Dr. V.P. Sunagar S/O Panchalingappa Vs the State of Karnataka

DR. V.P. SUNAGAR S/O. PANCHALINGAPPA, AGE 43 YEARS, OCC: TEACHING ASSISTANT, DEPT. OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, KARNATAK ARTS COLLEGE, DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD

¶10

… PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR GUNJALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

RAKESH S HARIHAR

¶14

Digitally signed byRAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court ofKarnataka Dharwad BenchDate: 2025.12.12 14:34:13+0530

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRLF. SECRETARY, DEPT. OF EDUCATION (HIGHER), M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU.

¶16

THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY, DHARWAD.

¶17

THE PRINCIPAL, KARNATAK ARTS COLLEGE, DHARWAD.

¶18

… RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP FRO R1; SRI. GIRISH HULAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; RESPONDENT NO.3 - SERVED)

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:18013 WP No. 100080 of 2017

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRYAING TO:

¶24

“WHEREFORE IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND:

¶25

I. ISSUE A WRIT OR DIRECTION IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE 2^ND RESPONDENTS TO ABSORB/REGULARIZE THE PETITIONER (TEACHING ASSISTANT) AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN 3^RD RESPONDENT COLLEGE FROM WHICH DATE SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS WERE ABSORBED I.E., ON 21/5/2011 WITH CONTINUITY OF HIS SERVICE.

¶26

II. ISSUE SUCH OTHER WRIT OR ORDER AND DIRECTIONS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶27

III. QUASHING THE REJECTION OF REPRESENTATIONS DATED 11/3/2012 AND 6/5/2015 BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT IN NO/KU-LC/2011-12/6729 AND NO.KU-LC/2015-16/581 RESPECTIVELY VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND J IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.”

¶28

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRL. HEARING B-GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC-D:18013 WP No. 100080 of 2017

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶34

The petitioner is before this court seeking the

¶35

following prayer:

¶36

“i. Issue a writ or direction in nature of mandamus, directing the 2^nd respondents to absorb/regularize the petitioner (Teaching Assistant) as Assistant Professor in 3^rd respondent college from which date similarly situated persons were absorbed i.e., on 21/5/2011 with continuity of his service.

¶37

ii. Issue such other writ or order and directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case and allow this writ petition in the interest of justice and equity.

¶38

iii. Quashing the rejection of representations dated 11/3/2012 and 6/5/2015 by the 2^nd respondent in No/KU-LC/2011-12/6729 and No.KU-LC/201516/581 RESPECTIVELY VIDE ANNEXURE-H and J in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶39

Heard learned counsel Sri. Rajashekar Gunjalli appearing for the petitioner; learned HCGP Smt. Girija S. Hiremath appearing for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel Sri. Girish Hulmani appearing for respondent No.2.

¶40

The petitioner is appointed as a guest lecturer in the second respondent University to work in the third respondent college in the year 2004. The petitioner along with others approached this Court in Writ Petition No.63264-278 of 2009

¶41

4 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC-D:18013 WP No. 100080 of 2017

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

seeking for regularization of his services. The said petitions come to be disposed on 25.02.2011 directing consideration of the cases of those petitioners for regularisation. It transpires that on 21.05.2011, two of the persons who had been appointed as guest lecturers along with the petitioner were regularised. This becomes the subject matter of another writ petition in Writ Petition No.63939 of 2011 seeking quashment of the communication/order that had been rejected pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.63264-278/2009. Likewise, the case of the petitioner is also turned down and another representation dated 05.01.2015 also comes to be rejected. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition.

¶45

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he is working as a guest lecturer even today. In that light, he is entitled to be considered for regularisation in the least. The endorsement that is issued rejecting the claim of the petitioner, takes the service of the petitioner only upto 2011 and then rejects it. Therefore, there is an error, is his submission.

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18013 WP No. 100080 of 2017

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Learned counsel Shri Girish Hulamani though would defend the order impugned by contending that petitioner is a guest lecturer, which is on an annual basis, it is only with a break and re-appointing him as guest lecturer. Therefore, he cannot claim regularisation as a matter of right.

¶49

Learned HCGP would also toe the lines of the learned counsel Shri Girish Hulamani in the seeking rejection of the petition. Learned HCGP while toeing the lines of the counsel appearing for the third respondent would submit that the petitioner was appointed as a guest lecturer only to teach on hourly basis and has been continued in the same manner till date.

¶50

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the material on record.

¶51

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner joining as guest lecturer in the third respondent – College and working till today as a guest lecturer is an admitted fact. Therefore, the petitioner has as on today rendered 21 years

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC-D:18013 WP No. 100080 of 2017

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

of service. The petitioner was relieved, re-appointed with an artificial break every year as a guest lecturer is also a matter of record. The petitioner along with others had approached this Court in Writ Petition No.63264 of 2009 which comes to be disposed by directing consideration of the cases on 25.02.2011 by the following order:

¶56

“3. There is no reason why the respondentUniversity should not consider the representations in accordance with law. At this stage, learned Counsel for the respondent-University submits that the University will consider the aforesaid representations according to law. Placing the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent-University on record, I direct the respondentUniversity to consider the representations referred to above in accordance with law keeping in mind the decisions of the Apex Court referred to above within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till the disposal of the aforesaid representations, the respondent-University shall not announce the final list as ordered on 18.6.2009 in W.P.Nos.63264 to 63278/2009. It is hereby clarified that this order should not be understood as expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter one way or the other. Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly.

¶57

In view of the disposal of the above writ petitions as above, Misc. W. Nos.61352/209, 62354/09, 61077/09 and 61434/10 do not survive for consideration and they are accordingly dismissed. No costs."

¶58

The case of the petitioner itself fell for consideration before this Court in Writ Petition No.63939 of 2011, wherein

¶59

7 -

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC-D:18013 WP No. 100080 of 2017

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

following the earlier order, the learned Single Judge disposed the

¶63

petition by the following order:

¶64

“Though in W.P.No.63941/2011, respondent No.7 has not been served, on hearing the learned counsel, I am of the opinion that the presence of respondent No.7 is unnecessary considering the nature of disposal and as such, notice to respondent No.7 is dispensed and the petitions are taken up for final disposal.

¶65

Learned counsel for respondent No.6 in all these petitions has filed the objection statement justifying their action in issuing the communication dated 24.05.2011, which is at Annexure-E in all these petitions.

¶66

The case put forth by the petitioners need not be adverted to in detail since the same had arisen before this Court in an earlier batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.63264-278/2009 and connected matters, disposed of on 25.02.2011. In that context, the case of the petitioners seeking regularisation of their services had been ordered to be considered keeping in view the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others -vsUma Devi and others ((2006) 4 SCC 1) and in the case of State of Karnataka and Others -vs- M.L. Kesari und others ((2010) 9 SCC 247) . Pursuant thereto, the sixth respondent has intimated the petitioners that the request of the petitioners is rejected since the petitioners have not completed ten years of continuous service as on 25.02.2011 and therefore, the benefit available in para 53 as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) would not be available to the petitioners.

¶67

The perusal of the communication indicates that the sixth respondent has not adverted to the details with regard to the nature of the employment of the

¶68

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18013 WP No. 100080 of 2017

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

petitioners, the date from which the petitioners had been engaged and in that context, as to whether the claim of the petitioners could be considered, while disposing of the representation. No doubt, the learned counsel for the sixth respondent has attempted to place reliance on the statement of objection to contend that the details have now been indicated in the statement of objections. At the outset, it is to be stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another -vsChief Election Officer, New Delhi and others (AIR SC 851) , held that the of the present 1978 has communication/endorsement/orders nature should speak for itself and the same cannot be substituted by filing affidavits and improving upon the same before the Court, when it is called in question. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the explanation sought to be put be put forth in the statement of objection cannot be accepted at this juncture, since it is for the sixth respondent to apply his mind independently to the details relating to the petitioners and thereafter consider the representations in accordance with law.

¶71

In that view, the communication dated 24.05.2011 (Annexure-E) as it stands cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly quashed. The sixth respondent is granted liberty to reconsider the case of the petitioners keeping in view the directions issued earlier by this Court and thereafter arrive at its conclusion one way or the other in accordance with law. The said exercise shall be completed by the sixth respondent as expeditiously as possible, but not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶72

The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs.”

¶73

The claim of the petitioner comes to be rejected on 06.05.2015 by the following order:

¶74

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:18013 WP No. 100080 of 2017

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

“Your representation is rejected by following the facts and reasons stated in the letter dated 01.03.2012 sent by the University.

¶77

Further, perhaps you are aware of the fact that your colleagues who are similarly taken in service as Guest Faculty/Teaching Assistant members had/have filed several W.P.s on the almost similar grounds stated by you. It is brought to your notice that Dr.Prakash Hegde who had filed a W.P. No. 63943/2011 before the Hon'ble High of Karnataka for his regularization in service on the ground that he has been working as Guest Faculty in the Karnatak Arts College. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by the judgment dated 08.08.2012 has held that as he was worked for 5 years only as on 10.04.2006 on the day when Apex Court rendered its decision in Umadevi's Case he is not entitled for regularization of service and hence dismissed the W.P. Dr.Prakash Hegde had preferred a W.A. No. 30176/2013 along with Smt. Shakeela Gouri Khan in W.A. 30177/2013. These Appeals came to be dismissed as not pressed. However, with observation made in the judgment.

¶78

Likewise on a similar set of facts Dr.(Smt) Chaya Phadke who was also a Guest Lecturer had filed a W.P. No. 63610/2009 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka for her regularization which was allowed. The University preferred a W.A 31098/2012 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The Hon'ble Division Bench has allowed the W.A. and dismissed the W.P. that was filed by Dr. (Smt) Chaya Phadke interalia observing as under;

¶79

“---- Therefore, in the instant case when the petitioner is not appointed in accordance with law as she is only a Guest Lecturer and has not completed the required number of years in service her case do not fall under para 53 of the Apex Court Judgment. Therefore, she has no right to seek a direction"

¶80

10 -

¶81

NC: 2025:KHC-D:18013 WP No. 100080 of 2017

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

Accordingly the W.P. came to be dismissed by allowing the Appeal filed by the University.

¶84

It appears you are submitting the representations one after another only to see that the lis will be kept alive and you will get fresh imaginary cause of action to pursue your untenable claim and compel the University to continue you as a Guest Lecturer/Teaching Assistant at your will.

¶85

Therefore, your prayer, viewed from any angle is unacceptable and unreasonable on facts and law. Accordingly, your request for regularization of service is rejected as is done earlier on almost the similar reasons stated above.

¶86

It is further requested you to not to submit any such representations henceforth in this regard.”

¶87

The reason rendered on the perusal of the impugned

¶88

order is that taking the service of the petitioner only up to 08.08.2012 not beyond that. The petitioner today has continued as a guest lecturer and as observed herein above has completed 21 years of service. In the light of the petitioner completing 21 years of service with uncertain artificial breaks, the respondent now will have to consider the entire service in the teeth of the law declared by the Apex Court in the aftermath of SECRETARY,

¶89

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS VS. UMA DEVI AND

¶90

11 -

¶91

NC: 2025:KHC-D:18013 WP No. 100080 of 2017

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

OTHERS¹ and pass necessary orders thereon in accordance with law.

¶94

In that light, the impugned endorsement or

¶95

impugned communication dated 06.05.2015 must necessarily be obliterated.

¶96

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶97

ORDER

¶98

(i) The petition is allowed in part. (ii) The rejection of representations dated 11.03.2012 and 06.05.2015 by the second respondent in Nos.KU-LC/ 2011-12/ 6729 and KU-LC/ 2015-16/ 581 respectively vide Annexures-H and J stand quashed.

¶99

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the hands of the University to pass necessary orders in accordance with law, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order at

¶100

1 (2004) 4 SCC 1

¶101

12 -

¶102

NC: 2025:KHC-D:18013 WP No. 100080 of 2017

¶103

HC-KAR

¶104

any rate within four months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶105

(iv) It is made clear that except narrating the facts link in the chain of events and dates, this Court has not assessed the merit of the claim of the

¶106

petition.

¶107

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶108

KMV & VNP / CT: ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Dr. V.P. Sunagar S/O Panchalingappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. V.P. Sunagar S/O Panchalingappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri D B Lakshmanagowda Vs State of Karnataka

Sri S P Suresh Vs Late Smt Vinoda Satish

Sri. Siddappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Arun S/O. Bhagavan Patil Vs He Government of Karnataka

Shivanand S/O Mahadevappa Waddatti Vs the Social Club Hubballi

Vasant S/O. Shamrao Jainapur Vs the Administrative Officer