Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006
13. Per contra, Mr. Sanchela, learned counsel for
the Nagarpalika, submitted that the Nagarpalika
being a statutory body is bound by its
regulations and it cannot deviate from or commit
breach of regularizations. He denied the claim
and allegations by the claimants. He also denied
the allegations that the claimants have been
working regularly and continuously and/or that
they have been engaged as Fitter and that they
are working for more than 10 to 12 years and/or
that they have been working as Fitter or that
they were selected / appointed after interview.
He further submitted that under the Act and under
rules procedure for selection and recruitment of
the employees is prescribed and that therefore
the Nagarpalika cannot appoint / recruit any
Page 8 of 21
HC-NIC Page 10 of 23 Created On Thu Jan 26 01:59:00 IST 2017
10 of 23
C/SCA/619/2013 JUDGMENT
employee on its permanent set up without
prescribed procedure. Learned advocate for the
Nagarpalika submitted that claimants have been
engaged without following prescribed procedure
and that therefore their appointments cannot be
regularized. According to learned advocate for
the Nagarpalika if the services of the claimants
are regularized and if the Nagarpalika is
directed to confer status of permanent workmen to
the claimants then it would amount to
regularization of backdoor entry which is not
permissible in law. Mr. Sanchela, learned
advocate for the Nagarpalika reiterated and
emphasized the irregularities and defects in the
appointments of the claimants and he also
reiterated and emphasized the fact that there is
neither post nor vacancy on the sanctioned set up
of the Nagarpalika. Mr.Sanchela, learned advocate
for the Nagarpalika relied on the decisions in
case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others
vs. Umadevi (3) and others [(2006) 4 SCC 1] and
in the case of Amreli Municipality vs. Gujarat
Page 9 of 21
HC-NIC Page 11 of 23 Created On Thu Jan 26 01:59:00 IST 2017
11 of 23
C/SCA/619/2013 JUDGMENT
Pradesh Municipal [2004 (3) GLR 1841].