The Registrar Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 28.04.2025 PASSED IN WP No. 11057/2024, ETC.

¶69

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶70

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶71

6 -

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

NC: 2026:KHC:36789-DB WA No. 1100 of 2025

¶74

CNR: KAHC010453082025

¶75

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶76

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶77

The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the Mandya University impugning the judgment and order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the writ Court in W.P.No.11057/2024 (S-RES) instituted by the private respondent Nos.3 to 29 herein.

¶78

The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court for the sake of convenience.

¶79

The respondents 3 to 29 were appointed on contractual

¶80

basis to the various posts in the University of Mysore at Sir M. Visveshwaraiah Post Graduate Centre, Tubinakere, Mandya. Even though their appointment was on contractual basis, but they had continued in the University since their appointment in 2007 and thereafter. Their appointment used to be renewed on year to year basis by giving an artificial break. They were paid the consolidated salary. The Mysore University was bifurcated in terms of the Karnataka State Universities (Amendment) Act, 2019, and the Mandya University which was until then unitary in nature with its Headquarters at Mandya and territorial

¶81

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:36789-DB WA No. 1100 of 2025

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

CNR: KAHC010453082025

¶84

jurisdiction over the Government College (Autonomous), Mandya, came into existence vide order dated 05.11.2022.

¶85

Under the bifurcation order all employees including the contractual employees working in Sir M. Vishweshwarayya Post Graduate Centre at Thubinakere stood transferred to the Mandya University.

¶86

The alienation of the private respondents is that Mandya University instead of complying with the bifurcation order and taking the work from the private respondents started appointing people from outsource. Therefore, they filed the writ petition before the writ Court challenging the letter dated 29.02.2024 whereby the Mandya University had undertaken to depute non teaching staff through outsource agencies. The learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment and order has allowed the writ petition with the following terms:-

¶87

"13. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed off on the following terms:

¶88

a. The writ petition is allowed-in-part.

¶89

8 -

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

NC: 2026:KHC:36789-DB WA No. 1100 of 2025

¶92

CNR: KAHC010453082025

¶93

b. The respondent No.3 is directed to continue the services of the petitioners instead of replacing them by outsourced employees and also continue to pay salary to them from the date of their continuation.

¶94

c. This arrangement shall continue till such time, the respondent No.3 takes steps for a regular recruitment, in which event, the petitioners shall be given benefit for their past service only in so far as it relates to relaxation of age is concerned.

¶95

d. The continuation of the petitioners in the respondent No.3 shall be given effect to within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."

¶96

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-University submits that the University does not have funds to make payment of the consolidated salary to the private respondents and the State has not provided funds for making payment of the consolidated salary to the private respondents, who as a result of the bifurcation order stood transferred to the Mandya University.

¶97

9 -

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

NC: 2026:KHC:36789-DB WA No. 1100 of 2025

¶100

CNR: KAHC010453082025

¶101

We find this argument completely hollow and without any substance. What was challenged before the writ Court was the Communication dated 29.02.2024 whereby the Mandya University had taken a decision to employ non-teaching staff from outsourcing agencies. If the University has resources to pay the persons, who are taken from outsourcing agencies, we fail to understand that how the University can take a stand that they do not have resources to pay the persons employed on contractual basis. Such a submission is nothing but an eye wash to deny the private respondents of their legitimate dues, who have been working in the Mysore University before its bifurcation for 8 to 18 years.

¶102

We therefore, dismiss this writ appeal. However, if the University intends to take the services of non-teaching staff through outsourcing agencies they can employ the persons, through outsource only when the respondents are not available. However, the respondents are to be given preference if there is work on the basis of seniority and no outsourcing persons can be employed to take place of the private respondents.

¶103