Karnataka High Court
K K Girish vs State Of Karnataka Represented By Its on 23 October, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 2495
Author: P.B.Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
WRIT PETITION NO.7/2016 (S REG)
Between:
K K Girish
S/o K K Koragappa
Aged about 51 years
R/at Bagamandala
Kodagu District - 571 247
Working as watcher
Bagamandala Range Forest
... Petitioner
(By Sri.Srinivas.V, Advocate)
And:
1. State of Karnataka
Represented by its
Secretary to Forest Department
M.S.Building 4th Floor
Near Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore - 560 001
2. The Principal Chief Conservator of forest
(Chief Forest Wing)
Aranya Bhavan
Malleshwaram
Bangalore - 560 003
2
3. The Chief Conservator of Forest Kodagu
Circle
Madikere - 571 201
Kadagu Dist
4. The Deputy Forest Conservator
Madikere - 571 201
5. The Zonal Forest Officer
Bagamandala Zone
Bangamandala - 571 427
... Respondents
(By Sri T.P.Srinivasa, AGA)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the
endorsement dated 20.08.2015 issued by R3 I.E.,
Annex-E to the writ petition and consequently direct
R3 to regularize the petitioner in his services with
effect from 01.02.1994 and to grant all back wages
and seniority to this petitioner.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary
Hearing in 'B' Group, this day, the Court made the
following:
ORDER
Petitioner's grievance is for consideration of regularization in the Forest Department. Petitioner is stated to have been appointed as a daily 3 wager/temporary employee in the Forest Department. In the event of the petitioner's regularization is to be considered, it would be against one of the Civil post in the Forest Department. Consequently, the present petition is not maintainable. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of L.Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 and also decisions of this Court in the case of Sri.Shivaprasad Biradar vs. Karnataka Lokayukta and others in W.A.No.200715/2018 (S-DE), B.Suresh Vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in 2002(5) KLJ 202 (DB) and in the case of Sri.B.Suresh Vs. State of Karnataka and others, the division bench in Paragraphs 8 and 9 of its decision has held as under:-
"8. We are fortified in this view by decision in Piar Chand v. Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, where a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court considered an identical question and held that service under the Public Service Commission is a 'Civil 4 Service' of the State and members of its staff are holding civil posts under the State. The following observations are relevant:
"The State, referred to in Article 323A and Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act cannot be, equated with the Government; the Government being only a limb of the State. It is true that the Public Service Commission is an independent body established under Article 315 of the Constitution..... The functions of the Public Service Commission are enumerated in Article 320 of the Constitution. The Public Service Commission though independent of the Government is also an organ of the State machinery and service under the State Public Service Commission is part of the Civil Service of the State".
9. We therefore, direct that these two petitions be transferred to the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law."
In view of the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision, the Registry is hereby directed to transmit the writ papers to the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from today. Thereafter, Karnataka Administrative Tribunal is requested to re-number this as a application and 5 make all necessary endeavor to decide the present petition within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE HB/-