Karnataka High Court
Sri Nagendra S G vs Sri Dr K C Veeranna on 27 July, 2022
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
C.C.C. NO.458 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. NAGENDRA S.G.
S/O GOVINDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
VETERINARY COLLEGE, BENGALURU.
2. SRI. DHANANJAYA S.R.
S/O RANGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS LAB ASSISTANT
VETERINARY COLLEGE, HASSAN.
3. SMT. VIMALA K.K.
W/O LOKESH J.C.
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
VETERINARY COLLEGE, BENGALURU.
4. KUMARI JYOTHI
D/O SRI. S.T. DEVADATTA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
VETERINARY COLLEGE, BENGALURU.
2
5. SRI. MANIKAPPA
S/O REVANASIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
VETERINARY COLLEGE, BENGALURU.
6. SRI. NAWAZ PASHA .A
S/O LATE AMMER JAN B
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
DAIRY SCIENCE COLLEGE, BENGALURU.
7. SRI. SUNIL KUMAR PATIL
S/O SUBHASHRAO PATIL
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER
KARNATAKA VETERINARY ANIMAL
AND FISHERIES SCIENCES UNIVERSITY
NANDINAGAR, BIDAR.
8. SRI. SOMESHWARA
S/O RAMASHETTY HAVASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER
KARNATAKA VETERINARY ANIMAL
AND FISHERIES SCIENCES UNIVERSITY
NANDINAGAR, BIDAR.
9. SRI. JAIKISHAN
S/O KARABASAPPA MALLI
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
OFFICE OF THE ESTATE OFFICER
KARNATAKA VETERINARY ANIMAL
AND FISHERIES SCIENCES UNIVERSITY
NANDINAGAR, BIDAR.
10. SMT. PARIMALA
D/O SHIVAPPA SAJJANSHETTY
3
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
VETERINARY COLLEGE, BIDAR.
11. SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR
S/O APPARAO
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
OFFICE OF THE ESTATE OFFICER
KARNATAKA VETERINARY ANIMAL
AND FISHERIES SCIENCES UNIVERSITY
NANDINAGAR, BIDAR.
12. SRI. RAGHAVENDRA R
S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA S
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
VETERINARY COLLEGE, SHIVAMOGGA.
13. SRI. GNANESH B
S/O SHANKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
WORKING AS MESSENGER
VETERINARY COLLEGE, SHIVAMOGGA.
... COMPLAINANTS
(BY PROF. RAVI VARMA KUMAR SR. COUNSEL FOR
MRS. BELLE RAVI, ADV.,)
AND:
1. SRI. DR. K.C. VEERANNA
IN CHARGE VICE CHANCELLOR
FROM 23-02-2022
KARNATAKA VETERINARY ANIMAL
AND FISHERIES SCIENCES UNIVERSITY
AND REGISTRAR OF THE SAID UNIVERSITY
TILL 22-02-2022, P B NO.6
NANDINAGAR, BIDAR-565 401.
4
2. DR. SHIVAPRAKASH
IN-CHARGE REGISTRAR
KARNATAKA VETERINARY ANIMAL
AND FISHERIES SCIENCES UNIVERSITY
P B NO.6, NANDINAGAR, BIDAR-565 401.
... ACCUSED
(BY MR. K.N. PHANINDRA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
MRS. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADV., FOR A1 & A2)
---
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF
THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 R/W ARTICLE 215
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO TAKE
INITIATE CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDING AGAINST THE
ACCUSED HEREIN FOR THEIR WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF
THE ORDER DATED 16.07.2021 MADE IN
W.P.NO.34001/2019 AND CONFIRMED BY ORDER DATED
10.01.2022 IN W.A.NO.1185/2021 AT ANNEXURE-A AND B
RESPECTIVELY.
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition has been filed for non compliance of the order dated 16.07.2021 passed in W.P.No.34001/2019 by which the writ petition preferred by the petitioners was disposed of with a direction to the respondent - University to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of 5 service bearing in mind the observations made by the Supreme Court in SMT.UMA DEVI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH', (2006) 4 SCC 1.
2. Learned Senior counsel for the respondents while inviting the attention of this Court to the averments made in the counter affidavit submitted that the State Legislature has negated the Karnataka State Civil Services (Prohibition and Absorption of Services of the Employees or Establishments in Public Sector into Public Services) Act, 2020. It is further submitted that in view of Section 2(v), the Act applies to the University and therefore, in view of the bar contained in Section 3 of the Act about regularizing the services of an employee, the accused has considered the case of the petitioners and by an endorsement dated 06.05.2022 has informed the complainants that it is not possible to accede to the prayer for regularization of services made by the 6 complainants. It is further submitted that the directions contained in the order have been complied with and the complainants are at liberty to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to them in law with regard to their grievance.
3. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the complainants while inviting the attention of this court to preamble of the Act as well as various provisions submitted that the Act in question does not apply to the case of the complainants as the complainants are the employees of the University. It is further submitted that the University is an autonomous University and is a government University. It is also urged that the complainants have not been posted on deputation to a Government department and the plea taken by the accused that the services of the complainants cannot be regularized 7 in view of the provisions of the Act is barred by constructive res judicata.
4. We have considered the submissions made on both sides by an interpretative process, the accused cannot be held guilty of committing contempt of this court. There is no element of willful disobedience on the part of the respondents. We are therefore not inclined to proceed further with this petition, the same is accordingly disposed of with the liberty to the petitioners to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to them in law with regard to their grievance.
With the aforesaid liberty, petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE SS