Karnataka High Court
The Director Municipal Administration vs Sri K M Manjunath on 13 October, 2022
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT APPEAL NO.565/2022 (S-REG)
BETWEEN:
1. THE DIRECTOR
MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
SRI M. VISHWESHWARAIH
TOWERS, DR. B.R. AMBEDAKR
VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 011.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101. ...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPUA, AGA)
AND:
1. SRI K.M. MANJUNATH
S/O LATE MALLEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
OCC: BILL COLLECTOR
(TAX COLLECTOR)
TOWN MUNICIPALITY
CHIKKAMAGALURU TOWN
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
TOWN MUNICIPALITY
CHIKKAMAGALURU TOWN
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101. ...RESPONDENTS
(BBMP SERVED THROUGH E-MAIL)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO QUASH
2
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03/03/2020, PASSED IN WRIT
PETITION NO.15481/2019 BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IS
ILLEGAL.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal is filed challenging the order dated 03.03.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.15481/2019.
2. Heard the learned Additional Government Advocate and also perused the material available on record.
3. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are, the first respondent was appointed as a Bill Collector with the Gram Panchayath under a resolution dated 19.07.1994. Subsequently, the Gram Panchayath was merged with the Town Municipality and ever since the merger, the first respondent continued in employment with the second respondent - Municipality. The first respondent had made a request for regularization of service, which was rejected and therefore, he had approached this Court in W.P.No.37937/2011 which was 3 disposed of on 09.04.2012 and the matter was remanded with a direction to consider the case of the first respondent afresh. The prayer of first respondent for regularization was once again rejected by the competent authority and challenging the same, he had approached this Court in W.P.No.39882/2012 which was disposed of by this Court on 08.11.2012 and the matter was once again remanded with a direction to consider the case of the first respondent for regularization in accordance with law and in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. M.L.Kesari1. The prayer of first respondent for regularization was rejected for the third time by the competent authority and challenging the same he had approached this Court in W.P.No.15481/2019 which was disposed off by the learned Single Judge vide the order impugned with a direction to first and third respondents in the writ petition to consider the case of the first respondent herein afresh. Being aggrieved by the same, respondents Nos.1 and 2 in the writ petition have preferred this intra court appeal.
1 AIR 2010 SC 2587 4
4. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the appointment of first respondent was not against a sanctioned post and therefore, his case cannot be considered for regularization. She submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and erred in disposing the writ petition with a direction to the appellants to consider the case of the first respondent for regularization.
5. The first respondent was appointed as a Bill Collector in the year 1994 with the Gram Panchayath and after merger of the Gram Panchayath with third respondent - Town Municipality, his service was continued with the third respondent and since his prayer for regularization was rejected he had approached this Court in W.P.No.37937/2011 which was disposed of by this Court on 09.04.2012 and in paragraph No.3 of the said order it was observed as follows:
" A reading of the impugned endorsement do no specify the reasons for rejecting the request of the petitioner for regularization. The material on record discloses that 5 petitioner had put in service of more than 17 years without any break. In terms of the law declared by the Apex Court in Umadevi's case (AIR 2006 SC 1806) and subsequently clarified in State of Karnataka vs. M.L.Kesari (AIR 2010 SC 2587), the services of the petitioner are to be regularized. Further the respondent Government issued several orders from time to time regularizing the services of similary situated employees. While issuing the impugned endorsement the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court and the Government Orders are not taken into consideration".
6. Further, in operative portion of the order at paragraph (iii) it was observed as under:
"(iii) The matter is remanded to the respondents for reconsideration in accordance with the test laid down by the Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. M.L.Kesari (AIR 2010 SC 2587) and also in the Government Orders, as expeditiously as possible and in any even not later than three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order".
7. Though there was a specific direction by this Court to consider the case of first respondent for regularization in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the M.L.Kesari's case (supra), the competent authority once again rejected the request of first respondent for regularization on the ground that he 6 had not completed ten years of service and the said order was challenged by the first respondent in W.P.No.39882/2012 which was allowed by this Court vide the order dated 08.11.2012 taking into consideration the earlier direction issued by this Court to consider the case of first respondent in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.L.Kesari's case (supra). Inspite of such repeated directions given by this Court, for the third time, the competent authority once again rejected the prayer of first respondent for regularization on the ground that first respondent falls short of criteria stipulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others vs. Umadevi & Others2. The learned Single Judge taking into consideration the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.37937/2011 disposed of on 09.04.2012 and in W.P.No.39882/2012 disposed of on 08.11.2012, wherein the competent authority was directed to consider the case of first respondent for regularization in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.L.Kesari (supra) has disposed of the writ petition vide 2 AIR 2006 SC 1806 7 the order impugned with direction to first and third respondents in the writ petition to consider the case of first respondent herein for regularization within four weeks' from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
8. Undisputedly, the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.37937/2011 and W.P.No.39882/2012 wherein this Court had directed the competent authority to consider the case of the first respondent for regularization in the light of the judgment of M.L.Kesari (supra) were not challenged and the same had attained finality. The appellants - competent authority are therefore, bound to comply with the said order and the case of the first respondent is required to be considered for regularization as directed by this Court in the earlier rounds of litigation in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.L.Kesari's case (supra). Though the said orders are staring at the competent authority, the request of first respondent for regularization was rejected for the third time by the competent authority on the ground that his case falls 8 short of the criteria as stipulated by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (supra). It is in this background, the learned Single Judge has directed the competent authority to reconsider the case of first respondent for regularization and we do not find any irregularity or illegality in the said order which is impugned in this intra court writ appeal. Accordingly, we find no merit in the writ appeal and the same is therefore, dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE NMS