Karnataka High Court
Sri Shivakumar @ K S Shivakumaraswamy vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 May, 2009
Author: V.G.Sabhahit
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAHGALORET omen "nus 'me 25"' DAY OF MAY 20:}; A. A PRESENT "me Momma MR. 9.9. DINAKA.RJ|\h;,«CH*JéEE:§i.§£3*fiCE.i'.V kk AND THE HON'BLE MR.JusT'»'Ij%¢:.=,v.c:; BETWEEN: 1 sm j K s sHmau<£)P#AaA.swAm' V % 5/0LviA'?E. K'5I£.>DAPA%G0WDA c;RouP~'Ic' 5959:0122 0/40 'SUB-REG1STRAR'OFF!CE TALUK oF§=1C:s:fauI1,bIsiG, BHm..A_VANA.'ilAiL1VMAIN ROAD _ CHIKMAi§GALUR"- "ma 8HAsxARaA3u k sj/oxgncrwm A A¢:e_:3.a "' -..rGRO.£_JP EMPLOYEE o/at sg-3 REGISTRAR % TALUK omce BUILDING, CHIKMAIQGALXJR JCESHAVA MURTHY " S/0 SANNATHIQGQAIAH AGE:37 YEARS, GROUP "D" EMPLOYEE O/O SUB REGISTRAR TALUK OFFICE BUILDING, C!-¥IKMANGALUR« PETITIONERS (By Sr! : M BABU RAG, ADV., ) nltmtubmtmnns 1 THE STATE or-' KARNATAKA " REP BY :13 SECRETARY, DEPAgmEmw= '- REVENUE, (STAMPS AND REGISTR.A'I'lON;) M saumames % % 3ANcsALoxE--e1 2 " 2 me mspecroa GEN£RA£.. GF sums AND REGISTRATION m KARNATAKA" 3 DEPARTMENT OF sIAM9sAm> REGISTRATEON 7*" FLOOR, 3wss3%*3u:La;m,k%mweav BHAVAN, :<.e. Roan, 'BAf:£€-iA£.QRE, ' 3 'ms orsfmigrr kk % DISTRICT REGISTRAR' 5 OFFICE" BHARAT scwrs A!§§D""~3U:I_D"ES Bl-IAVAN £5ISTRICf"vPi;A:Y'GR€ii}'?!D," CH'I!§MAGAL_UR' arsmzsrr 4 IHE s13a_REr51s1aAR , ,0:-vxce owkme sue REGISTRAR Tfi\'LU!(..0FFICE"'BUILDING % k BHASAVAHALLI MAIN ROAD " 'C!fiI!§¥:1fie€5l§LUR DISTRICT RESPONDENTS
(By smt; NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA., ) V ' 'w,_THESE WP!-5., ARE FILED PRAYING T0;;- QUASH THE fiaosa 'D'r.19.12.os, PASSED BY me KARNATAKA «-3»-
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AS PER AIQN-A, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.
'mess WRIT PETITIONS comma psrf PRELIMINARY HEARING on THIS DAY, SABHAHIT :.,om»:
THE FOLLOWING: , These Writ Petitions a:' e_"*--f.{ied " the to Appiication Nos.7972,, 7974 anéfyszts/zoos; me of the Karnataka Administroirive '5}5ri3)1g'§1'ér!.'o'(!.;i:e:3_inafter referred to as ;<the Boiiigaiore, being aggrieved by the order dafed" wherein the Tribunai has the na;5--;$§lv§§tion holding that the applicants have flt case for issuance of writ of mandamus to Aéonoi'dor_v»t.hé:ir}:asas for reguiarization.
2. " fieizitfoners 1, 2 and 3 herein flied Appiicafion Nos. A 7974 and 7975 respectivay bfiore the Kamataka V. Aoministraflve Tribunal seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider thfir cases for regularization of \x5' their services and for a directtsn not to dispense with user services til! their applications was cons:derefi7::"and appropriate order was passed by the authority. f A' % 2.1 It is the case of ms applicants 1, 3 and 4 befomths Triburisl that';.".t4.tx§y"joi';i.éd as Clerical Assistants In the pf Taluk omce suucung,,, mun Raod, cmkmgalur; they 3osnaq,%:ia-akk mf;:y,d:e yum 1934, 1990 and 1999 employass; the first up:6'9re--unumsny ; we-a applicant _has st;idAijed"':é:p"<.to s.s..:,c. and the Fourth appiicant has fati¥sd'.'«InA'$.§.:L.C. However, they dtscharged " '*vti1eiE""dut£ss'v- gqu£'x\'r'aVi"ét'3'tV to that of Second mvisson cue-x. discharged by them was dates! in ctia.r;ascter,.':\s«h3<:;:!1 included preparation of Nomina Indwt, V'K.4..,'_'V.malnteasAfi.ce of SA. Ragister, C.A. Register, praparatisn of A":tfsn,<§i£fi3brance catificates, preparation of Book 1 dsscriptive index, preparation of intimation sfips and tmder vatuation cases to be mgisterw, preparafion of key to index, preparaflon of receipts, pnwaration of vatuafion V9 certificates, preparation of certified cepm, docajntent copying and making entries In respect deciaraflons, recording documents and documents In the mute Book, ke¢§ihg4tapo<zgs :5 V'-4_L&:CV:.' 2.2 It is the further the.appl£ca:?atsV"t§'ta& they V were being paid consoléijated _saia't';;ijef"Rst33};"g?vday and the satary was calcuiatect an hut, paid on monthly was enhanced to 9.5.50!» éayculated on dauy rated basis, butt; 'bays; they have put more than of the Sub-Registrar, Chiktnagalnf several reprmentaflons, the rmutarized their servloa. The _'apVpficants'tap§taached this Court in w.P. Nos.36639 ta of for seating regauiarization of thdr swvica
7.__undeur 226 and 2.27 of the Constitution of India and Vt tatgnagensgsm writ petitions were disposed of on 11.09.2993, etfrectln-g the petitioners therein to approach the Tribunal. V' 2.3 Respondents resisted the applications tnt"'a'!,ling reply statement contending that the by the applicants would not heip them considering that cases for reguiaziiition, :~.'_l'he produced by the applicants were notV__at'a_zIi that they had actually wotited in .l_:i_l1'e V mentioned against the.__'vaco'nt'n The applicants have failed by producing authenticated. ' vxvroii attendame cerfificate ' not at all emaged against"eny"iior:3ont:3:'gan§tsi§'ned' post and they have not coidmeii «'.befQ.l+§;:.«,, with clean hands and whereforepthe' respondents sought for dismissal of the
- .39Fé§ltfa£.5§hsp I, i i ppppp i 'V applicants flied reaoloder staet to the of objections filed by the respondents and ":ifi;tod'oced additional documents.
4. The Tribunal by order dated 19.12.2003, held X i that Annexuro 'A1', the proceedings dated 20.04.2992 0 shows that some persons were working uneuthorieedly in the office of the Sub-Registrar and Distnct and in that connwion, the thtrd respondent Annexure 'A2' to the Sub-Registrer toke' 'v action against the unauthorized Zsqersfons office of the sub-aegnscrarmxgng tiebillty hfe Registrar. The applicants have :prodeeed._VVe_o5r eecement to show that they wete"'j:appioir§te&i'«and»empioyed in the office of the Sub-Registriar.endf.»LthérV"e;=;Solnhnent was against vacant also no rnatmial to 10 years of continuous service 'theI'efo'»rijje,.'it be said that the a-ppflcants wereA.eanplo§ed_hlnVt§1eA'ofhEe of the Sub-Registrar. In View '"«--..pf ;,,@..o.de:j$ion'V'V6f"'Vthe Hon'bie Supram Court in or KARNATAKA AND omens vs. omens (zoos (4) scc 1), the henna:
that'i~the applicants wwe not entitied to any direction ":h:"fer:»_"reg-uianzatton of their Jservitm and accordingly, V' the applications. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal dated 19.12.2953} appficant Ros. 1, 3 and 4 before the Tribunal have preferred ti1e;»s,Ife'.:.:'"Wurit Petitions.
5. We have heard the for the petitioners and the lgamad Advocate appearing for the
6. Learned petmomrs reiterated the; petitions and submitted to regzdatizatim of their" working for more than 10 yeats. in the fiub-Registrar, Chlianagaiur,
-and the ortiért Trlbunai is erroneous. tt?.%t[;; 0::itA the other hand, the Seamed Additional tidtvocate appearing ibr the respondents ' ._arguw fistjpport of the order passed by the Tribunal.
8. we have given cardut consideration to the ctmtentions of the learnw counsei appearing for the parties and scrutinized the material on record. \/
9. The material on record would dearly show-mat the writ petitioners have not produced WY before the Tribunal to show that they were empioyeci in the office of the suiifitaglstrair, it and thdr appointment was posts. There is also no mat'enfia'i..to show' that i' V rendered continuous tile Sub-
Registrar, Chikmagaiur1'4'l'o':f_"1'G._,§§3ts«;Vs'f_ accotding to the averments the petitioners were paid per day and salary vca-Icuifo'ti'on':'1i§;as rated basis, but, paid on the decision of the Hon' ble Supreme Cotirtllin' case (2006 (4) SCC 1), it is '_ CE&§'§'~:.flg|:IJt the oet£ti9_ners, having fafied to prove that they w§re'ag§_pointéd___and empioyw In the office of the Sub- vacant pom and that they have put in mars yaars of continuous service, wfll not be any direction to the respondants for
--' iefiuismaflon of thew smvicm. Accordingiy, we hold mat T impugned order passed by the Tribunal is justitied and V U does not suffer from any error or Iliegaiity as to can for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction of Accordingly, we hold that there is no merit _ petitions and pass the following Order:--- The Writ Petitions are "
. .___\ % .Ii1dex_: Wm / 'Wéb Hm : No