Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Veterinary Animal vs Sri. Nagendra S G on 10 January, 2022
Bench: S.Sujatha, Ravi V Hosmani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI
W.A.No.1185/2021 (S - RES)
BETWEEN :
KARNATAKA VETERINARY ANIMAL
& FISHERIES SCIENCES UNIVERSITY,
REP BY ITS REGISTRAR
NANDINAGAR, P.B.NO.6,
BIDAR-565 401 ...APPELLANT
(BY SMT.VAISHALI HEGDE, ADV.)
AND :
1. SRI NAGENDRA S.G.,
S/O GOVINDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 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 41 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
VETERINARY COLLEGE, HASSAN
-2-
4. KUMARI JYOTHI
D/O S.T.DEVADATTA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
VETERINARY COLLEGE,
BENGALURU
5. SRI MANIKAPPA
S/O REVANASIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
VETERINARY COLLEGE,
BENGALURU
6. SRI NAWAZ PASHA A.,
S/O LATE AMMER JAN B.,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
DAIRY SCIENCE COLLEGE,
BENGALURU
7. SRI SUNIL KUMAR PATIL
S/O SUBHASHRAO PATIL
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER
KARNATAKA VETERINARY ANIMAL
& FISHERIES SCIENCES UNIVERSITY
NANDINAGAR, BIDAR
8. SRI SOMESHWARA
S/O RAMASHETTY HAVASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER
KARNATAKA VETERINARY ANIMAL
& FISHERIES SCIENCES UNIVERSITY
NANDINAGAR, BIDAR
9. SRI JAIKISHAN
S/O KARABASAPPA MALLI
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT OFFICE
-3-
OF THE ESTATE OFFICER
KARNATAKA VETERINARY ANIMAL
& FISHERIES SCIENCES UNIVERSITY
NANDINAGAR, BIDAR
10 . SMT.PARIMALA
D/O SHIVAPPA SAJJANSHETTY
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
VETERINARY COLLEGE, BIDAR
11 . SRI SANTHOSH KUMAR
S/O APPARAO, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
OFFICE OF THE ESTATE OFFICER
KARNATAKA VETERINARY ANIMAL
& FISHERIES SCIENCES UNIVERSITY
NANDINAGAR, BIDAR
12 . SRI RAGHAVENDRA R.,
S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA S.,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
VETERINARY COLLEGE, SHIVAMOGGA
13 . SRI GNANESH B.,
S/O SHANKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
WORKING AS MESSENGER
VETERINARY COLLEGE,
SHIVAMOGGA ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVIVARMA KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SMT.BELLE RAVIVARMA, ADV.)
THIS W.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE
WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER DATED
16.07.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
W.P.NO.34001/2019 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SAID
WRIT PETITION.
-4-
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra-Court appeal is filed by the appellant - University challenging the order dated 16.07.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.34001/2019, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondents herein has been allowed quashing the endorsement dated 26.06.2019 at Annexure - A, directing the appellant - University to consider the cases of the respondents herein for regularization and to pass appropriate orders within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
2. Based on the order dated 06.08.2005 and the Notification dated 02.03.2006, issued by the appellant - University respondents herein were appointed for non-teaching posts against the sanctioned vacant posts and their services were continued in the -5- appellant - University from time to time for more than 10 years. The details of the same are as under:-
Sl. Name Post Place of Date of initial No. working appointment
1. Nagendra S.G Assistant Veterinary 5.8.2005 College, Bengaluru
2. Dhananjaya S.R. Lab Veterinary 20.10.2009 Assistant College, Hassan
3. Vimala K.K. Assistant Veterinary 14.11.2007 College, Hassan
4. Kumari Jyothi Assistant Veterinary 13.9.2004 College, Bengaluru
5. Manikappa Assistant Veterinary 23.04.2007 College, Bengaluru
6. Nawaz Pasha Assistant Dairy Science 14.06.2006 College, Bengaluru
7. Sunil Kumar Patil Assistant Office of the 01.07.2005 Comptroller, KVA & FS University, Bidar
8. Someshwara Assistant Officer of the 01.04.2005 Comptroller, KVA & FS University, Bidar
9. Jaikishan Assistant Office of the 24.11.2005 Estate Officer, KVA & FS -6- University, Bidar
10. Parimala Assistant Office of the 01.02.2006 Dean, Veterinary College, Bidar
11. Santhosh Kumar Assistant Office of the 05.05.2007 Estate Officer, KVA & FS University, Bidar
12. Raghavendra R., Assistant Officer of the 01.04.2007 Dean, Veterinary College, Shimoga
13. Gnanesh B., Messenger Office of the 01.07.2007 Dean, Veterinary College, Shimoga
3. W.P.Nos.30685-30704/2016 filed by respondents herein seeking quashing of the Notification dated 07.07.2015, whereby the appellant - University had called for applications for recruitment inviting applications from eligible candidates for various posts, got disposed of by order dated 19.03.2019 reserving liberty to the respondents herein to make fresh -7- representations seeking regularization. Pursuant to which, the respondents herein submitted applications seeking regularization of their services. The appellant -
University by an endorsement dated 26.06.2019 has clarified that regularizing the respondents herein in their respective posts is not permissible under law, against which W.P.No.34001/2019 was filed by the respondents herein before this Court seeking direction to the appellant - University to regularize their services as against the posts held by them and for quashing of the said endorsement dated 26.06.2019. The learned Single Judge by order dated 16.07.2021 having allowed the writ petition quashing the endorsement dated 26.06.2019, this appeal is filed by the appellant - University.
4. Learned counsel Smt. Vaishali Hegde appearing for the appellant - University submitted that the respondents herein were appointed between 2004 -8- and 2009 with a clear understanding that their appointments were temporary. A newly established appellant - University was not in a position to make permanent appointment at that point of time and hence, the appointments were made on contractual basis as a stop-gap arrangement till permanent appointments were made after following due process of recruitment and selection by getting the necessary approval from the Government. Learned counsel submitted that appellant
- University has no power to regularize the services of the respondents unless the Government approves the same. In the absence of the Government arrayed as a party to the proceedings, any decision taken by the appellant - University would be futile exercise muchless no decision could be taken by the appellant - University in such matters. Having considered all these aspects in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka & others Vs. Uma Devi & others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, the -9- appellant - University has rejected the representations of the respondents herein which has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge. Thus, the learned Single judge has erred in directing the appellant
- University to consider the case of the respondents herein for regularization on the basis of the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in Uma Devi & others, supra. No regularization dehorse the recruitment and selection process could be made. The respondents cannot seek for regularization by-passing Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.
5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Ravivarma Kumar representing the respondents submitted that the respondents herein were appointed by the appellant - University against the vacant posts since its inception and are continued to work in non-teaching posts till date. The ground now urged by the appellant - University that it lacks competency to regularize the
- 10 -
services of the respondents is wholly untenable. Inviting the attention of the Court to the order dated 12.08.2017 (Annexure - L) issued by the appellant - University with respect to one Sri. M. Mallesh submitted that the said daily wage employee who had left the services was called and re-appointed with retrospective effect in terms of the decision of the Management dated 01.04.2005. Appellant - University cannot act arbitrarily discriminating the respondents for having extracted the work from them against sanctioned vacancies. Though the respondents have worked continuously for more than ten years and fulfilled all the conditions indicated in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi & others, supra and Smt. G.P. Sarojamma vs. The State of Karnataka and others (W.P.No.80646/2011, D.D. 08.03.2021), appellant - University denying the request of the respondents for regularization was wholly untenable. Hence, the learned
- 11 -
Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition and the same deserves to be confirmed by this Court.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant - University has appointed the respondents on the basis of policy of appointment for non-teaching staff against sanctioned vacant posts and have continued in employment for more than ten years. The ground of challenge that no Government department is arrayed as a party to the proceedings and appellant - University lacks competency to regularize the services of the respondents is not supported by any valid substantial material. The endorsement dated 26.06.2019 issued by the appellant
- University is not based on the said reasons. If any other employee like Sri. M. Mallesh could be re-instated by the appellant - University, the same yardstick is applicable in other cases also. It cannot be cherry
- 12 -
picked by the appellant - University to suit the convenience inasmuch as its competency to regularize the services of its employees. Even if such financial approval is required, it is obligatory on the part of the University to get such approval from the concerned and the same cannot be raised as a ground to reject the representation or challenge the order of the learned Single Judge, more particularly, when no such ground was taken in the writ proceedings. Hence, the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant - University must fail.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sheo Narain Nagar and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2018) 13 SCC 432 has categorically held that extracting work and not regularizing the employees would be a form of exploitation from the hands of the State. It is apt to refer to the paragraph No.7 which reads as under:-
- 13 -
"7. When we consider the prevailing scenario, it is painful to note that the decision in Uma Devi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1: 2006 SCC (L & S) 753] has not been properly understood and rather wrongly applied by various State Governments.
We have called for the data in the instant case to ensure as to how many employees were working on contract basis or ad-hoc basis or daily-wage basis in different State departments. We can take judicial notice that widely aforesaid practice is being continued. Though this Court has emphasised that incumbents should be appointed on regular basis as per rules but new devise of making appointment on contract basis has been adopted, employment is offered on daily wage basis etc. in exploitative forms. This situation was not envisaged by Uma Devi (supra). The prime intendment of the decision was that the employment process should be by fair means and not by back door entry and in the available pay scale. That spirit of the Uma Devi (supra) has been ignored and conveniently
- 14 -
overlooked by various State Governments/ authorities. We regretfully make the observation that Uma Devi (supra) has not be implemented in its true spirit and has not been followed in its pith and substance. It is being used only as a tool for not regularizing the services of incumbents. They are being continued in service without payment of due salary for which they are entitled on the basis of Article 14, 16 read with Article 34 (1)(d) of the Constitution of India as if they have no constitutional protection as envisaged in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India [D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305: 1983 SCC (L & S) 145 : AIR 1983 SC 130] from cradle to grave. In heydays of life they are serving on exploitative terms with no guarantee of livelihood to be continued and in old age they are going to be destituted, there being no provision for pension, retiral benefits etc. There is clear contravention of constitutional provisions and aspiration of downtrodden class. They do have equal rights and to make them equals they require protection and cannot be dealt with arbitrarily. The kind of treatment meted out is not only bad
- 15 -
but equally unconstitutional and is denial of rights. We have to strike a balance to really implement the ideology of Uma Devi (supra). Thus, the time has come to stop the situation where Uma Devi (supra) can be permitted to be flouted, whereas, this Court has interdicted such employment way back in the year 2006. The employment cannot be on exploitative terms, whereas Uma Devi (supra) laid down that there should not be back door entry and every post should be filled by regular employment, but a new device has been adopted for making appointment on payment of paltry system on contract/adhoc basis or otherwise. This kind of action is not permissible, when we consider the pith and substance of true spirit in Uma Devi (supra)."
8. In Chander Mohan Negi and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others reported in (2020) 5 SCC 732, the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the schemes notified by the Government where there was a condition that such appointees should not seek regularization/absorption. Having
- 16 -
considered the services extended from time to time, in view of the requirement of the State, and all the appointed teachers having completed more than fifteen years of service, the Hon'ble Apex Court directed regularization of such teachers.
9. In the light of these judgments, the action of the appellant - University in extracting the work from the respondents for more than 10 years, appointing them on contract basis for smooth functioning and thereafter denying the regularization of their services is wholly untenable. These aspects are extensively analyzed by the learned Single Judge in arriving at a conclusion.
10. What is relevant for the appellant - University is to examine the case of the respondents in the light of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi and others, supra. Having analysed these aspects in the backdrop of the case as narrated
- 17 -
hereinabove, learned Single Judge has rightly held that the endorsement dated 26.06.2019 (Annexure -A) issued by the appellant - University is wholly unsustainable. We find no jurisdictional error in the order impugned.
Appeal being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. In view of the disposal of the appeal, all pending I.As. stand disposed of accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE PMR