Karnataka High Court
Kantayya vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 March, 2025
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
WRIT PETITION No.25348/2023 (S-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION No.17404/2023 (S-RES)
IN W.P.No.25348/2023
BETWEEN:
1. KANTAYYA
S/O CHANABASAYYA PURANIK MATH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT JAVA ROAD, AZAD CIRCLE,
KOPPAL-583231.
2. SAGAR TULSIDAS PADWALKAR
S/O TULSIDAS,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT HOSALI, PO:ANGADI KARWAR,
UTTARKANNADA-581360.
3. SMT. D. SHANTA LAKSHMI
W/O V. SATHISH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT "SRI DATA NILAYA",
1ST MAIN, 1ST PARALLEL ROAD,
4TH CROSS, JAYANAGARA WEST,
TUMKUR-572102.
4. SMT. HEMALATHA M.S.
W/O SHASHI KANTHA M.P.
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
-2-
R/AT LIG 76, KHB COLONY
KALKUNIKE, HUNSUR TALUK,
MYSURU-571105.
5. SMT. SAVITHA T HEGDE
W/O MAHABALESHWAR B.R.,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT D. NO.1163, C H 5/1,
BAJANNA LANE,
CHAMARAJAPURAM,
MYSURU-570005.
6. SMT. CHIKKATHAI B
W/O NAGARAJ M,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT NO.2492, 5TH CROSS,
K.G. KOPPAL,
MYSURU-571105.
7. SMT. REKHATAI BAPURAO KULKARNI
CARE OF SANJEEV S DESHPANDE,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT PLOT NO.32,
GANESH NAGAR,
NEAR PAND T QUARTS,
OLD JAWARI ROAD,
GULBARGA-585102.
8. ROOPESH C M
S/O MR. C.M. MAHADEVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT NO.20/206,
KUMBARA STREET,
CHAMARAJ NAGAR-571313.
9. N D KAMANNA
SON OF DODDAIAH,
AGED 45 YEAS,
R/AT VILLAGE NAVILU KURIKE
PO: AGRAHARA, KORATEGERE,
TUMKUR -572129.
-3-
10 . DHARAMANNA
SON OF RAMANNA BESTAR,
AGED 29 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DEVRAJ ARAS COLONY
KOPPAL- 583231.
11 . SMT. H E LALITHA
WIFE OF NAGARAJ H Y
AGED 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BABBU NIVAS,
GANDHI NAGAR, VIRAJPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT- 571218.
12 . R SHRIKANT
SON OF T S RAJU
AGED 37 YEARS,
RESIDING AT D.NO.16/10
MANGALA DEVI NAGAR,
MADIKERI, KODAGU.
13 . UMESH K
SON OF KEMPAIAH,
AGED 41 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HONNALI ROAD,
CHOWDESHWARI COLONY,
SHIMOGA - 577201.
14 . D RAJASHEKAR
SON OF LATE P M DWARAKANATHA,
CARE OF KUPPANNA,
AGED 47 YEARS,
R/AT NEAR JAGADAMBA TEMPLE,
VIDYANAGAR,
SHIMOGA - 577203.
15 . SHIVARAJA
SON OF UPENDRA M
AGED 30 YEARS,
RESIDING AT ASHOKA ROAD,
ANANDAPURAM,
SAGAR TQ, SHIMOGA - 577412.
-4-
16 . PRAVEEN N
SON OF NARAYAN,
AGED 35 YEARS,
R/AT MAYABAZAR,
3RD CROSS, SUBASH NAGAR,
SAGAR TALUK,
SHIMOGA - 577401.
17 . KUMAR SHIVAPUTARA PASCHAPURE
SON OF SHIVAPUTRA PASCHAPURE,
AGED 32 YEARS,
R/AT H.NO.46, LAXMI NAGAR,
AT/PO BELKUD, CHIKODI,
BALAGAVI - 591222.
18 . MALLIKARJUN SHIVAPUTRA BASTAWADE
SON OF SHIVAPUTRA
AGED 36 YEARS,
R/AT PO BELKUD, CHIKODI,
BELAGAVI - 591222.
19 . MALLESH YAMANAPPA WAGGE
S/O YAMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/A BUDHA NAGAR
NEAR B K COLLEGE
CHIKODI, BELAGAVI-591201.
20 . SMT VAISHALI SHIVAJI KAMBLE
D/O SHIVAJI KAMBLE
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT HOUSE NO.25
SECTOR NO.5, 4TH CROSS
SHRINAGAR, BELGAVI-590001.
21 . MAHANTESH SIDDAPPA SANKAL
S/O SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/A APMC ROAD
GANDHI NAGAR, GOKAK
BELGAVI-591222.
-5-
22 . RAMACHANDRA VASANTRAO INDIKAR
S/O VASANTRAO INDIKAR
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT H.NO.36, KSRTC COLONY
BAGALKOT ROAD, VIJAYAPUR.
23 . PRAKASH HANAMANT KATTIMANI
S/O HANAMANT
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/A DARBAR GALLI
BHIDE CHAWL, SUNAND BATTI
BAGALKOT ROAD
VIJAYAPUR-586101.
24 . MOHAMMED ARIF ABIBUSMAN NEGINAL
S/O ABIBUSMAN NEGINAL
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/A KATAKANA HALLI
VIJAYAPURA-586102.
25 . JAYAPAL B PARASAPPAGAL
S/O BALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT POST BELVI, HUKKERI
BELAGAVI-591309.
26 . ARVIND ASHOK UPADHYE
S/O ASHOK UPADHYE
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
CARE OF JOSHI BUILDING
NEAR GOWRI TEMPLE
AT POST/TQ BASAVAN BAGEWADI
VIJAYAPURA-586203.
27 . RAMESH ADIVEPPA NAIKAR
S/O ADIVEPPA NAIKAR
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/A KURUBARA ONI
YARAGUPPI, KUNDAGOL
DHARWAD-580023.
-6-
28 . PAVAN KUMAR K V
S/O LATE MOHAN RAO K V
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
CARE OF T NAGARAJU
S/O T RAVI KUMAR
SREE NILAYAM, D/NO. 76/A
SHANKAR COLONY, 3RD CROSS
S N PET, BALALRI-583101.
29 . SMT. SHALINI G S
D/O SOMASHEKAR G V
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/A NO.257, 6A CROSS,
MARUTHI BADAVANE
CHOKKASANDRA
BENGALURU-560058.
30 . SMT. MAHANTAMAM MUPPAYYA HIREMATH
D/O MUYAPPA HIREMANTH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
CARE OF SIDDARAMAYYA ALLAYYA
SHIVAPPAYYANAMATH
WARD NO.3, NEKAR-ONI, BADAMI
BAGALKOT-587201.
31 . SMT. SANGEETHA M
W/O VAGEESHA R M
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
CARE OF NAGABHUSHANAIAH SWAMY
SRI CHANNABASAWESHWARA GANESH COLONY
LAST CROSS, S N PET
BALLARI-583101.
32 . T RAVIKUMAR
S/O T NAGARAJULU
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/A D.NO.76/A
SHANKAR COLONY
3RD CROSS, S N PET
BALLARI-583101.
-7-
33 . D SIDDESHWARA
S/O D HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT D. NO.221, WARD NO.10
KANEKAL ROAD, NEAR RANITHOTA
BALLARI-583101.
34 . MALLAPPA NINGAPPA PUJARI
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT POST CHIKKAMANUR
INDI, VIJAPUR.
35 . KRISHNA
S/O LATE MADE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT NO.40, KONANA KUNTE
GANESH TEMPLE ROAD
BENGALURU-560062.
36 . NARAYANA
S/O LATE DASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/A HULLIVADI VILLAGE
MANKUNDA POST
CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGARA-562108.
37 . K M SATHISH
S/O LATE K N MALLANNA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/A NAGATHARPETE
NEAR NAGARESHWARA TEMPLE
ANEKAL TOWN.
38 . K S PANKAJA
W/O ANNAJI RAO N V
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT NO.477/3, SARDAR STREET
NEAR BASAVANA KATTE
ATTIBELE, ANEKAL TQ
BANGALORE RURAL-562107.
-8-
39 . T SHIVARAJ KUMAR
S/O THIMMANNA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT POST-GANNAYAKANAHALLI(V)
HIRIYUR, CHITRADURGA.
40 . H P CHIDAMBARAM
S/O T D PUTTASOMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT DYAVARANAHALLI
DEVARAMARIKUNTE POST
CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGBA-577538.
41 . D A NARASIMHA PRASAD
S/O D L ANAND RAO
R/AT NO.1491
KUCHAPPANAPETE
DODDABALLAPURA
BANGALORE RURAL-561203.
42 . SANTHOSH A J
S/O JANARDHANANACHAR A L
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
CARE OF KALYANI V
NO.193, 4TH MAIN ROAD
BATAWADI (NEAR MATHA ACID)
TUMKUR-572103.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.C.K. NANDA KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI V AKSHAY KUMAR JAIN, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND
PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA-560001
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
-9-
2. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.J. ESHWARAPPA, AGA FOR R1 SRI S.S. NAGANAND, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI SUMANA NAGANAND, ADV. FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.04.2023 BEARING NO. DJA.I/220/1996 (FTC) PASSED BY THE R2 ANNEXURE-A AND DIRECT THE R1 AND 2 TO ISSUE AN APPOINTMENT ORDER TO EACH OF THE PETITIONERS BY RESPECTIVE DISTRICT JUDICIARY ESTABLISHMENTS AND GRANT THEM ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS, SUCH AS SENIORITY, WHICH THEY ARE LEGALLY ENTITLED TO RECEIVE AS IF THEY WERE APPOINTED ALONG WITH OTHER ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES.
IN W.P.NO.17404/2023 BETWEEN:
1 . SHRI BASAVARAJ SHIVARAYAPPA SHIVAGUDI AGED 42 YEARS DESIGNATION: FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT PRESENT ADDRESS:
QUARTERS CLASS 3, C-4 CADA COLONY, TV CENTRE BELAGAVI- 590019.
2 . SRI YAMANAPPA SADEPPA SAMPAGAVI AGED 45 YEARS DESIGNATION: ATTENDER PRESENT ADDRESS AMBEDKAR GALLI -10- H. NO.440, HIREBAGEWADI TQ AND DIST. BELAGAVI-591109.
3 . SHRI KALLILULLA MOHAMMED HUSSEIN ATTAR AGED 40 YEARS DESIGNATION: PEON PRESENT ADDRESS:
H. NO. 4662/2-A-4663/D BEHIND BADKAL GALLI BELAGAVI.
4 . SHRI JEEVAN CHANDRAKANT TIGALANI AGED 38 YEARS DESIGNATION: FAST TRACK COURT- I BELAGAVI PRESENT ADDRESS: H. NO.2251/1 KACHERI GALLI BELAGAVI- 590019.
5 . SMT. VIDYA VIJAY KAKATI AGED 39 YEARS DESIGNATION: STENOGRAPHER PRESENT ADDRESS:PLOT NO.378 3RD CROSS, MAHALAXMI NAGAR GANESHPUR BELAGAVI- 590019.
6 . SHRI IRANNA MAHADEVAPPA NAGARGUND AGED 50 YEARS DESIGNATION: FAST TRACK COURT-
BALIHONGAL PRESENT ADDRESS:
SHANTINIKETAN NAGAR OPP: KAREMMA DEVI TEMPLE KALGERI ROAD DHARWAD- 580008.
7 . SRI NARASIMH KATTACHARYA KATTI AGED 53 YEARS DESIGNATION ATTENDER PRESENT ADDRESS:-11-
H.NO.1414, SRI VENKATESH ANUGRAHA OPP: JIJIMATHA MAHILA CO-OPERATIVE BANK BASAVANA GALLI BELAGAVI- 590019.
8 . SRI NAGESH ARJUN KHURANGI AGED 39 YEARS DESIGNATION: FAST TRACK COURT-
BALIHONGAL PRESENT ADDRESS"
H.NO.210, AMBEDKAR GALLI HALAGA TQ. AND DIST.
BELAGAVI.
9 . SRI BHIMANAGOUDA BASANGOUDA PATIL AGED 51 YEARS DESIGNATION: PEON PRESENT ADDRESS:
NUGGIKERI, PO: YARIKOPPA TQ. AND DIST.
DHARWAD 580008.
10 . SRI MADHUSUDHAN S K AGED 47 YEARS DESIGNATION: FAST TRACK COURT
-II MANDYA PRESENT ADDRESS:
POST KERAGODU TQ AND DIST MANDYA 571446.
11 . SRI HAJIALI H KOPPAL AGED 46 YEARS DESIGNATION: FAST TRACK COURT GADAG PRESENT ADDRESS: H.NO.71 JANATHA COLONY HOMBAL ROAD GADAG- 582101.-12-
12 . SRI NAGARAJ R AGASIMANI AGED 43 YEARS DESIGNATION: PEON PRESENT ADDRESS: LIG 139 2ND CROSS, HUDKO COLONY SIDDALING NAGAR GADAG- 582101.
13 . SRI SHIVANANDA M B AGED 46 YEARS COURT FAST TRACK COURT I BELLARI DESIGNATION: DRIVER PRESENT ADDRESS:
TEGGINA PATH ONNI BETAGERI, GADAG-582101.
14 . SRI. A V MALLIKARJUN AGED 50 YEARS DESIGNATION: PEON PRESENT ADDRESS POST: ANIVAL, TQ: HOSADURGA DIST:CHITRADURGA- 577527.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. HEBBALLI SADANAND BASAPPA, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU- 560001.
2. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU -560001.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.J. ESHWARAPPA, AGA FOR R1 SRI S.S. NAGANAND, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI SUMANA NAGANAND, ADV. FOR R2) -13- THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED 05.04.2023 ISSUED BY THE R2 IN NO.DJA.I/220/1996 (FTC) AS PER ANNEXURE-J IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER CONCERNED AND DIRECT THE R2 TO FORWARD THE PROPOSAL FOR ABSORPTION AND IN TURN THE R1 TO ABSORB/REGULARIZE THE SERVICES OF THE PETITIONERS BY REINSTATING THEM INTO THEIR RESPECTIVE POSTS, WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS FLOWING THERE FROM IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER CONCERNED.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 18/01/2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT CAV ORDER In both the above writ petitions, petitioners are before this Court questioning the common endorsement dated 05.04.2023 bearing No.DJA.1/220/1996(FTC) (Annexure-A and J) respectively and as the interest of the petitioners are common, both the writ petitions are taken up together for hearing and disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioners are before this Court questioning the correctness and legality of endorsement -14- bearing No.DJA.1/220/1996(FTC) (Annexure-A and J) respectively dated 05.04.2023 by which, their request for absorption/regularization of service are rejected by respondent No.2 and further the petitioners have sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue appointment order to each of the petitioners with all consequential benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners were appointed to various posts in District Judiciary in the Fast Track Courts. It is stated that the petitioners were duly recruited in pursuance to various notifications published inviting applications from the eligible candidates. The appointment orders of some of the petitioners are placed on record as Annexure-B series. The petitioners were appointed between 2003 to 2012. It is the case of the petitioners that some of the petitioners worked in the District Judiciary for more than 10 years. It is further stated that second respondent -15- sought permission to establish 23 Fast Track Courts in different Districts of Karnataka in the year 2003. The State Government issued Government Order granting approval for establishment of 23 Fast Track Courts in various districts by Government Order dated 20.03.2003. The Fast Track Courts were established in pursuance to the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
The Hon'ble Apex Court had granted liberty to the States to continue or to abolish the Fast Track Courts. The State took decision to abolish the Fast Track Courts and in pursuance to the said decision, petitioners who were appointed temporarily against the scheme of the Fast Track Courts were relieved of their duties.
4. The petitioners were before this Court seeking regularization as well as their continuation in series of writ petitions in which there were directions to the State Government as well as to the High Court to consider their request. The State Government rejected -16- the request of the petitioners against which petitioners again were before this Court. This Court directed re- consideration of the cases of the petitioners afresh which was also rejected and the request of the petitioners made to the High Court also came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court in these writ petitions.
5. Heard learned senior counsel Sri.C.K.Nandakumar for learned counsel Sri.V.Akshay Kumar Jain, as well as learned counsel Sri.Hebballi Sadanand Basappa for petitioners and learned senior counsel Sri.S.S.Naganand for Smt.Sumana Naganand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 as well as learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.B.J.Eshwarappa for respondent No.1. Perused the entire writ petition papers.
-17-
6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel Sri.Hebballi Sadanand Basappa would submit that the petitioners were appointed to various posts like First Division Assistant, Second Division Assistant, Stenographers, Typists, Peons, Drivers and they were appointed in pursuance to calling applications by paper publications and also by following the reservation policy of the State Government. The petitioners have worked for more than ten years and as such they would be entitled for considering their case for regularization or absorption. Moreover, they submit that there was promise from the respondents to absorb or regularize the services of the staff of the Fast Track Courts. It is submitted that there was no illegality in the appointment of the petitioners. The petitioners did possess the requisite qualification for the post to which they were appointed and the appointments were by the competent Appointing Authority.
-18-
7. Learned senior counsel would submit that the Fast Track Courts were discharging the same duties and responsibilities as that of the regular Court and as such the petitioners had acquired requisite expertise and the respondents ought to have utilized the experience gained by the petitioners by regularizing or absorbing them into the judicial services. It is submitted that in other States, the services of the Fast Track Court employees are regularized and as such he submits that the action of the respondents in rejecting the case of the petitioners for regularization or absorption is totally arbitrary and unreasonable.
8. Learned counsel Sri.Hebballi Sadanand Basappa invites attention of this Court to order dated 13.09.2012 on I.A.No.36 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP(C).NO.11086/2024 dated 20.12.2024 and submits that the State is allowed to discontinue the Fast -19- Track Court scheme after the staff recruited thereunder are absorbed in the District Court Service. In that light of the matter, respondents ought to have absorbed or regularized the services of the petitioners before abolishing Fast Track Courts. Further, learned counsel would submit that it was for the State to consider as to whether the petitioners are entitled for the absorption or regularization and it was not for the second respondent- High Court to consider and reject the request of the petitioners for regularization or absorption. Learned senior counsel as well as learned counsel Sri.Hebballi Sadanand Basappa would place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS VS. UMADEVI (3) AND OTHERS1 to contend that the services of the petitioners could be regularized as one time measure and also they place reliance on the recent decision of the 1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 -20- Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ANITA AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS2 to contend that the respondents being model employers shall provide fair and stable employment.
9. Per contra, learned senior counsel Sri.S.S.Naganand for respondent No.2 would vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners. It is submitted that the Fast Track Courts were established under Government Order dated 29.05.2001 and abolished under Government order dated 31.03.2013 as well as Government Order dated 31.03.2015. It is submitted that admittedly petitioners are not working in the District Judiciary or in the Fast Track Courts from 2013 onwards. Moreover, he submits that the appointment of petitioners though was in pursuance to notification published, were on temporary basis and they were aware of their position of temporary appointment 2 SLP (C) NO.11086/2024 DATED 20.12.2024 -21- as on the date of their appointment itself. He submits that merely because some of the petitioners were continued for a period of more than ten years would not entitle them to seek regularization.
10. Learned senior counsel would submit that the petitioners for the first time submitted their representation on 13.03.2019 seeking absorption or regularization of their services that too after five years after the abolition of Fast Track Courts. Learned senior counsel would further submit that some of the employees of the Fast Track Courts made representation to the state Government in the year 2011 itself which was considered by the State Government and rejected the request of the petitioners under endorsement dated 06.09.2011 itself, which was the subject matter of writ petition before this Court, wherein there was a direction to reconsider the case of the petitioners. After due correspondence between the State Government and first -22- respondent and on obtaining information from various other High Courts, Rules Committee of the High Court considered the issue and the matter was placed before the Full Court which unanimously rejected the request of the erstwhile employees of the Fast Track Courts.
11. Learned senior counsel would submit that the decisions on which the petitioners place reliance would have no application to the facts of the present case, since the petitioners were appointed to the posts under the scheme and not to the sanctioned posts in a regular establishment. Moreover, learned senior counsel placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in BRIJ MOHAN LAL VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS3 submits that wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court was examining the appointments to Fast Track Courts, held that in Fast Track Courts no permanent posts were created and the appointments were temporary 3 (2012) 6 SCC 502 -23- appointments against temporary posts. Further, he submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said decision has observed that the Fast Track Courts appointees had no right to the posts. In the above circumstances, learned senior counsel prays for dismissal of the writ petitions.
12. Having heard the learned senior counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the point which falls for consideration is as to, "Whether the second respondent is justified in rejecting the request of the petitioners for absorption/regularization under impugned endorsement/ communication dated 05.04.2023?"
13. The answer to the above point would be in the Affirmative for the following reasons:
In pursuance to the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court for speedy disposal of the criminal cases the State established Fast Track Courts. In the State of Karnataka, the Fast Track Courts were established under -24- Government Order dated 29.05.2001 and the Fast Track Courts were abolished with effect from 31.03.2013 as well as 31.03.2015. No doubt, the petitioners were appointed to the Fast Track Courts to various posts such as First Division Assistant, Second Division Assistant, Stenographers, Typists, Peons, Drivers etc., The appointments of the petitioners were temporary in nature and admittedly, petitioners' appointments were not against the regular sanctioned posts. The appointment of the petitioners were against the temporary posts created under the Fast Track Courts Scheme.
14. In terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UMADEVI (3) (supra), a person who is a temporary employee who is not appointed against the sanctioned post that too in a scheme would not get any right to seek regularization or absorption. -25-
15. The petitioners who were appointed between 2003 to 2012 were discontinued in service between 2013 to 2015. The petitioners are not in service for the last nearly 10 years. A person who is not in service for nearly ten years cannot seek regularization or absorption. A person who is in service if he is appointed to the permanent sanctioned post by a competent Appointing Authority and if he possesses the qualification required for the post to which he is appointed, could seek regularization.
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in BRIJ MOHAN LAL (supra) while examining the Fast Track Courts scheme in various states at paragraphs 76, 77, 80 and 81 has observed as follows:
"76. Upon an analysis of the abovestated Rules relating to the different States, the appointment letters issued to the appointees and the methodology that was adopted for appointment of the FTC Judges, it becomes clear -26- that the appointees cannot be said to have any legal, much less an indefeasible right to the posts in question. Firstly, the posts themselves were temporary, as they were created under and within the ambit and scope of the FTC Scheme sponsored by the Union of India, which was initially made only for a limited period of five years. Now, financing of the FTC Scheme has already been stopped by the Central Government with effect from 31-3-2011. No permanent posts were ever created. In other words, their appointments were temporary appointments against temporary posts.
77. The relevant Rules of the States clearly postulate that the appointments made under the Rules were purely on ad hoc basis and urgent temporary basis and were terminable without notice. The Rules as well as the respective notifications of appointment issued to these appointees, unambiguously stated that no right would be conferred upon the appointees for regular promotion on the basis of working on ad hoc basis under the FTC Scheme. The notifications vide which the Judges/candidates/petitioners were appointed, -27- particularly in the State of Gujarat, clearly specified these appointments to be temporary and for a period of two years on ad hoc basis. The cumulative effect of the notifications appointing the petitioners to the said posts under the FTC Scheme and the relevant Rules governing them clearly demonstrate that these were temporary and, in some cases, even time- bound appointments, terminable without prior notice. It is difficult for the Court to accept the contention of these petitioners that there was any indication, in the above noted Rules or otherwise, that the said appointments were permanent and that the appointees were entitled to be absorbed regularly in those posts.
80. Thus it follows that for a person to have a right to the post, the post itself has to be a permanent post duly sanctioned in the cadre. The person should be permanently appointed to that post. Normally, it is only under these circumstances that such an employee gets a right to the post, but even when a temporary employee is appointed against a permanent post, he could get a right to the post provided he had at least acquired the status of a quasi-permanent -28- employee under the relevant Rules. Where neither the post is sanctioned nor is permanent and, in fact, the entire arrangement is ad hoc or is for an uncertain duration, it cannot create any rights and obligations in favour of the appointees, akin to those of permanent employees.
81. The appointees in the present case had been appointed not only on ad hoc and temporary basis but the entire FTC Scheme itself was ad hoc and for a duration of five years only as declared by the Central Government. Despite that, some of the States declared the FTC Scheme for two years only. In these circumstances, it is not possible for this Court to hold that the appointees had any right to the post."
17. In the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court above, the petitioners have no right to the posts to which they were appointed temporarily under Fast Track Courts scheme.
18. I have gone through the earlier orders passed by this Court. When the petitioners approached this -29- Court seeking absorption/regularization and the rejection of their case by the State Government, there is also direction from this Court for re-consideration to the State Government and in pursuance to that, the first and second respondents have deliberated over the issue. Rules Committee of the High Court also gone into the issue. Finally, the resolution dated 13.03.2023 and the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice dated 30.03.2023 took decision to reject the representations/applications of the petitioners for absorption or regularization of their services which would not require interference.
19. Learned counsel Sri.Hebballi Sadanand Basappa contended that since there is a direction by the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 13.03.2012 on I.A.No.36 in Contempt Petition in CCC(C).No.324/2012 to absorb the Fast Track Court employees before discontinuing the Fast Track Courts, the respondents are bound to absorb or regularize the petitioners. A perusal of the said order -30- would indicate that the said I.A.No.36 related to State of Andhra Pradesh and it is not a General Order relating to all the States. The prayer in I.A.No.36 is also not forthcoming from the papers on record. The said direction is not definitely would apply to the State of Karnataka. Further, learned counsel Sri.Hebballi Sadanand Basappa also submitted that it is for the State Government to consider the case for regularization or absorption and it is not for the second respondent-High Court. It is to be noted here itself that it is for the State to sanction required posts and its implementation is by the second respondent-High Court. Moreover, the Appointing Authority is also the second respondent-High Court. Whether the services of the petitioners are required or not is to be decided by the second respondent-High Court. When the petitioners were appointed to posts under a scheme and when the scheme itself is abolished, petitioners would not get any right to -31- continue. The posts against which the petitioners were working co-terminates with the scheme.
20. For the reasons recorded above, I am of the view that there is no merit in the writ petitions and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, writ petitions stand dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE NC.
CT:bms