Dismissed

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Kolar v. Smt. Sandhya Rani

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2021WA/639/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge's order directing regularization of services for a typist appointed on daily wages was upheld. The court held that subsequent acquisition of qualifications and practical experience justified regularization despite initial non-compliance, aligning with Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed upholding the single judge’s order directing the appellant to consider the respondent's case for regularization.

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO.639 OF 2021 (S-REG)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Panchayat, Kolar, Kolar District – 563 101.

¶11

... Appellant

¶12

(By Sri. Narayana Reddy M., Advocate)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Smt. Sandhya Rani, Aged about 53 years, W/o M. Balakrishna, R/at Weavers Street, Near Ganesha Tempal, Malur Town -563130 Kolar District.

¶15

The State of Karnataka By its Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore – 560001.

¶16

The President Zilla Panchayat Kolar – 563101 Kolar District.

¶17

¶18

The Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat Office, Malur Taluk, Kolar District – 563130.

¶19

... Respondents

¶20

(By Sri. G.M. Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate for R-1; Sri. Kiran Kumar, HCGP for R-2; R-3 and R-4 are served)

¶21

¶22

This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the order dated 01-12-2020, made in Writ Petition No.26806/2017 in so far as directing appellant to regularize the services of the 1^st respondent, while disposing of the Writ Petition No.26806/2017.

¶23

This Writ Appeal coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, ALOK ARADHE J., delivered the following:

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

In this intra-court appeal preferred under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, the appellant has assailed the validity of the order dated 01-12-2020 passed by the learned Single Judge by which, the writ petition preferred by respondent No.1 has been disposed of with the direction to the appellant herein to consider the case of the respondent No.1 for regularization in the post of Typist in the Office of the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat, Malur Taluk, Kolar District.

¶26

¶27

The facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal briefly stated are that respondent No.1 was appointed as ‘Typist’ on daily wage basis in the Office of the Executive Officer of Taluk Panchayat, Malur, on 23-02-1994. The respondent No.1 on or about 21-06-2017 filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the appellant herein to consider the case of respondent No.1 for regularization in the post of Typist in the Office of the Executive Officer of the Taluk Panchayat, Malur Taluk, Kolar District. The said writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by an order dated 01-12-2020 with a direction to the appellant herein to consider the case of the respondent No.1 for regularization of her services in the post of Typist. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed.

¶28

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent No.1 did not have the requisite educational qualification at the time of entry into service in as much as she did not possess the requisite qualification of passing the Senior Typewriting Examination in Kannada language conducted by the Department of Public

¶29

¶30

Instructions. Therefore, the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the respondent No.1 could not have been held entitled for regularization of her services in the post of Typist. While inviting the attention of this Court to paragraph 8 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is submitted that since the monetary benefits accrued to respondent No.1 under the provisions of the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012 which were already extended to respondent No.1, therefore, she is not entitled to claim regularization of her services.

¶31

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the respondent No.1 at the time of entry into service did not have the qualification of having passed the Senior Typewriting Examination in Kannada language, however, subsequently, she had acquired the same on 27-01-1996 and as on the date of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others reported in (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1 , she had acquired the qualification and therefore she is entitled for regularization of

¶32

¶33

her services. It is also urged that during the pendency of the contempt proceedings, the appellant by an order dated 2307-2021 has regularized the services of respondent No.1. It is also pointed out that the respondent No.1 is due for superannuation within a period of one year and three months.

¶34

We have considered the submission made on both sides and have perused the records.

¶35

The qualification for recruitment to the post of Stenographers and Typists has been prescribed in the Karnataka Civil Services (Recruitment to the Posts of Stenographers and Typists) Rules, 1983. The qualification is reproduced below for the facility of reference.

¶36

“Typists:-

¶37

if he has passed –

¶38

[(a) The Pre University Course examination or three years Diploma in Commercial Practice or equivalent qualification; and]

¶39

(b) Senior typewriting Examination in Kannada conducted by the Department of Public Instructions or possesses an equivalent qualification.

¶40

[Note] Omitted.”

¶41

¶42

However, no material has been placed before us to demonstrate that the aforesaid requirement prescribed in the Rules framed by the State Government in exercise of the powers under Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India applies to the post of Typists in the Office of the Zilla Panchayats. Be that as it may, the respondent No.1 did not have the aforesaid qualification at the time of entry into her service, but she acquired the same subsequently on 27-01-1996.

¶43

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation

¶44

reported in AIR 1990 SUPREME COURT 371 , has held that, once the appointments of persons were made on daily wage basis and if they were allowed to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny them the benefit of confirmation in their respective posts on the ground that they lack the prescribed educational qualifications. It has further been held that the practical experience would always aid a person to effectively discharge the duties and is a sure guide to assist the

¶45

¶46

suitability. In view of the aforesaid renunciation of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka and others Vs. M.L. Kesari and others reported in AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 2587, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with cases of regularization of services of employees in Zilla Panchayat, had issued a direction to consider the cases of the employees for regularization in the light of paragraph 53 of the judgment rendered in Umadevi’s case (supra) , we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, specially taking into account the fact that the respondent No.1 is due for superannuation within a period of one year and three months. It is also pertinent to note that during the pendency of the proceedings for contempt initiated by respondent No.1, her services have already been regularized by the appellant by an order dated 23-07-2021. We are conscious of the fact that the aforesaid order of regularization has been made subject to the result of this appeal. However, in the peculiar facts of the case, we do

¶47

¶48

not find any ground to differ with the view taken by the

¶49

learned Single Judge.

¶50

In the result, the appeal is and is hereby dismissed .

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53