Hajiali Harunjafar Koppal Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATION FOR RECRUITMENT FOR THE POST OF DRIVER BEARING NOTIFICATION NO.4/2019 DATED 30.01.2019 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP , THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the recruitment notification for the post of driver dated 30.01.2019 issued by the respondent No.4. He has also challenged an order dated 30.07.2019 passed by the

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4802 WP No. 108506 of 2019

¶31

respondent No.4 by which, the respondent No.5 was appointed as a driver.

¶32

(i) The petitioner contends that he was appointed on 06.04.2010 as a driver on temporary basis in the Fast Track Court, Gadag by the respondent No.4 against a clear vacancy. He contends that before he was appointed, the respondent No.4 had invited applications from eligible candidates, checked their qualification and assessed their driving skills etc. He thus contends that all formalities prescribed for a regular recruitment was followed. The petitioner contends that based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brij Mohan Lal Vs. Union of India - (2012) 6 SCC 502, the Government of Karnataka issued a notification dated 28.12.2012 sanctioning continuation of 39 Fast Track Courts and abolition of 54 Fast track Courts and establishment of 127 Civil and Criminal Courts in the State. Accordingly, various staffs were proposed to be appointed for the office of the said Courts. He contends that the Fast Track Court in Gadag was also abolished and as such the petitioner was relieved from duties on 31.03.2013. He contends that he and similarly placed persons filed W.P.No.8627-8704/2012 c/w W.P.No.40504-

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4802 WP No. 108506 of 2019

¶34

40535/2012 to quash the communication issued by the State against rejecting their representations for regularisation of their services and sought a direction to the State Government to consider their representations. The writ petitions were disposed off by this Court holding that those petitioners who had completed 10 years of service, and who had fulfilled the norms stipulated in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. V. M.L. KESARI & ORS. - [2010] 9 S.C.R. 543 may be considered by the State Government for regularisation. This Court therefore directed the respondents to reconsider their case and pass appropriate orders. Against the said order the petitioners and similarly placed persons filed W.A.No.534/2013 & W.A.Nos.966-1058/2013 where the division bench of this Court directed the State Government to consider the case of the petitioners as a different class and grant relaxation of age for the purpose of recruitment/absorption/re-appointment in same cadre in which they were serving.

¶35

(ii) The petitioner contends that the Family Court in Gadag had sought permission from this Court to appoint the petitioner as a driver and accordingly, the respondent No.3 in terms of a letter dated 26.02.2014 granted permission to

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4802 WP No. 108506 of 2019

¶37

appoint the petitioner on contractual basis on a fixed monthly salary of Rs.11,600/-. He contends that this Court sought information from Principal Judge, Family Court, Gadag whether there were any surplus vehicles available in order to transfer them to the other units in the districts. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Gadag submitted information and stated that a vehicle bearing registration No.KA-42/G-99 which was driven by the petitioner was surplus. Therefore the same was transferred to be used by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere. In view of the above, the petitioner was relieved from duties on 14.07.2015.

¶38

(iii) Thereafter, the respondent No.1 addressed a letter dated 18.05.2018 to the respondent No.3 stating that the Minister for Law, Parliamentary Affairs and Minor Irrigation Department had stated that in view of the closure of many Fast Track Courts, the employees of the said Courts were left destitute and having regard to the fact that they had experience in driving official cars, their candidature may be considered for current vacant posts by relaxing their age and requested the Court to consider such workers working on temporary basis.

¶39

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4802 WP No. 108506 of 2019

¶40

(iv) The petitioner contends that the respondent No.4 disregarding the services rendered by the petitioner issued a recruitment notification dated 30.01.2019 calling eligible candidates to fill up one post of driver in the District and Subordinate Courts at Gadag.

¶41

The petitioner being aggrieved by the said notification and the consequent appointment of respondent No.5 has filed this writ petition.

¶42

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the petitioner was available to be appointed to the post of driver and in view of the judgment of the division bench of this Court in W.A.No.534/2013 & W.A.Nos.966-1058/2013 referred above, the petitioner must have been granted the relaxation of age and must have been considered for appointment to the said post. He also contends that the petitioner has been working on temporary basis from the year 2010 and therefore, he was entitled to be regularised in service.

¶43

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 submits that the petitioner and similarly placed

¶44

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4802 WP No. 108506 of 2019

¶45

persons filed W.P.No.9948/2020 for a direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to frame special rules for absorption of petitioner and others into regular service in the subordinate judiciary of the respective District Courts by reinstating them into service in the respective post held by them prior to being relieved. He contends that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner and others had filed representations seeking to frame special rules for absorption of their services. Consequent thereto, the respondents therein had taken steps to frame the Rules for absorption. Therefore this Court taking into account the fact that the special rules were under the process of being finalised, directed the respondents to finalise the process of framing Rules for absorption and consider the case of the petitioner for absorption. Thereafter the respondent No.1 filed R.P.No.535/2022. This Court after hearing the petitioners and similarly placed persons, disposed off the review petition modifying the order dated 27.01.2022 passed in W.P.No.9948/2020 and deleted the direction as stated above in W.P.No.9948/2020. This Court however, issued a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners therein in accordance with law. Following this, the

¶46

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4802 WP No. 108506 of 2019

¶47

representations of the petitioners were considered by the respondent No.1 and the same were rejected on 05.04.2023. He therefore contends that this writ petition has become infructuous.

¶48

The learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 submitted that the petitioners have no right to compel the respondents to regularise his service as he had not completed ten years of service. He submits that the request of petitioner for regularization/absorption was considered and rejected. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any reliefs.

¶49

The learned counsel for respondent No.5 adopted the arguments of the learned Additional Government Advocate and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4. He contends that respondent No.5 was regularly recruited and therefore petitioner cannot assail the appointment of respondent No.5.

¶50

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1, learned counsel for

¶51

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4802 WP No. 108506 of 2019

¶52

the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and the learned counsel for respondent No.5.

¶53

The petitioner was appointed on temporary basis on 06.04.2010 at the Fast Track Court, Gadag and thereafter was relieved on 31.05.2013. Again the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis on 26.02.2014 and relieved from duties on 14.07.2015. Therefore, the petitioner had not completed 10 years of service. Therefore, he was not entitled to be regularised in service. Even otherwise, the attempt of the petitioner to seek absorption was turned down by the respondent No.1 which is not challenged in this writ petition.

¶54

10. Under the circumstances, this writ petition has

¶55

become purely academic and does not sub-serve any purpose. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶56

Sd/(R.NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶57

HJ

¶58

List No.: 19 Sl No.: 17

Hajiali Harunjafar Koppal v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hajiali Harunjafar Koppal v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.N.B.Marathe, Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Premkumar Vs the Principal District and Session and Anr.

Ramesh Rao Vs the Hon'Ble High Court of Karnataka

Subhas S/O. Gadigeppa Kerur Vs the Registrar General

Smt.Prema Murugesh Patil, Vs the Hon'Ble High Court of Karnataka

Smt. Eramma W/O. Late Ramu Vs the Registrar (Vigilance)