Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that petitioners were all appointed in the year 2007-08 and 2009 pursuant to the State Government's policy to have one Accounting Consultant post in the respective Municipalities/Corporation for the purpose of introduction of double entry accounting system and Deputy Commissioner of the respective district were empowered to recruit Accountant Consultants. It should be read as Accounting Consultants in terms of Government Order dated 14.02.2007 empowering Deputy Commissioner of various districts to recruit Accounting Consultants while inviting applications, holding tests and interview. Petitioners initial appointments was in accordance with law even though it was on contract basis. It was also pointed that each and every due procedure has been followed as if for regular recruitment except that their appointment was on contract basis. In such an event, petitioners are entitled for regularization of their services. State Government issued absorption of the employees appointed under the scheme of Swarnajayanti Shahari Rozgaar Yogana in Urban Local Bodies under Rules, 2005. Petitioners are also similarly situated persons who are also entitled for regularization/absorption in the posts of Accounting Consultants in the respective Municipalities. The endorsement issued by the second respondent that the petitioners were not appointed under Swarnajayanti Shahari Rozgaar Yogana, Rules and Regulations on KPTCL quoted in the Court order dated 16.01.2015 insofar as KPTCL Employees Regularisation are different, post of Accountant in the Karnataka Municipalities are required to be filled up in accordance with the Rules, 2010, grievance of the petitioners is contrary to SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. vs UMADEVI & ORS.(3) reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 of the Hon'ble Apex Court, documents and representation submitted by the petitioners have no substance. Petitioners contract appointment is for a period of one year or till selection and appointment is done through KPSC and for any reason permanency would not be made. Pursuant to the selection posts, KPSC has forwarded the list of selected Accountant and it is under process. Therefore, question of regularization of petitioners services is impermissible. On these counts, grievance of the petitioners are rejected.

19. Petitioners were recruited through advertisement followed by written test and interview which was for limited purpose and that too on contract basis to the post Accounting Consultants and not Accountant which normally would not confer any right of regularization. Contract appointment is permissible under Rule 15 of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 (for short Rules, 1977). Rule 15 is reproduced herein:

"15. Provision for appointment of retired Government Servants and for appointment by contract.-

25. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that petitioners were all appointed in the year 2007-08 and 2009 pursuant to the State Government's policy to have one Accounting Consultants post in the respective Municipalities/Corporation for the purpose of introduction of double entry accounting system and Deputy Commissioner of the respective districts were empowered to recruit Accounting Consultants. Thus, Deputy Commissioner of various districts proceeded to recruit Accounting Consultants while inviting applications, holding tests and interview. Thus, petitioners initial appointments was in accordance with law even though it is on contract basis. It was also pointed that each and every due procedure for regular recruitment has been followed except that their appointment is on contract basis. In such an event, petitioners are entitled for regularization of their services. State Government issued absorption of the employees appointed under the scheme of Swarna- Jayanti Shahari Rozgaar Yogana in Urban Local Bodies under Rules, 2005. Petitioners are also similarly situated persons who are also entitled for regularization/absorption in the posts of Accounting Consultants in the respective Municipalities. The endorsement issued by the second respondent that the petitioner's were not appointed under Swarnajayanti Shahari Rozgaar Yogana, Rules and Regulations on KPTCL quoted in the Court order dated 16.01.2015 insofar as KPTCL Employees Regularisation are different, post of Accountant in the Karnataka Municipalities are required to be filled up in accordance with the Rules, 2004 read with 2010, grievance of the petitioners is contrary to Umadevi's(3) decision supra of the Apex Court, documents and representation submitted by the petitioners have no substance. Petitioners contract appointment is for a period of one year or till selection and appointment is done through KPSC. Specific condition was imposed in the order of appointment that for any reason permanency would not be made. Pursuant to the selection posts, KPSC has forwarded the list of selected Accountant and it is under process. Therefore, question of regularization of petitioners services is impermissible. On these counts, grievance of the petitioners are liable to be rejected.

7. ¥À,æ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ¯ÉÆ,ÃPÀ ¸ÉêÁ DAiÉÆ,ÃUÀ¢AzÀ CPËAmÉAmï ºÀÅzÉÝUÀ,½UÉ DAiÉÆ,ÃUÀ¢AzÀ DAiÉÄÌ ¥ÀnÖ ¹éÃPÀÈvÀªÁVzÀÄÝ C§sÀå yðUÀ½UÉ ¸À¼À ¤AiÀÄÄQÛUÉÆ,½¸ÀĪÀ ¥ÀæQæAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ UÀÄwÛUÉ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ,°£À ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÉêÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß SÁAiÀÄAUÉƽ¸À®Ä §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è.

28. Petitioners grievance for their regularisation is that their initial appointment on contract basis was after following due procedure like inviting applications, written tests and interview. Therefore, they are entitled for regularization. Rules 2004 and Rules, 2010 provide for regular recruitment to the post of Accountant. Due to administrative or financial exigency, official respondents might have resorted to contract appointment. Such contract appointees cannot be made permanent or regularized as it would violate Articles 14, 16 and 309 read with Rules, 2004 or 2010 and KCSR Act, 1978 for the reason that another contract appointee in yet any other organization as on that date, did not submit his application apparently for the reason that he was already on contract appointment with some other organization. If the official respondents had notified that contract appointment is followed by regularization, in such an event, those contract employees who are working elsewhere would have opted for Accountant post in the official respondent - Municipality/Corporation. But, Government authorized Deputy Commissioners to appoint Accounting Consultants. Therefore, such of those persons who are already appointed on contract basis or temporary basis in different organizations of the State or any private organization where they were drawing higher pay than the contract appointment of Accounting Consultants, they are not in a position to leave such contract appointments and join the contract appointment to the post of Accounting Consultants in the Municipality/Corporation like petitioners. So also eligible candidate for Accounting Consultants may not prefer for contract appointment and he may be keen for regular appointment in the interest of job security and to settle in his/her life. Thus, if the petitioners contract appointment is followed by regularization, in such an event, that would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 and so also misleading such of those contract appointees other than working in Municipality/Corporation like petitioners to the extent that contract appointment is followed by regularization. For public post, mode of recruitment should be in accordance with the Constitutional provision in particularly, Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Time and again, Supreme Court after decision in UMADEVI's (3) case and in subsequent decisions have clearly held that public posts are required to be filled up after duly following the Constitutional provision read with relevant Rules of Recruitment. Therefore, petitioners grievance relating to regularization read with the cited decisions are hereby distinguished in view of the later decisions.