Karnataka High Court
Karibasappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 October, 2022
Author: S.G. Pandit
Bench: S.G. Pandit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
WRIT PETITION No.1926/2016
c/w
WRIT PETITION NO.28191/2015 (S-SER)
IN W.P.NO.1926/2016
BETWEEN:
SRI M.D.CHANDRANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
S/O SRI J.M.DHIRYANAIKA
RESIDING AT "SRI SATHU
BHAVANI NILAYA' 2ND CROSS
PURADAL ROAD, GADIKOPPA
SHIMOGA-577 201.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.NAIK N.R. ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
RURAL AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPALITIES
TOWER BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SHIMOGA DISTRICT, SHIMOGA-577 201
4. THE COMMISSIONER
SHIMOGA MAHANAGARA PALIKE
SHIMOGA-577 201
...RESPONDENTS
2
(BY SRI M.V.RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R1 TO R3,
SRI ASHWIN S. HALADY, ADV. FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER FOR
REGULAR APPOINTMENT UNDER THE CONTROL OF R-4 AS
THEY HAVE SERVED MORE THAN FIFTEEN YEARS ON
REGULAR BASIS AND ETC.
IN WP NO.28191/2015
BETWEEN:
1. SRI KARIBASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O A.K.BASAPPA
RESIDING AT TAYINERALU
NO.130, 2ND MAIN ROAD
2ND CROSS, LAKKAPPA
EXTENSION, KASHIPURA,
SHIMOGA-57.
2. SRI RAJAPPA K.
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
S/O KRISHNAPPA YALAVATTI
RESIDING AT THANDAHOSUDI POST
SHIMOGA TALUK,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT-57.
3. SRI M.R.SHIVAKUMAR
S/O M.K.RUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RESIDING AT 2ND CROSS,
ASHOKNAGAR, SHIMOGA.
4. SRI D.S.SATHISH
S/O SHEKHARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT NO.6, YAREKOPPAMUDDINAKOPPA
MUDDINAKOPPA, SHIMOGA.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI N.R.NAIK, ADV.,)
3
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
RURAL AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPALITIES
TOWER BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SHIMOGA DISTRICT, SHIMOGA-577 201
4. THE COMMISSIONER
SHIMOGA MAHANAGARA PALIKE
SHIMOGA-577 201
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.V.RAMA JOIS, AGA FOR R1 AND R2,
R-3 SERVED, SRI ASHWIN S. HALADY, ADV., FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO CONSIDER FOR REGULAR
APPOINTMENT UNDER THE CONTROL OF R-4 AS THEY HAVE
SERVED MORE THAN FIFTEEN YEARS ON REGULAR BASIS AND
ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioners, in both the writ petitions, are before this Court under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to consider them for regular appointment under the control of fourth respondent as 4 they have served more than fifteen years on regular basis; to issue direction to the respondent authorities for providing weightage of their services and to direct fourth respondent to permit the petitioners to continue in their service.
2. Heard Sri N.R.Naik, learned counsel for the petitioners in the both petitions through video conferencing, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri M.V.Ramesh jois for respondents-1 to 3, and learned counsel Sri Ashwin S. Halady for respondent No.4 in person.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners in both the writ petitions were engaged by the fourth respondent-Commissioner, Shivamogga Mahanagara Palike, Shivamogga, as "Property Tax Advisors" in the year 2003 and subsequently the petitioners were engaged to assist in the census work. It is also submitted that the petitioners were engaged in finalization of electoral rolls 5 of the corporation area. He would further submit that the petitioners are working under the fourth respondent-Corporation for more than 20 years and therefore, he prays for regularization of services of the petitioners in the fourth respondent-Corporation. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioners working as "Property Tax Advisors" are getting revenue to the fourth respondent-Corporation and they are responsible for implementing various Schemes. Thus, the learned counsel prays for a direction to the fourth respondent to regularize the services of the petitioners in the fourth respondent- corporation.
4. Per contra, Sri Ashwin S. Halady, learned counsel appearing for fourth respondent would submit that the petitioners were never engaged against the sanctioned post and the petitioners' services were utilized only whenever their services are required for the work of assessment of tax and during census work. Since the petitioners are not appointed by the fourth 6 respondent nor the petitioners are working against the sanctioned post, he submits by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS Vs. UMADEVI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2006 SC 1806, the petitioners would not be entitled for regularization of their services under the fourth respondent-corporation. He also brings to the notice of this Court that a similar writ petition in W.P.No.56087/2014 is dismissed by this Court by an order dated 07.10.2020 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner therein.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point that arises for consideration is that as to whether the petitioners are entitled for the prayer sought for by them. The answer would be negative for the following reasons:
The petitioners are engaged by the fourth respondent-Corporation since 2003 for 'tax assessment work' and 'census work'. As could be gathered from the 7 material annexed to the writ petitions, the petitioners are engaged for preparing election I.D. cards and electoral work. The petitioners are not appointed to the sanctioned post in the 4th respondent-Corporation nor the petitioners are appointed by the competent appointing authority to the sanctioned post. The petitioners are working only whenever their services are needed by the fourth respondent or under various Schemes. A person who is working on daily wages would become eligible for regularization in terms of Umadevi's case (supra) only if he is appointed against sanctioned post by the competent authority and if he is completed ten years of service as on the date of decision in Umadevi's case (supra). This Court, in W.P.No.56087/2014 considering the case of a similarly situated petitioner who was claiming that he was working in the fourth respondent-Corporation, by an order dated 07.10.2020 rejected the prayer of the petitioner. Thus, there is no material to establish that the petitioners were appointed to the sanctioned post by 8 the competent appointing authority. As such, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief sought for by them in the writ petition. Since there is no merit in the petition, the petition stands dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioners to compete in the regular recruitment, if they are eligible in accordance with law.
SD/-
JUDGE TL