Dismissed

B K Kumar v. the Secretary

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2024WP/4411/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought consideration of his representation for restoration of regularization withdrawn by order dated 29.05.2009, which had been upheld up to writ appeal stage. Holding the petitioner had no subsisting legal right since the withdrawal order attained finality, the High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Tribunal's rejection of his application.

What the court decided

AI extract

B K Kumar Vs the Secretary — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:41716-DB WP No. 4411 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 4411 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

B K KUMAR S/O KALAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS WORKING AS LITERATE ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DRINKING WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE SAKLESHPUR SUB DIVISION SAKLESHPUR-573 134. DISTRICT-HASSAN

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI. SRINIVASA K.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ M.S.BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN -573 201.

¶15

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:41716-DB WP No. 4411 of 2022

¶18

HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573 201.

¶19

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ZILLA PANCHAYATH ENGINEERING SUB DIVISION NO.3, SAKLESHPUR-573 134 HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.V,SHIVAREDDY.,AGA FOR R-1 TO R-2; SRI. M.S.DEVARAJ., ADVOCATE FOR R-3 & R-4)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION No-3332/2017, DATED 18.09.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE WP AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION SO FILED BEFORE KSAT BY GRANTING THE RELIEFS AS PRAYED FOR.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶25

and

¶26

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶29

Though the matter is listed for hearing on

¶30

interlocutory application, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:41716-DB WP No. 4411 of 2022

¶32

Petitioner is before this Court under Article 226

¶33

of the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 18.09.2019 in Application No.3332/2017, passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘Tribunal’), by which, petitioner’s prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus to consider Annexure-A18 dated 10.01.2017 is rejected.

¶34

Heard learned counsel Sri.Srinivasa.K., for petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.Shivareddy for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel Sri.M.S.Devaraj for respondent Nos.3 and 4. Perused the writ petition papers.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner was initially appointed as Literate Assistant on daily wage basis on 01.01.1985. Thereafter, at his request, the petitioner was regularized in the year 1997 with retrospective effect from 01.01.1995. It is the case of the petitioner that the said regularization order was withdrawn vide order dated 29.05.2009. The said order of withdrawal

¶36

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:41716-DB WP No. 4411 of 2022

¶37

was the subject matter of W.P.No.18939/2010 which was dismissed by this Court. The writ appeal filed against that order was also dismissed. Subsequently, petitioner is said to have submitted representation at Annexure-A18 requesting the authorities to re-consider and to withdraw the withdrawal order dated 29.05.2009 on the ground that the order of regularization could not have been withdrawn as there is an observation in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS VS. UMADEVI (3) AND OTHERS¹ , that the order of regularization cannot be re-opened based on the said decision. Further, learned counsel would submit that petitioner has served more than 14 years and he would be entitled for regularization. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition and to direct the respondents to consider his representation as at Annexure-A18.

¶38

Learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.Shivareddy for respondent Nos.1 and 2 justifies the

¶39

1 (2006) 4 SCC 1

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:41716-DB WP No. 4411 of 2022

¶41

order passed by the Tribunal and further submits that when the writ petition challenging the order of withdrawal dated 29.05.2009 has attained finality, there is no scope for considering the representation at Annexure-A18.

¶42

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶43

the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, we are of the view that the petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, for the following reasons:

¶44

It is not in dispute that petitioner was initially appointed as Literate Assistant on daily wage basis on 01.01.1985. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was regularized in the year 1995 with effect from 01.01.1995, but the said regularization order was withdrawn by order dated 29.05.2009 for the reasons stated therein. The said order of withdrawal dated 29.05.2009 admittedly was the subject matter of W.P.No.18939/2010, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court and appeal filed against the said

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:41716-DB WP No. 4411 of 2022

¶46

order was also dismissed. The said order of withdrawal has

¶47

attained finality. When the order of withdrawing the regularization is confirmed by this Court, the authorities re-considering the petitioner’s request to withdraw the said order would not arise. When above is the factual position, the petitioner has no right to seek for consideration of his representation. When the petitioner has no right to seek regularization subsequently and also to seek for withdrawal of Government Order dated 29.05.2009, no mandamus could be issued. Mandamus could be issued only when the petitioner establishes his legal right.

¶48

Thus, we do not find any merit in the writ

¶49

petition. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed.

¶50

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶51

Sd/(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE

¶52

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

B K Kumar v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

B K Kumar v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri a M Shankar Vs the Karnataka Power

A M Fernando Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri G Nagaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.H.S.Ramakrishna Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Rukmini v Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Sudarshan. S Vs the State of Karnataka