Sri. Girish @ Girimallappa S. Tonashyal Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12402 WP No. 835 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 835 OF 2025 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. GIRISH @ GIRIMALLAPPA S. TONASHYAL, S/O SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, WORKING AS JR. ENGINEER (CIVIL), KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY, KARNATAKA SAHAKARA MAHAMANDALI BUILDING, 6/7^TH FLOORS, NO.2, MSB-I, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052.

¶8

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

SRI. DATTU, S/O LATE VITHAL NAIK, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, WORKING AS JR. ENGINEER (CIVIL), KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY, KARNATAKA SAHAKARA MAHAMANDALI BUILDING, 6/7^TH FLOORS, NO.2, MSB-I, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052. 3. SRI. KIRAN KUMAR R.P., S/O PUTTAIAH, AGED MAJOR, WORKING AS JR. ENGINEER (CIVIL), KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY, KARNATAKA SAHAKARA MAHAMANDALI BUILDING, 6/7^TH FLOORS, NO.2, MSB-I, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. SHILPA RANI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12402 WP No. 835 of 2025

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶13

KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATION INSTITUTION SOCIETY REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NO.8, MSB-1, 6^TH FLOOR, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560052.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶16

SRI. SRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. KRIES/OS/EMRL/1/2023-ADMNE:49934 DATED 09.01.2025 ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-V AND ETC.

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The petitioners have challenged an order bearing No. KRIES/ OS/ EMRL/ 1/ 2023-ADMNE:49934, dated 09.01.2025

¶22

by which, they were relieved from service on the basis of some complaint lodged. They also sought for a writ in the nature of

¶23

3 -

¶24

NC: 2025:KHC:12402 WP No. 835 of 2025

¶25

mandamus to continue their services as Junior/Assistant Engineers and to absorb/regularize their service from the date they completed 10 years.

¶26

The petitioners contend that the petitioner No.1 was appointed temporarily on 05.02.2007 as Junior Engineer (Civil), petitioner No.2 was appointed temporarily as an Assistant Engineer (Civil) and petitioner No.3, was appointed temporarily as an Assistant Engineer. They contend that they were appointed after they were interviewed by the respondent No.2 and that they were trained before induction into service. They all contend that the Governing Council of the respondent No.2 forwarded a proposal to regularize the services of the petitioners and similarly placed employees. However, the same was returned back to the Principal Secretary of Social Welfare Department with instructions to take a decision as the employees were working at respondent No.2 which was under the administrative control of the Social Welfare Department. At a meeting of the governing council of respondent No.2 held in December 2022, on the directions of the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, the case of the petitioners was again placed. The Governing Council of the respondent No.2

¶27

4 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:12402 WP No. 835 of 2025

¶29

resolved to formulate special rules for regularization of the petitioners and similarly placed employees and to obtain concurrence of the Finance Department.

¶30

The petitioners contend that they were given to believe that their services would be regularized by amending the C and R Regulations of the respondent No.2 and that special rules would be framed after obtaining the concurrence of the Finance Department. It is contended that the file was placed before the Finance Department for its concurrence and that the Finance Department, vide its order dated 31.03.2023, had consented for regularization of the employees of respondent No.2 appointed through outsource agencies before the year 2011. The petitioners contend that despite the consent and concurrence given by the Finance Department, the State Government has not taken any decision to regularize the services of the petitioners. This was followed by a letter dated 16.06.2023, addressed by the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department to the respondent No.2 to submit recommendations for regularization of 10 employees including the petitioners. The respondent No.2 in response to the said

¶31

5 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:12402 WP No. 835 of 2025

¶33

letter, submitted a report with a recommendation to regularize the services of the petitioners and others.

¶34

The petitioners contend that the Governing Council of the respondent No.2 at a meeting held on 04.08.2015, resolved to regularize the services of the employees working in the head office by amending the regulations. The petitioners contend that they were entitled to be considered on par with the other employees who were recommended to be regularized by the respondent No.2. However, they contend that the absorption of the petitioners is not finalized due to various reasons and they continue as temporary employees. They contend that the respondent No.1 by an order dated 27.11.2017 had authorized the respondent No.2 to frame necessary regulations for the purpose of regularization of the services of the employees working on temporary basis. Thereafter, a reminder was also issued by the respondent No.1 on 10.01.2018 directing the respondent No.2 to send the proposals. The respondent No.2 at its meeting held on 20.11.2023 had resolved to consider the case of the employees working at head office for absorption.

¶35

6 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:12402 WP No. 835 of 2025

¶37

The petitioners contend that they were also working at the head office and that their names were also considered at the meeting of the Board of Directors from time to time for absorption but their requests have remained outstanding. The petitioners were therefore perforce to submit representations requesting the respondents to finalize the issue of their absorption into service. The petitioners contend that as things stood thus, some contractors who were inimically ill-disposed towards them had lodged a complaint making false and frivolous allegations. On receipt of the complaint, the respondent No.1 sought a report from the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 without conducting any enquiry, addressed a letter dated 09.01.2025 to the outsourcing agency and discontinued the services of the petitioners and handed over them back to the agency.

¶38

The petitioners thereafter made representations before the respondent No.2 denying the allegations made. In the meanwhile, they approached this Court in W.P.No.9131/2024, seeking regularization of their service and this Court in terms of an order dated 28.03.2024, had directed the respondent No.2 not to relieve the petitioners until a

¶39

7 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:12402 WP No. 835 of 2025

¶41

regular recruitment process is undertaken. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 09.01.2025 relieving their services on the ground that the respondent No.2 without conducting a semblance of an enquiry had condemned them unheard. It is also contended that the order of relieving is stigmatic and therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondent No.2 to conduct an enquiry.

¶42

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order of relieving is itself in the nature of a punishment and the same being stigmatic, respondent No.2 was bound to conduct an enquiry before removing the services of the petitioners. She also has placed on record the proceedings of the meeting of respondent No.2 held on 16.12.2024, where it was found that the allegations made against the petitioners were not true. She therefore contends that the basis for relieving the petitioners itself does not survive and therefore, the order relieving the petitioners has to be set at naught.

¶43

The petition is opposed by the respondent No.2 who contends that the petitioners had approached this Court in W.P.No.9131/2024 and W.P.No.8752/2024 for a direction to

¶44

8 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:12402 WP No. 835 of 2025

¶46

the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to regularize their services. He contends that this Court had rejected the claim for regularization, but directed that the respondent No.2 shall not relieve the petitioners till the posts were filled up through regular recruitment. He contends that the petitioners were therefore continued in service in compliance of the orders referred above. In the meanwhile, since certain complaints were received against the petitioners, the respondent No.2 felt it appropriate to discontinue the service of the petitioners as it was agreed at the time of their appointment, that their services can be discontinued whenever felt appropriate by the respondent No.2. He therefore contends that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference.

¶47

The learned Additional Government Advocate also reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the petitioners have no right to continue and that their request for regularization was considered by this Court in an earlier petition referred supra and turned down. Nonetheless, the petitioners again sought for regularization of their services in this writ petition. Hence, he submits that the attempt of the petitioners

¶48

9 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:12402 WP No. 835 of 2025

¶50

is to keep the litigation alive so that they can continue endlessly in the respondent No.2.

¶51

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and the learned Additional Government Advocate.

¶52

It is not in dispute that the petitioners were all employed in various positions in the respondent No.2, through an outsourced agency. It is also not in dispute that the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their service was turned down by this Court in the writ petition referred supra . However, this Court directed the respondent No.2 to continue the services of the petitioners until a regular recruitment process is undertaken. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners were continued in service of the respondent No.2, based on the directions issued by this Court in the writ petition referred supra . The impugned order shows that the respondent No.2 had relieved the services of the petitioners based on certain complaints lodged by the contractors. The respondent No.2 must have been mindful of the fact that relieving the services of the petitioners on the ground of misconduct would

¶53

10 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:12402 WP No. 835 of 2025

¶55

result in affecting the rights of the petitioners for future employment. Since the impugned order relieving the petitioners was stigmatic, it was incumbent upon the respondent No.2, to conduct a semblance of an enquiry before discontinuing the services of the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned order relieving the services of the petitioners on the alleged ground of complaints lodged against the petitioners without complying the principles of law, warrants interference. However, the petitioners cannot continue as directed by this Court in the writ petition referred supra endlessly. Their term should come to an end soon after the respondent No.2 takes suitable steps for regular recruitment to the posts occupied by the petitioners.

¶56

In that view of the matter, this writ petition deserves to be disposed of on the following terms:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

i. The writ petition is allowed .

¶59

ii. The impugned order relieving the services of the petitioners is set aside. Consequently, they shall be taken back into service.

¶60

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:12402 WP No. 835 of 2025

¶61

iii. Liberty is reserved to the respondent No.2 to take appropriate steps to conduct an enquiry and if the allegations made in the complaints are probable, then the respondent No.2 may pass appropriate orders.

¶62

iv. Until the respondent No.2 undertakes a regular recruitment process to fill up the posts occupied by the petitioners, their services shall be continued.

¶63

v. The enquiry shall be commenced and concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The respondent No.2 shall also simultaneously undertake the process of recruitment to the posts occupied by the petitioners.

¶64

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶65

BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Sri. Girish @ Girimallappa S. Tonashyal v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Girish @ Girimallappa S. Tonashyal 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagadeesh R Vs the Managing Director

Sri S R Thulasiram Vs the Registrar General

Smt Nandini N Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri T Ramachandran Vs the Union of India

Sri R Nagaraj Vs the Director

Sri Ramesh Vs the Chief Commissioner