Allowed

Sri Narayanaswamy v. the Kuvempu University

Karnataka HC9 Sept 2024WP/46546/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two writ petitions filed by Group-D employees of Kuvempu University challenging the rejection of their regularization claim. The Court quashed the State's endorsement relying blindly on the Umadevi judgment and directed the State to verify records and consider fresh representations for regularization.

What did the court decide?

The impugned endorsement was quashed. Petitioners were directed to file fresh representations specifying appointment dates and details of similarly situated regularized employees within two weeks for

Sri Narayanaswamy Vs the Kuvempu University — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:36763 WP No. 46546 of 2012 C/W WP No. 48245 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 46546 OF 2012 (S-REG) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 48245 OF 2013 (S-REG)

¶6

IN W.P. NO.46546/2012:

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE VELLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, GROUP-D EMPLOYEE, P.G. BOYS HOSTEL (OLD BLOCK), KUVEMPU UNIVERSITY, SHANKARAGHATTA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT.

¶9

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SRI. KANNAN S/O LATE MUTTU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, GROUP-D EMPLOYEE, P.G. LADIES HOSTEL (OLD BLOCK) KUVEMPU UNIVERSITY, SHANKARAGHATTA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT

¶11

SMT. VIMALAMMA D/O HALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, GROUP-D EMPLOYEE, P.G. LADIES HOSTEL (OLD BLOCK) KUVEMPU UNIVERSITY, SHANKARAGHATTA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. K. HIRIYANNA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:36763 WP No. 46546 of 2012 C/W WP No. 48245 of 2013

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE KUVEMPU UNIVERSITY JNANASAHADRI, SHANKARAGHATTA-577451, SHIMOGA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (HIGHER EDUCATION), M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. T.P RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. GOPALA KRISHNA SOODI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE NOTE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BEARING NO.SIAASYE 273 SENISI 2011/ED 36 USV DATED 09.02.2012 (ANNEXURE-E), LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BEARING NO. ED 36 USV 2011 DATED 27/28.03.2012 (ANNEXURE-F) AND LETTER ISSUSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BEARING NO.94 USV 2015 DATED 23.09.2015 (ANNEXURE-G) IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO REGULARIZE THE SERVICES OF THE PETITIONERS WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATE THEY COMPLETED 10 YEARS OF SERVICE AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL SERVICE AND MONETARY BENEFITS.

¶21

IN W.P. NO.48245/2013:

¶22

BETWEEN:

¶23

SRI. RUDRAPPA M., S/O LATE MADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, JUNIOR ASSISTANT, P.G. BOYS HOSTEL (OLD BLOCK)

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36763 WP No. 46546 of 2012 C/W WP No. 48245 of 2013

¶25

KUVEMPU UNIVERSITY, SHANKARAGHATTA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT

¶26

…PETITIONER

¶27

(BY SRI. K. HIRIYANNA, ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND:

¶29

THE KUVEMPU UNIVERSITY JNANASAHADRI, SHANKARAGHATTA-577451, SHIMOGA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR

¶30

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (HIGHER EDUCATION), M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI. C. SHASHIKANTHA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. GOPALA KRISHNA SOODI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BEARING NO.KUVI:MASANI-2/ /2012-13/5699 DATED 31.01.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND NOTE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BEARING NO.SIAASUE 273 SENISI 2011/ED 36 USV 2011 DATED 09.02.2012 (ANNEXURE-G), LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BEARING NO. ED 36 USV 2011 DATED 27/28.03.2012 (ANNEXURE-H) AND LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BEARING NO.94 USV 2015 DATED 23.09.2015 (ANNEXURE-J) IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:36763 WP No. 46546 of 2012 C/W WP No. 48245 of 2013

¶35

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶36

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

The petitioners in these two writ petitions have challenged an endorsement bearing No.¹D¸ÀÄE 273 ¸ÉÃ¤¹ 2011/

¶39

Er 36 AiÀÄÄJ¸ï« 2011, dated 09.02.2012 issued by the respondent No.2 by which, their request for regularization of their services, was rejected.

¶40

All the petitioners contend that they were appointed as Group-D employees/Junior Assistant on daily wages in the respondent No.1 - University vide orders dated 01.12.1994, 01.08.1994, 15.09.1994, 01.12.1995. They contend that some employees who were similarly placed as petitioners were regularized/absorbed vide order dated 19.01.2006. However, the request of petitioners for regularization was not considered for reasons best known to the respondent No.1. They further contend that those who were regularized were juniors than them and were appointed much later than them and therefore, there was no reason why the services of the petitioners were not regularized. The petitioners contend that they were all

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:36763 WP No. 46546 of 2012 C/W WP No. 48245 of 2013

¶42

appointed against sanctioned posts in compliance with the rules of recruitment. They also claimed that they have completed ten years of continuous service, which indicated that there was sufficient workload in the respondent No.1. They also contended that their services were extended by the respondent No.1 from time to time without intervention of the Court and therefore, they were entitled to be regularized. Besides this, they contend that they have put in number of years of service as Group - D employees/Junior Assistant on daily wages and therefore, they are over-aged to apply for any other employment. The petitioners contend that respondent No.2 while considering the report of the respondent No.1 for regularization has issued the impugned endorsement, rejecting the request of the petitioners for regularization on the ground that there was an embargo by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others [AIR 2006 SC 1806].

¶43

The petitioners being aggrieved by the said endorsement have filed this writ petition.

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:36763 WP No. 46546 of 2012 C/W WP No. 48245 of 2013

¶45

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were appointed in due course through regular process against sanctioned post and since they had completed more than ten years of service in the said posts, they are entitled to be regularized. He contends that though the petitioners do not have an indefeasible right to seek regularization however, many persons similarly situate as the petitioners were regularized though they were much juniors than the petitioners. He therefore, contends that the petitioners are entitled to similar treatment.

¶46

The learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.2 - State on the other hand submitted that the petitioners are trying to enter the services of the respondent No.1 through back door and he contends that none of the petitioners were appointed following the due process of law and the posts were not sanctioned by the respondent No.2. He therefore, contends that the petitioners cannot claim that they are entitled for regularization of their services. He submits that Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi and others, referred supra, proscribed regularization of employees who had entered service through

¶47

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:36763 WP No. 46546 of 2012 C/W WP No. 48245 of 2013

¶48

illegal process. He therefore, contends that the impugned endorsement is just and proper and does not call for interference.

¶49

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the case of the petitioners were examined by the respondent No.2 and it had rejected the request of the petitioners and therefore, the respondent No.1 is in no position to independently consider the request of the petitioners for regularization.

¶50

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶51

The petitioners contend that they were appointed against sanctioned posts by following due process of law and that they have worked continuously for more than 10 years. The learned Additional Government Advocate contends to the contrary and claims that none of these posts were sanctioned. However, the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.2 does not bear any reference to the aforesaid contentions

¶52

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:36763 WP No. 46546 of 2012 C/W WP No. 48245 of 2013

¶53

urged before this Court. All that the impugned endorsement says is that request of the petitioners cannot be considered in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

¶54

of Umadevi and others, referred supra. The respondent No.2 was bound to disclose the staffing pattern in the respondent No.1, more particularly, in so far as it related to the Boys' hostel at the respondent No.1. It is quiet difficult to accept the contention of the respondent No.2 that Group - D posts are not sanctioned in a Boys' hostel as without these men, it would be impossible for the Boys' hostel to be functional. The respondent No.2 was also bound to verify whether there was any process of recruitment to these posts and whether such process was followed. If no process was prescribed then the mere appointment of the petitioners as Group - D employees would suffice and they too could claim that they were regularly employed by the respondent No.1 for the purpose of Boys' hostel. Since the petitioners have been working continuously for well over ten days without intervention of the Court, it only establishes that there is sufficient work in the hostel. Therefore, this must have been taken into consideration by the respondent No.2 before rejecting the representation of the

¶55

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:36763 WP No. 46546 of 2012 C/W WP No. 48245 of 2013

¶56

petitioners. Besides this, the respondents have not denied the fact that persons similarly placed were regularized in service. Since that is not done, the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.2 being bereft of any reasoning, warrants interference. Hence, the following

¶57

ORDER

¶58

i) These writ petitions are allowed .

¶59

ii) The impugned endorsement bearing No.¹D¸ÀÄE

¶60

273 ¸ÉÃ¤¹ 2011/ Er 36 AiÀÄÄJ¸ï« 2011, dated

¶61

09.02.2012 issued by the respondent No.2 is quashed.

¶62

iii) The petitioners are directed to file fresh representations furnishing details of their employment, dates of their appointments, particulars of the similarly situated persons who were regularized by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 etc., This shall be done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.

¶63

10 -

¶64

NC: 2024:KHC:36763 WP No. 46546 of 2012 C/W WP No. 48245 of 2013

¶65

iv) If the representations along with copy of this Order are furnished before the respondent No.2, it shall consider the same in accordance with law, more particularly, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka and others vs M.L.Kesari [(2010) 9 SCC 247], Narendra Kumar Tiwari vs State of Jharkhand [(2018) 8 SCC 238] and take appropriate decision to regularize the services of the petitioners within three months thereafter, in accordance with law.

¶66

In view of disposal of the writ petitions, pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed off.

¶67

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶68

PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Sri Narayanaswamy v. the Kuvempu University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Narayanaswamy v. the Kuvempu University

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

Sri Anjaneya. C Vs the Honble Home Secretary

Shivananda B Hunasyal Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Kruthika M v Vs the Commissioner

K Jayavantha Pai Vs Karnataka Gramin Bank

Sri Chethan S Vs the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

K Geetha Vs State of Karnataka