Dismissed¶44

Sri.M. Fayaz Ahmed v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Mar 2025WP/11251/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contract Counsellor; Karnataka State AIDS Prevention Society (KSAPS); District Hospital Ramanagara; non-renewal representation dated 27.03.2023; Official Memoranda dated 31.03.2023 ending contract and relieving employee; plea of involuntary resignation due to harassment rejected; representations considered and rejected by endorsement dated 07.06.2023; mandamus for contract renewal 01.04.2023-31.03.2024 refused; writ petition dismissed; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; liberty to re-apply with credit for previous experience; NACO guidelines referenced by respondent No.2.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; petitioner is at liberty to re-apply for the post of Counsellor if respondent Nos.2 and 3 invite applications, and his candidature is to be considered in light of his previous experience. ¶44

Sri.M. Fayaz Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the Official Memorandums dated 31.03.2023 issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3, discontinuing the petitioner's contractual service pursuant to his own representation dated 27.03.2023, can be challenged on the ground that the representation was not voluntary but was made due to harassment by the authorities. +1 more

¶43

Court's answer

The plea that the petitioner's representation to discontinue services was not voluntary but was occasioned by harassment meted out by the authorities cannot be a ground to challenge the impugned Official Memorandums issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner's representations (dated 27.03.2023 and 05.04.2023) were already considered and rejected, no indulgence can be shown to him in this writ petition; accordingly the writ petition has no merit.

¶43

Key takeaways

While dismissing the petition, the Court left it open to the petitioner to re-apply for the post of Counsellor in the event respondent Nos.2 and 3 invite applications, and directed that if he reapplies, they shall consider his case in light of his previous experience.obiter¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (R. Nataraj, J.), W.P. No. 11251 of 2023 (S-RES), decided 27-03-2025 — A contract Counsellor under respondent No.2 (Karnataka State AIDS Prevention Society), whose contract running from 02.04.2022 to 31.03.2023 was ended by Official Memoranda dated 31.03.2023 issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3 following his own representation dated 27.03.2023 seeking non-renewal, sought quashing of the memoranda and a mandamus for renewal of the contract from 01.04.2023 to 31.03.2024, contending that the representation was not voluntary but was the result of harassment by officers of respondent No.2. Held: (i) the plea that the representation was involuntary due to harassment is not a ground to challenge the impugned Official Memorandums; (ii) since the petitioner's representations dated 27.03.2023 and 05.04.2023 were already considered and rejected (endorsement dated 07.06.2023), no indulgence could be shown to him. Writ petition (filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to re-apply for the post of Counsellor when applications are invited, his case then to be considered in light of his previous experience.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13176 WP No. 11251 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 11251 OF 2023 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. M. FAYAZ AHMED AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O S. MOHD. BASHEER R/AT NO.21/185, TIPPU MOHALLA MUSLIM BLOCK K.R. NAGAR TOWN MYSORE DISTRICT-571602.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. G.S.NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR

¶10

SRI. S.B.MUKKANNAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001.

¶14

THE PROJECT MANAGER KARNATAKA STATE AIDS PREVENTION SOCIETY, NO.4/13/1, CRESCENT ROAD, HIGH GROUNDS BANGALORE-560001.

¶15

THE DISTRICT SURGEON GENERAL HOSPITAL RAMANAGARA-562159.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. H.K.KENCHE GOWDA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 3;

¶18

SRI. S.V. GIRI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:13176 WP No. 11251 of 2023

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM BEARING NO.KSAPS/ADMN/23/2022-23 DATED 31.03.2023 PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-E UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has challenged an Official memorandum bearing No.PÀgÁK¦æ¸ÉÆ/DqÀ½vÀ/23/2022-23 dated 31.03.2023 passed by respondent No.2 as well as the Official Memorandum bearing No. fDgÁ/J.Dgï.n./¹§âA¢/01/2022-23 dated 31.03.2023 passed by respondent No.3, by which his resignation was accepted. The petitioner has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to renew his contract for a further period from 01.04.2023 to 31.03.2024 by considering his representation on par with other contract employees.

¶25

(i) The petitioner contends that he was selected as a Counsellor on contract basis by respondent No.2 on 22.03.2007 for a period of one year or until further orders,

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13176 WP No. 11251 of 2023

¶27

whichever was earlier. He contends that though the contract was for a period of one year, it was renewed from time to time and was in force from 02.04.2022 to 31.03.2023. He contends

¶28

that the renewal of the contract is based on performance appraisal by the Nodal Officer and the District Programme Officer of the District Hospital, Ramanagara. The petitioner claimed that his performance was assessed for the year 202223 and the officers mentioned above had appraised his performance and awarded Grade - A and recommended for continuation of his contract. The Nodal Officer after verification of the performance of the petitioner had awarded 98 marks and recommended for renewal of the contract period. It is contended that some officers of respondent No.2 had forced the Nodal Officer and the Programme Officer of the District Hospital, Ramanagara, to award lesser marks to the petitioner. The petitioner brought this to the notice of the respondent No.1 about not following the order passed by the National AIDS Control Organization (NACO) regarding transfer of the contract employees. The petitioner alleged that officers of respondent No.2 had allegedly made false allegations against the petitioner and thereby humiliated him.

¶29

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13176 WP No. 11251 of 2023

¶30

(ii) The petitioner contends that out of frustration, he submitted a representation dated 27.03.2023 to the respondent No.2 not to renew his contract for the term 2023-24. He however, contends that he did not submit the representation voluntarily but it was due to the harassment meted out to him by the officers of respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 vide an Official Memorandum dated 31.03.2023 put an end to the contract of the petitioner with effect from 31.03.2023. Based on the above, respondent No.3 issued an Official Memorandum dated 31.03.2023 relieving the petitioner from service. The petitioner made another request on 05.04.2023 to respondent No.2 to renew the contract and to continue his service. The petitioner contends that despite his representation, the respondent No.2 did not take any steps to continue the contractual period. The respondent No.3 thereafter forwarded the representation of the petitioner to the respondent No.2 for consideration and also recommended to renew contract of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that instances of employees who were absent and who had submitted resignation, yet were continued are galore in respondent No.2. The petitioner therefore, prays that the impugned Official Memorandums

¶31

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13176 WP No. 11251 of 2023

¶32

issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3 be quashed and a direction be issued to the respondent No.2 to consider his representation for renewal of the contract for the period 01.04.2023 to 31.03.2024.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was out of frustration that the petitioner had submitted a representation to discontinue his services. He submits that on realization of the mistake, he had submitted a representation to renew the contract. He therefore, prays that an opportunity be granted to the petitioner by continuing his services at the District Hospital, Ramanagar.

¶34

The petition is opposed by the respondent No.2 who

¶35

has contended inter alia that the petitioner had submitted representation on his own and requested the respondent No.2 not to continue contract for the period beyond 31.03.2023. Therefore, the respondent No.2 had discontinued the services of the petitioner by passing the impugned Official Memorandum following which, respondent No.3 had also passed an order relieving the services of the petitioner. It is also contended that reconsideration of the case of the petitioner does not arise as

¶36

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13176 WP No. 11251 of 2023

¶37

the respondent No.2 is governed by the NACO guidelines and since it is a project driven by the Central and State Government, the respondent No.2 cannot allow persons to leave abruptly and then again rejoin. Along with the statement of objections, an endorsement dated 07.06.2023 is filed which discloses that the representation of the petitioner dated 27.03.2023 and 05.04.2023 were considered and rejected. It is therefore, contended that no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

¶38

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 reiterated the above contentions and prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶39

The learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 submitted that the dispute is between petitioner and respondent No.2 and no steps is sought against respondent No.1.

¶40

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and the learned Additional Government Advocate.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:13176 WP No. 11251 of 2023

¶43

The averments of the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner had submitted a representation before respondent No.2 to discontinue his services from 31.03.2023. Following this, respondent No.2 had issued the impugned Official Memorandum discontinuing the petitioner from service. The respondent No.3 followed it up by issuing Official Memorandum and communicated the same to the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged these Official Memorandums on the ground that the representation given by him to discontinue services was not done voluntarily but was done due to the harassment meted out to him by the authorities. This cannot be a ground for the petitioner to challenge the impugned Official Memorandums issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3. Since the representation of the petitioner is already considered and rejected, no indulgence can be shown to the petitioner in this writ petition.

¶44

Hence, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed .

¶45

It is however, open for the petitioner to re-apply for the post, in the event, respondent Nos.2 and 3 invite

¶46

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:13176 WP No. 11251 of 2023

¶48

applications for the post of Counsellor. If the petitioner reapplies, respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall consider the case of the petitioner in light of his previous experience.

¶49

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶50

PMR

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Sri.M. Fayaz Ahmed v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.M. Fayaz Ahmed v. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sathisha Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Bhagya N Vs District Commissioner

Shri. Mahadeva Vs the Managing Director

Ullas H Vs the Under Secretary

Sri. Kiran Kumar M P Vs the Director General Asi

Ravi M Vs Bank of Baroda