Dismissed

R Sathiaseelan Nair v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Jul 2018WA/4718/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, within a time-barred appeal, dismissed the appeal seeking regularization of the appellant's part-time service as a lecturer. The court held that no fresh cause of action arose from an endorsement, and the appellant could not claim regularization as a matter of right under Umadevi.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed. The interim application I.A.No.1/2017 was disposed of.

R Sathiaseelan Nair Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

W.A.No.4718/2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JULY, 2018

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.DEVDAS

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NO.4718/2017 (S-REG)

¶10

BETWEEN

¶11

R. SATHIASEELAN NAIR S/O M. RAGHAVAN PILLAI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS LECTURER IN COMMERCE DR. AMBEDKAR FIRST GRADE COLLEGE HAL II STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 008.

¶12

... APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI. AMARESH N, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT EDUCATION DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE 560 001.

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER FOR COLLEGIATE EDUCATION PALACE ROAD BANGALORE 560001.

¶17

W.A.No.4718/2017

¶18

¶19

THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION PALACE ROAD BANGALORE 560001.

¶20

THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION BANGALORE REGION PALACE ROAD BANGALORE 560001.

¶21

AMBEDKAR MEMORIAL EDUCATION TRUST HAL IIND STAGE INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE 560008 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶22

DR. AMBEDKAR FIRST GRADE COLLEGE HAL IIND STAGE INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE 560 008 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL.

¶23

... RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI S. S. MAHENDRA, AGA., FOR R1 TO 4)

¶25

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.03.2017 PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.6600/2010(S).

¶26

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, R.DEVDAS J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A.No.4718/2017

JUDGMENT

This appeal is reportedly time-barred by a period of 89

¶31

days. Having regard to the circumstances, we have considered the matter on merits while ignoring the delay.

¶32

The appellant is before this Court seeking to assail the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.6600/2010 (S-REG).

¶33

The appellant submits that he was appointed as part time lecturer in Commerce by the 6^th respondent-College in the year 1992 and continued to work till 2002, with artificial breaks; he sought regularization of his service, which was not considered. He, therefore, approached this Court by filing W.P.No.4661/2003, which came to be disposed of on 04.04.2007, with an observation that if there is no impediment to consider the case of the appellant in terms of paragraph 53 of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi, the respondents could consider the request for regularization.

¶34

W.A.No.4718/2017

¶35

¶36

The appellant submits that in view of the said observation, he made another representation to the respondents seeking regularization of his service on the support of circular dated 16.08.2001 issued by the Joint Director of Collegiate Education. The said representation was rejected by order dated 17.12.2009 on the ground that the appellant was ineligible under the provisions of Karnataka Education Institutions (Absorption of persons working as part time lecturers in Aided Private Educational Institutions) (Special) Rules, 2003. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed W.P.No.6600/2010(S) for quashing the endorsement rejecting his request for regularization and for a direction to absorb him on the post of lecturer.

¶37

The learned single Judge has taken note of the fact that this Court, in W.P.No.4661/2003, had rejected the prayer of the appellant herein, holding that the services of he appellant could not be regularized and no direction could be issued to the respondents in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & others V/s Umadevi & others , reported in (2006) 4 SCC

¶38

W.A.No.4718/2017

¶39

¶40

Page 1 . The learned single Judge proceeded to hold that merely because an endorsement is issued by the 3^rd respondent, Director of Collegiate Education, no fresh cause of action arose, while the order passed in W.P.No.4661/2003 has attained finality.

¶41

The appellant has failed to make out any ground to dislodge the opinion of the learned single Judge. It is an admitted fact that the appellant is not in service of the 6^th respondent-College from the year 2002. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umadevi’s case has settled the position of law that there cannot be backdoor entry in services and regularization cannot be claimed in every case as a matter of right.

¶42

In view of the above, this intra-court appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. I.A.No.1/2017 is accordingly disposed of.

¶43

SD/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶44

SD/JUDGE

¶45

R Sathiaseelan Nair v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Sathiaseelan Nair v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S C C I Ltd., Vs the Deputy Labour Commissioner

The State of Karnataka Vs Smt. Bhathyamma

Sri H J Siwani Vs State of Karnataka

The Commissioner Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Kantilal Jain Vs Union of India

Dr Savio Pereira Vs Union of India