTRICT.
10
16 SRI C L LOKESH S/O LINGEGOWDA
R/AT CHIKKENAHALLI,
CHANAPATANA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
17 SRI K N MAHALINGEGOWDA
FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN
SUPERVISOR/ INCHARGE THE KARNATAKA
CORP. LTD., MUDUDIG ANDSI HOBLI
ARASIKERE TALUK,
HASSAN DSITRICT.
18 SRI RAMADASA GOWANKAR
FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN
SUPERVISOR/ INCHARGE THE KARNATAKA
CORP. LTD., SHETTYGERE ANKOLA TALUK,I
UTTARAKARNATAKA.
19 SRI C K PRASANNA NAIK
FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN
SUPERVISOR/ INCHARGE THE KARNATAKA
CORP. LTD.,
HOSAHALLI K R PET TALUK,
MANDYA. ...RESPONDENTS
( By Sri. H M MURALIDHAR, ADV. FOR SREERANGA ASSTS., ADVS. FOR
R-2; SRI M.V.RAMESH JOIS,ADV. FOR R-3 TO R-19; SRI. RAGAHVENDRA
G GAYATHRI, HCGP FOR R-1 )
WRIT PETITION NOS.15031-15046/2011 ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPLIEFS OF THE
PETITIONERS TO REGULARIZE THERE SERVICES & GRANT SERVICE
BENEFIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SENIORITY LIST, ETC.,
IN WP NO.20779-20790/2011
BETWEEN :
1 SRI VENKATESH D
S/O DHARMALINGAM P
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, TYPIST
NO.1559, 4TH CROSS, NAGAPPA BLOCK
11
SRIRAMPURAM, BANGALORE-560 021
2 SRI ANATHANRAMN N V S/O VENKATESHAPPA R
42 YEARS, CLERK,
NO.40, 4TH CROSS, GELEYAR BALAGA,
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM,BANGALORE-560086
3 R S SUNIL KUMAR S/O R T SHAVANDA
AGED 34 YEARS, ATTENDER,
SHETTIKOPPLU GRAMA,
HALLI MYSORE HOBLI,
HOLENARSIPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT
4 PATHRAIAH S M S/O JEEVAIAH S M
38 YEARS, HOSAHALLI GRAMA,
HUVINAHADAGALI TALUK,
BELLARY DISTRICT
5 VENKATESH S/O VENKATEGOWDA
42 YEARS, SHOWROOM ASSISTANT,
BILIKERE GRAMA, GADIYALA BEEDI,
HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT
6 R GIRI S/O LATE RAMAIAH
46 YEARS, SHOWROOM ASSISTANT,
NO.1564/20, BEHIND VARADARAJASWAMY
TEMPLE, KOTE, CHANNAPATNA,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
7 BASAPPA C HANGADI
S/O CHANNAMALLAPPA G HANGADI
47 YEARS,
C/O R.S.VIRUPAKSHA
3862/A, KOTWAL GALLI,
BELGAUM-590 016
8 SHANTHAPPA P TALWAR
PARASAPPA, 26 YEARS,
SHOWROOM INCHARGE,
BALAWAT POST, MUDDEBIHAL TALUK,
BIJAPUR DISTRICT-586 116
12
9 P B NAGARAJAPPA S/O P BADAPPA
37 YEARS, SHOWROOM ASSISTANT,
TORANAGATTE POST,
JAGALUR TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
10 SHUBHA Y S
W/O PRABHAKAR
36 YEARS, TYPIST,
NO.205, 10TH A MAIN, IST BLOCK,
KALYANA NAGAR, BANASAWADI,
BANGALORE-560043
11 KRISHNAMURTHY S T
S/O THIMMAIAH
45 YEARS, SHOWROOM ASSISTANT,
SANKODANAHALLI, JAJUR POST,
ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT
12 G SHANKARE GOWDA
S/O GURUBASAVAIAH
47 YEARS, GOWDOWN ASSISTANT
GANDASI, ARASIKERE TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT. ...PETITIONERS
( BY SRI. M V RAMESH JOIS FOR M/S JOIS ASSOCIATES, ADVS., )
AND :
1 STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE,
M.S.BUILDINGS, BANGALORE-560001
2 THE KARNATAKA STATE COIR DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
VITC BUILDING, KASTURABA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560001. ...RESPONDENTS
( BY SRI.H.M.MURALIDHAR FOR M/S SREERANGA ASSOCIATES FOR R-
2; SRI. RAGAHVENDRA G GAYATHRI, HCGP FOR R1 )
13
WRIT PETITION NOS.20779-20790/2011 ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS RELATING TOT HE ANNEXURES C TO
F, PERUSE THE SAME AND DECLARE THE NON CONSIDERATION OF
THE REGULARISATION OF THE PETITIONERS AS UNJUST, ARBITRARTY
AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14 TO 16 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA, ETC.,
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners have sought for a writ of mandamus to the respondent to regularise their services in the cadre of Supervisor w.e.f. 14.2.2011.
2. Petitioners earlier had filed W.P.Nos.1560-78/1999 and W.P.No.14145/2006 interalia seeking for a direction for regularisation of their services. Learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 21 st July 2000 in W.P.Nos.1560-78/1999 had directed the respondents to consider the representation that would be given by the petitioners within four months from the date of making representation. However, the respondent - Corporation did not regularise the services of the petitioner. Thereafter, again the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.Nos.29742/2009 & 1274-1282/2010, which were disposed of on 14 15th February 2010 and they also subsequently filed another writ petition in W.P.No.25610/2009, which was also disposed of by order dated 26th February 2010 interalia directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners by passing an appropriate resolution and by securing necessary approval from the Government. The Corporation filed Writ Appeals in W.A.No.1486/2010 and connected appeals, questioning the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.25610/2009. The Division Bench of this Court after hearing both the sides, modified the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.2.2010 as under:
"3. In view of the above, the instant writ petitions are disposed of by modifying the direction issued by the learned Single Judge (in the impugned order dated 26.2.2010) so as to require the Corporation to regularise only such employees (petitioners in all the connected matter) whose continuation in service was considered inevitable and in the interest of Corporation. Ordered accordingly."
3. In pursuance of the same, the respondent - Corporation regularised the services of only 17 persons and insofar as these petitioners are concerned, their services are not regularised, as such, petitioners again are before this Court.
15
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that,the judgment in STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. UMADEVI reported in 2006(4) SCC 1, was reconsidered by the Apex Court in a judgment reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247 in the matter of STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS -vs- M.L.KESARI AND OTHERS and the Apex Court has observed as under:
"11. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi 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 was rendered, are considered for regularisation inview 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 16 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 as a one-time measure."
5. In view of the clarification of the judgment in Umadevi's case (supra) by the Apex Court as above, the petitioners have been appointed against clear vacancy or qualified and they have completed 10 years of service in the said post. Hence, they are entitled for regularisation into service.
6. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent - Corporation submitted that, all these petitioners were parties in the Writ Appeals and the Division Bench of this Court had only directed the Corporation to consider for regularisation of the services of the petitioners, in case the Corporation considers, it is inevitable to continue them. It is in consonance with the same, based on the seniority and work performance in their respective job, Corporation had regularised the services of 17 persons. The petitioners' services were not regularised, as the Corporation does not find it is 17 inevitable for them to continue the services of the petitioners. Further, in view of the burden, it is not possible for the Corporation to regularise the services of these petitioners. He also submits that, it is not a case for which the principles laid down in Umadevi's case or Kesari's case (supra) are applicable, they were all appointed as honorary employee under a scheme.
7. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that, these petitioners were parties in the writ appeal. The Division Bench of this Court has issued certain directions. It is also not disputed by the Corporation that these petitioners have been continued in service, thought their services have not been regularised, however, learned Counsel for the Corporation submits that, if the Corporation finds that it is inevitable to regularise the services of these petitioners, Corporation will definitely consider the grievance of the petitioners as and when it requires to regularise their services, However, at the present, the Corporation cannot regularise the services of the petitioners, as there is no such eminent need to regularise their services apart from having burden. 18
8. In reply, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that, the Corporation has vacancies as per Annexure-E produced in W.P.Nos.20779-20790/2011.
9. Just because the vacancies are there, it does not become inevitable, it is ultimately for the Corporation to take into consideration all other circumstances and to find out that, if there is inevitability to continue the services of these petitioners, it has to take into consideration all the circumstances and may regularise the services of the petitioners.
10. Very fact that the Corporation has continued their services even after the order of the Division Bench, as a honorary post, the Corporation shall keep in mind that these petitioners have been working for several years in the Corporation and their services must be regarded and if they are qualified and if there are posts vacant and if there is need for the Corporation, then in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court as well as in terms of the order of the Division Bench of 19 this Court, in which both petitioners and respondents were parties, the Corporation shall consider and pass an appropriate order at appropriate stage.
11. Placing the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Corporation on record and in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Kesari's case, a direction is issued to the Corporation that it shall consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation as and when it becomes inevitable for the Corporation, in such case, preference and priority should be given to the petitioners.
Accordingly, all the petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE KNM/-