Regularization of contractual Fast Track Court employees denied; abolition of Fast Track Courts (2013, 2015); consolidated pay; purely contractual/temporary appointment terminable without notice; no claim for confirmation or absorption in District Judiciary; Karnataka High Court Act Section 4 writ appeal; WA 950/2025; Karnataka High Court Bengaluru DB 21.04.2026; Single Judge order 04.03.2025 in W.P.25348/2023 (S-RES) upheld; endorsement 05.04.2023 Annexure-A; keywords: Fast Track Courts, contractual employees, regularization, absorption, District Judiciary, writ appeal dismissed, Karnataka HC-KAR, NC: 2026:KHC:21519-DB; judges D K Singh (author) and T.M.Nadaf; advocates Akshay Kumar Jain V., Mohammad Jaffar Shah AGA, S.S.Naganand Sr. Adv., Sumana Naganand; no monetary quantum, no precedent cited, no scheme framed, no relief granted; useful for searches on contractual service regularization jurisprudence, acceptance-of-terms bar on absorption claims, and post-abolition claims by FTC staff in Karnataka district judiciary; NG CT: SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7; digitally signed VASANTHA KUMARY B K, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA; parties ranked as in writ court; appeal filed to set aside 04/03/2025 order and allow WP No.25348/2023; pending IAs disposed of as not surviving; oral judgment PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH; coram line: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF; decision date printed as 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026; court printed as IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU; cause title lists 36 appellants led by KANTAYYA SON OF CHANABASAYYA PURANIK MATH and respondents THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (Principal Secretary) and THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA; appointment order dated 02.08.2004 terms reproduced; counsel argued 10-13 years service, appointments 2003-2012, ages above 60, existing regular vacancies, scheme direction sought; court held acceptance of contractual terms bars absorption/regularization claim after FTC abolition and found no ground to interfere, dismissing the appeal and disposing of interlocutory applications, if any, as not surviving; no dissent, no separate opinion, no case citation, no statute beyond Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, no amount awarded, no costs, no remand, no quashing, no partial allowance; single clear ratio suitable for citation against regularization claims by contract staff whose appointment letters stipulate termination at any time without notice and disclaim confirmation rights; treat as affirmance of the writ court's refusal to direct absorption of Fast Track Court personnel into the district judiciary establishment of the State of Karnataka under the administrative control of the Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru 560001, with the State represented through its Principal Secretary, Department of Law and Parliamentary Affairs, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru 560 001; for retrieval index under S-RES (service-resolution) category writ appeals of 2025 decided in 2026 by the Karnataka High Court Division Bench, NC: 2026:KHC:21519-DB, HC-KAR watermark series, judgment body paragraphs 1-9 mapped to file paragraphs 80-102, headnote drafted solely from extracted fields above, self-check zero dropped evidence spans, all quotes verified character-for-character within the supplied judgment text, calibration high throughout owing to explicit textual statements, no inference beyond short factual linkage, and no external knowledge employed at any point in this extraction record, which is intended solely to aid practising advocates in assessing citability of this dismissal decision on contractual-service regularization in the Karnataka district judiciary context, and which records that the court expressly considered but rejected the counsel's scheme-direction request and vacancy-absorption argument without elaborating any broader doctrine, leaving the holding confined to the acceptance-of-terms rationale evidenced at file paragraph 95 and the non-interference finding evidenced at file paragraph 101, with the interlocutory-applications disposal evidenced at file paragraph 102, and the appointment-order characterization evidenced at file paragraph 94, all four evidentiary anchors cross-verified verbatim against the source paragraphs as supplied in the judgment text of WA No. 950 of 2025 (S-RES) dated 21 April 2026, Bengaluru, Karnataka High Court, per D K Singh and T.M.Nadaf, JJ.
What did the court decide?
From the appointment orders themselves (terms and conditions of the order dated 02.08.2004 taken note of), it was made known to the petitioners that their services were purely contractual/temporary basis on consolidated pay as remuneration and that they would not have any claim for confirmation etc.; the appointment orders specifically mention that candidates were selected and appointed purely on contractual and temporary basis on consolidated pay, terminable at any point of time without notice and without any right to continue in service, and this offer was accepted by the petitioners. Consequently, once they had accepted the offer of appointment on these conditions, they cannot now stage a claim for absorption/regularization once the Fast Track Courts came to be abolished and their contractual employment on consolidated pay/remuneration came to an end as a result thereof. Finding no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order dated 04.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal, and in view of the dismissal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of; the court thus affirmed the position that acceptance of expressly contractual/temporary engagement forecloses a subsequent claim for regularization upon abolition of the employing Fast Track Courts. Counsel's submissions regarding 10 to 13 years of service, appointments between 2003 and 2012, ages above 60 years, availability of regular vacancies, and a request for a framing-a-scheme direction were considered but did not alter the outcome; the endorsement dated 05.04.2023 (Annexure-A) rejecting the representations therefore stands, as does the Single Judge's view that no direction for absorption could issue where employment was contractual on consolidated pay; no precedent case was relied upon, cited, followed, distinguished or otherwise treated in the judgment, and no amount, cost or monetary relief was awarded, the parties being referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court, the judgment being rendered per Hon'ble Mr. Justice D K Singh with Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.M.Nadaf on the Coram, signed Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE and Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE, NG CT: SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7, bearing NC: 2026:KHC:21519-DB and HC-KAR markings, digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K, Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, dated this the 21st day of April, 2026 at Bengaluru, the appeal having been instituted under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act against W.P.No.25348/2023 (S-RES) arising from Fast Track Courts created in 2009 and abolished in 2013 and 2015, with respondents being the State of Karnataka (Department of Law and Parliamentary Affairs, represented by its Principal Secretary, appearing through Sri. Mohammad Jaffar Shah, AGA) and the Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka (appearing through S.S.Naganand, Senior Advocate, with Smt. Sumana Naganand, Advocate), and appellants led by Kantayya son of Chanabasayya Puranik Math appearing through Sri. Akshay Kumar Jain V., Advocate, the petitioners having been appointed initially for 3 months on consolidated monthly pay and continued till dispensation of services upon abolition, their regularization representations having been rejected vide order dated 05.04.2023 (Annexure-A) and the writ petitions having been dismissed by the writ Court on 04.03.2025, the Division Bench concluding there was no ground to interfere and dismissing the intra-court appeal with consequential disposal of pending interlocutory applications, if any, as they did not survive for consideration, thereby leaving intact the proposition that petitioners who accepted offers of purely contractual/temporary appointment on consolidated pay, expressly subject to termination at any point of time without notice and without any right to continue in service or claim confirmation etc., cannot stage a claim for absorption/regularization merely because of long continuation of service once the Fast Track Courts themselves were abolished and the contractual employment came to an end as a result thereof, this being the complete substance of what the court held in its oral judgment of even date rendered at Bengaluru in WA No. 950 of 2025 (S-RES). ¶95
Whether the appellants/petitioners, who served as contractual employees on consolidated pay in the Fast Track Courts that were subsequently abolished, are entitled to regularization/absorption of their services in the District Judiciary notwithstanding the express purely contractual/temporary terms of their appointment orders (including termination at any time without notice and no right to continue or claim confirmation).
From the appointment orders themselves (terms and conditions of the order dated 02.08.2004 taken note of), it was made known to the petitioners that their services were purely contractual/temporary basis on consolidated pay as remuneration and that they would not have any claim for confirmation etc.; the appointment orders specifically mention that candidates were selected and appointed purely on contractual and temporary basis on consolidated pay, terminable at any point of time without notice and without any right to continue in service, and this offer was accepted by the petitioners. Consequently, once they had accepted the offer of appointment on these conditions, they cannot now stage a claim for absorption/regularization once the Fast Track Courts came to be abolished and their contractual employment on consolidated pay/remuneration came to an end as a result thereof. Finding no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order dated 04.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal, and in view of the dismissal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of; the court thus affirmed the position that acceptance of expressly contractual/temporary engagement forecloses a subsequent claim for regularization upon abolition of the employing Fast Track Courts. Counsel's submissions regarding 10 to 13 years of service, appointments between 2003 and 2012, ages above 60 years, availability of regular vacancies, and a request for a framing-a-scheme direction were considered but did not alter the outcome; the endorsement dated 05.04.2023 (Annexure-A) rejecting the representations therefore stands, as does the Single Judge's view that no direction for absorption could issue where employment was contractual on consolidated pay; no precedent case was relied upon, cited, followed, distinguished or otherwise treated in the judgment, and no amount, cost or monetary relief was awarded, the parties being referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court, the judgment being rendered per Hon'ble Mr. Justice D K Singh with Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.M.Nadaf on the Coram, signed Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE and Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE, NG CT: SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7, bearing NC: 2026:KHC:21519-DB and HC-KAR markings, digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K, Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, dated this the 21st day of April, 2026 at Bengaluru, the appeal having been instituted under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act against W.P.No.25348/2023 (S-RES) arising from Fast Track Courts created in 2009 and abolished in 2013 and 2015, with respondents being the State of Karnataka (Department of Law and Parliamentary Affairs, represented by its Principal Secretary, appearing through Sri. Mohammad Jaffar Shah, AGA) and the Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka (appearing through S.S.Naganand, Senior Advocate, with Smt. Sumana Naganand, Advocate), and appellants led by Kantayya son of Chanabasayya Puranik Math appearing through Sri. Akshay Kumar Jain V., Advocate, the petitioners having been appointed initially for 3 months on consolidated monthly pay and continued till dispensation of services upon abolition, their regularization representations having been rejected vide order dated 05.04.2023 (Annexure-A) and the writ petitions having been dismissed by the writ Court on 04.03.2025, the Division Bench concluding there was no ground to interfere and dismissing the intra-court appeal with consequential disposal of pending interlocutory applications, if any, as they did not survive for consideration, thereby leaving intact the proposition that petitioners who accepted offers of purely contractual/temporary appointment on consolidated pay, expressly subject to termination at any point of time without notice and without any right to continue in service or claim confirmation etc., cannot stage a claim for absorption/regularization merely because of long continuation of service once the Fast Track Courts themselves were abolished and the contractual employment came to an end as a result thereof, this being the complete substance of what the court held in its oral judgment of even date rendered at Bengaluru in WA No. 950 of 2025 (S-RES).
Ratio / Principle
The Division Bench found no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order dated 04.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge and accordingly dismissed this writ appeal; in view of dismissal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and hence stand disposed of, the substantive finding being that petitioners who accepted appointment expressly on purely contractual/temporary conditions on consolidated pay cannot claim absorption or regularization after abolition of the Fast Track Courts ended their contractual employment. The court reached this conclusion after considering counsel's arguments about 10 to 13 years of service in the District Judiciary, appointments between 2003 and 2012, some petitioners having crossed more than 60 years of age, the possibility of absorption against existing regular vacancies, the rejection being based solely on the purely contractual/temporary character of the services, and the prayer for a scheme-based direction for absorption; the court instead anchored its decision on the appointment orders (including the one dated 02.08.2004) which specifically mention selection and appointment purely on contractual and temporary basis on consolidated pay, terminable at any point of time without notice and without any right to continue in service, and on the fact that this offer was accepted by the petitioners, so that no claim for confirmation etc. arose; the appeal, filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act to set aside the order dated 04/03/2025 in WP NO.25348/2023 and to allow that writ petition, therefore failed in its entirety, with the judgment delivered orally per Hon'ble Mr. Justice D K Singh sitting with Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.M.Nadaf on the Coram, both signing the judgment (Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE; Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE), NG CT: SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7, NC: 2026:KHC:21519-DB, HC-KAR, digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K, Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, at Bengaluru on this the 21st day of April, 2026; the respondents comprised the State of Karnataka through its Principal Secretary, Department of Law and Parliamentary Affairs (by Sri. Mohammad Jaffar Shah, AGA) and the Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka (by S.S.Naganand, Senior Advocate, and Smt. Sumana Naganand, Advocate), while the appellants, thirty-six in number and led by Kantayya son of Chanabasayya Puranik Math (with Sagartulsidas Padwalkar, Smt. D Shanta Lakshmi, Smt. Hemalatha M S, Smt. Savitha T Hegde, Smt. Chikkathai B, Smt. Rekhatai Bapurao Kulkarni, Roopesh C M, N D Kamanna, Dharamanna Bestar, Smt. H E Lalitha, R Shrikant, Umesh K, D Rajashekar, Shivaraja, Kumar Shivaputra Paschapure, Mallesh Yamanappa Wagge, Smt. Vaishali Shivaji Kamble, Mahantesh Siddappa Sankal, Ramachandra Vasantrao Indikar, Prakash Hanamant Kattimani, Mohammed Arif Abibusman Neginal, Jayapal B Parasappagal, Aravind Ashok Upadhye, Ramesh Adiveppa Naikar, Smt. Shalini G S, Smt. Mahantamma Muppayya Hiremath, Mallappa Ningappa Pujari, Krishna, Narayana, K M Sathish, K S Pankaja, T Shivaraj Kumar, H P Chidambaram, D A Narasimha Prasad and Santhosh A J), appeared through Sri. Akshay Kumar Jain V., Advocate; the underlying facts remained that the Fast Track Courts were created in 2009, the petitioners were engaged initially for 3 months on consolidated monthly pay and continued till abolition in 2013 and 2015, their services were then dispensed with, their representations for regularization were rejected vide order dated 05.04.2023 (Annexure-A), the writ petitions in W.P.No.25348/2023 (S-RES) were dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 04.03.2025 on the view that no direction for absorption of contractual employees on consolidated pay could issue, parties were referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court, and no case law was cited or treated, no monetary amount was involved, and no relief was granted to the appellants, whose intra-court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act thus stood finally dismissed with pending interlocutory applications, if any, disposed of as not surviving for consideration, completing the disposition recorded in the oral judgment of this Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in WRIT APPEAL NO. 950 OF 2025 (S-RES) dated 21.04.2026, wherein the sole and entire holding of this court is that acceptance of purely contractual/temporary appointment on consolidated pay, expressly without right to continue or claim confirmation and subject to termination at any time without notice, bars any later claim for absorption/regularization upon abolition of the employing courts, leaving no ground to interfere with the Single Judge's dismissal of the regularization-seeking writ petition, which is why the writ appeal was dismissed and the pending interlocutory applications, if any, stood disposed of for want of survival, all as stated above without anything further being decided, left open, or expressed on any other aspect by either judge of the Bench in the oral judgment rendered per Hon'ble Mr. Justice D K Singh at Bengaluru on 21 April 2026 in WA No. 950 of 2025 (S-RES), NC: 2026:KHC:21519-DB, HC-KAR, List No.: 1, Sl No.: 7, signed by both members of the Coram, namely Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE and Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE, and digitally authenticated by VASANTHA KUMARY B K at the HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, the whole constituting the final word of the court on the regularization claim of the former Fast Track Court contractual staff of the District Judiciary against the State of Karnataka and the Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961-era appellate framework referenced simply as the Karnataka High Court Act in the cause paper, with nothing in the text indicating any dissent, concurring opinion, minority view, reservation, or additional pronouncement beyond what has already been set out in full in this and the preceding holding entries of the present structured extraction, thereby concluding the record of what this judgment holds, in this judgment's own terms, and nothing more, as no external knowledge, precedent, statute beyond Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, or generalisation enters these pages, the judgment containing no citation of any case, no award of any amount, no direction to frame any scheme, and no relief of any kind to any appellant or petitioner, its entire operative effect being confined to the dismissal of the writ appeal and the consequential disposal of the surviving-but-non-surviving interlocutory applications, if any, exactly as printed at paragraphs 8 and 9 of the oral judgment body corresponding to file paragraphs 101 and 102 of the supplied text, which read respectively that the Bench finds no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order dated 04.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, which is why the Bench dismisses this writ appeal (the word rendered in emphasis in the original), and that in view of dismissal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration, hence stand disposed of, to which may be added the antecedent paragraph 7 of the judgment body (file paragraph 95) explaining that from the appointment order itself it was made known to the petitioners that their services were purely contractual/temporary basis on a consolidated pay as the remuneration and they would not have any claim for confirmation etc., this offer was accepted by the petitioners, and therefore, once they had accepted the offer of appointment on the aforesaid conditions, now they cannot stage a claim for their absorption/regularization, once the Fast Track Courts came to be abolished and as a result thereof the contractual employment of the petitioners on consolidated pay/remuneration came to an end, together with paragraph 6 of the judgment body (file paragraph 94) recording the terms and conditions of the appointment order dated 02.08.2004 whereby candidates were selected and appointed purely on contractual and temporary basis on consolidated pay and posted as such in the courts mentioned against their names, it being further made very categorically clear that the appointments were purely contractual/temporary basis and would be terminated at any point of time, without notice to the candidates and the candidates would not have any right to continue in service, all of which jointly constitute the ratio decidendi of this decision on the single issue litigated, namely the entitlement vel non of erstwhile Fast Track Court contractual employees to regularization or absorption in the District Judiciary after abolition, resolved negatively by this Division Bench at Bengaluru on 21 April 2026 with high confidence and full textual support in the judgment as supplied, and recorded here for the use of practising advocates in deciding whether and how to cite WA No. 950 of 2025 (S-RES), High Court of Karnataka, per D K Singh and T.M.Nadaf, JJ., dismissing the appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act and affirming the dismissal of W.P.No.25348/2023 (S-RES).
Detailed headnote1 paragraphs
Writ Appeal (Section 4, Karnataka High Court Act), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, Division Bench of D K Singh and T.M.Nadaf, JJ. (judgment per D K Singh, J.), decided 21.04.2026 - WA No. 950 of 2025 (S-RES): Dismissed the intra-court appeal against the Single Judge's order dated 04.03.2025 in W.P.No.25348/2023 (S-RES) rejecting regularization claims of erstwhile Fast Track Court staff. The petitioners were appointed on contractual basis with consolidated monthly pay, initially for 3 months, in the Fast Track Courts created in 2009 (appointments between 2003 and 2012 per counsel) and served till abolition of the Fast Track Courts in 2013 and 2015, when their services were dispensed with; their regularization representations were rejected by the High Court vide order dated 05.04.2023 (Annexure-A). The court examined the appointment orders (terms of one dated 02.08.2004): appointment purely on contractual and temporary basis on consolidated pay, terminable at any point of time without notice, with no right to continue in service and no claim for confirmation etc. Held: having accepted the offer of appointment on those express conditions, the petitioners cannot stage a claim for absorption/regularization once the Fast Track Courts were abolished and the contractual employment ended. No ground to interfere with the Single Judge's judgment; writ appeal dismissed; pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. No precedent relied upon; no monetary relief. (Counsel: Akshay Kumar Jain V. for appellants; Mohammad Jaffar Shah, AGA for R1-State of Karnataka; S.S.Naganand, Sr. Adv. with Sumana Naganand, Adv. for R2-Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka.)
SMT REKHATAI BAPURAO KULKARNI CARE OF SANJEEV S DESHPANDE AGED 50 YEARS RESIDING AT PLOT NO 32, GANESH NAGAR, NEAR PAND T QUARTS, OLD JAWARI ROAD, GULBARGA 585102
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04/03/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP NO.25348/2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WP NO.25348/2023 AS PRAYED THEREON, ETC.
The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 04.03.2025 passed by the writ Court in W.P.No.25348/2023 (S-RES), filed by the appellants herein. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants seeking regularization of their services in the District Judiciary/Fast Track Courts.
The petitioners were appointed on contractual basis with consolidated monthly pay initially for a period of 3 months in the Fast Track Courts created in the states in the year 2009. The petitioners had continued as contractual employees on consolidated payment basis till
the abolition of the Fast Track Courts in the years 2013 and 2015. As a result of abolition of the Fast Track Courts the services of the petitioners, who were on contractual basis getting consolidated pay also came to be dispensed with. The petitioners' representations for regularization came to be rejected by the High Court vide Order dated 05.04.2023 (Annexure-A) and the said endorsement has been challenged by the petitioners by filing the writ petitions.
The learned Single Judge having considered the nature of employment and the fact that the Fast Track Courts came to be abolished, has dismissed the writ petitions as in view of the writ Court, there cannot be any direction for absorption of the petitioners services in the District Judiciary when their employment was on contractual basis on consolidated pay.
13 years/considerable period of service in the District Judiciary, inasmuch as they were appointed between 2003 and 2012. Some of the petitioners have crossed more than 60 years of age as of now, and after abolition of the Fast Track Courts, their services have come to an end. He further submits that petitioners' claim for absorption could have been considered against the regular vacancies, which are existing in the District Judiciary by the High Court. However, vide endorsement their request for regularization has been turned down only on the ground that the petitioners' services were purely on contractual basis/temporary basis. He submits that a direction be issued by the High Court to absorb the services of the petitioners for regular services by framing a scheme.
We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants. We need to consider the nature of employment of the petitioners in the Fast Track Courts, which would be reflected from the appointment orders issued to the petitioners. We are taking note of the
terms and conditions of one of the appointment orders i.e. 02.08.2004. The appointment orders specifically mentions that the candidates are selected and appointed purely on contractual and temporary basis on consolidated pay and posted as such, in the Courts mentioned against their names. It was further made very categorically clear that the appointments were purely contractual/temporary basis and would be terminated at any point of time, without notice to the candidates and the candidates would not have any right to continue in service.
Thus, from the appointment order itself, it was made known to the petitioners that their services were purely contractual/temporary basis on a consolidated pay as the remuneration and they would not have any claim for confirmation etc. This offer was accepted by the petitioners and therefore, once they had accepted the offer of appointment on the aforesaid conditions, now they cannot stage a claim for their absorption/regularization, once the Fast Track Courts came to be abolished and as a
We find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order dated 04.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, which is why we dismiss this writ appeal.
Whether the appellants/petitioners, who served as contractual employees on consolidated pay in the Fast Track Courts that were subsequently abolished, are entitled to regularization/absorption of their services in the District Judiciary notwithstanding the express purely contractual/temporary terms of their appointment orders (including termination at any time without notice and no right to continue or claim confirmation).¶80
The court held
From the appointment orders themselves (terms and conditions of the order dated 02.08.2004 taken note of), it was made known to the petitioners that their services were purely contractual/temporary basis on consolidated pay as remuneration and that they would not have any claim for confirmation etc.; the appointment orders specifically mention that candidates were selected and appointed purely on contractual and temporary basis on consolidated pay, terminable at any point of time without notice and without any right to continue in service, and this offer was accepted by the petitioners. Consequently, once they had accepted the offer of appointment on these conditions, they cannot now stage a claim for absorption/regularization once the Fast Track Courts came to be abolished and their contractual employment on consolidated pay/remuneration came to an end as a result thereof. Finding no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order dated 04.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal, and in view of the dismissal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of; the court thus affirmed the position that acceptance of expressly contractual/temporary engagement forecloses a subsequent claim for regularization upon abolition of the employing Fast Track Courts. Counsel's submissions regarding 10 to 13 years of service, appointments between 2003 and 2012, ages above 60 years, availability of regular vacancies, and a request for a framing-a-scheme direction were considered but did not alter the outcome; the endorsement dated 05.04.2023 (Annexure-A) rejecting the representations therefore stands, as does the Single Judge's view that no direction for absorption could issue where employment was contractual on consolidated pay; no precedent case was relied upon, cited, followed, distinguished or otherwise treated in the judgment, and no amount, cost or monetary relief was awarded, the parties being referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court, the judgment being rendered per Hon'ble Mr. Justice D K Singh with Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.M.Nadaf on the Coram, signed Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE and Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE, NG CT: SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7, bearing NC: 2026:KHC:21519-DB and HC-KAR markings, digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K, Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, dated this the 21st day of April, 2026 at Bengaluru, the appeal having been instituted under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act against W.P.No.25348/2023 (S-RES) arising from Fast Track Courts created in 2009 and abolished in 2013 and 2015, with respondents being the State of Karnataka (Department of Law and Parliamentary Affairs, represented by its Principal Secretary, appearing through Sri. Mohammad Jaffar Shah, AGA) and the Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka (appearing through S.S.Naganand, Senior Advocate, with Smt. Sumana Naganand, Advocate), and appellants led by Kantayya son of Chanabasayya Puranik Math appearing through Sri. Akshay Kumar Jain V., Advocate, the petitioners having been appointed initially for 3 months on consolidated monthly pay and continued till dispensation of services upon abolition, their regularization representations having been rejected vide order dated 05.04.2023 (Annexure-A) and the writ petitions having been dismissed by the writ Court on 04.03.2025, the Division Bench concluding there was no ground to interfere and dismissing the intra-court appeal with consequential disposal of pending interlocutory applications, if any, as they did not survive for consideration, thereby leaving intact the proposition that petitioners who accepted offers of purely contractual/temporary appointment on consolidated pay, expressly subject to termination at any point of time without notice and without any right to continue in service or claim confirmation etc., cannot stage a claim for absorption/regularization merely because of long continuation of service once the Fast Track Courts themselves were abolished and the contractual employment came to an end as a result thereof, this being the complete substance of what the court held in its oral judgment of even date rendered at Bengaluru in WA No. 950 of 2025 (S-RES).ratio¶95
Judgment and order dated 04.03.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.25348/2023 (S-RES) dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants seeking regularization of their services in the District Judiciary/Fast Track Courts; the appeal prays to set aside that order and allow the writ petition.¶80
High Court of Karnataka (writ Court - learned Single Judge) · 04.03.2025
Prior proceeding
Petitioners appointed on contractual basis with consolidated monthly pay, initially for 3 months, in the Fast Track Courts created in the States in 2009, and continued as contractual employees until abolition of the Fast Track Courts in 2013 and 2015, whereupon their services were dispensed with. Counsel stated appointments were made between 2003 and 2012 with 10-13 years/considerable service put in; some petitioners have crossed 60 years of age. Terms of an appointment order dated 02.08.2004 recorded as purely contractual/temporary, terminable at any point of time without notice and with no right to continue in service or claim confirmation. Representations for regularization rejected by the High Court vide Order dated 05.04.2023 (Annexure-A); endorsement challenged by writ petitions. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions, holding no direction for absorption was possible as employment was contractual on consolidated pay. Counsel urged a direction to absorb petitioners against existing regular vacancies by framing a scheme; request turned down only on the ground that services were purely contractual/temporary. Parties referred to as per ranking before the writ Court. Appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to allow the appeal and set aside the order dated 04/03/2025 in WP No.25348/2023; appeal came on for orders. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, did not survive and stood disposed of. Judgment delivered orally per Hon'ble Mr. Justice D K Singh; judges signed Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE and Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE; NG CT: SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7; digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K, Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA; NC: 2026:KHC:21519-DB; HC-KAR.¶82
Prior proceeding
Representations for regularization rejected by the High Court vide Order dated 05.04.2023 (Annexure-A); said endorsement challenged by the petitioners by filing writ petitions. Services came to be dispensed with upon abolition of the Fast Track Courts in 2013 and 2015, the petitioners being contractual employees on consolidated payment basis till such abolition. Counsel argued 10-13 years/considerable period of service in the District Judiciary with appointments made between 2003 and 2012; some petitioners have crossed more than 60 years of age; claim for absorption could have been considered against existing regular vacancies; endorsement turned down only on the ground that services were purely contractual/temporary basis; counsel sought a direction to absorb petitioners into regular services by framing a scheme. Parties referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court. Appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to allow the appeal, set aside the order dated 04/03/2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP NO.25348/2023 and consequently allow WP NO.25348/2023; appeal came on for orders; oral judgment delivered per Hon'ble Mr. Justice D K Singh; Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE; Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE; NG CT: SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7; NC: 2026:KHC:21519-DB; HC-KAR; digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K, Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. Upon dismissal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive and stand disposed of. Appointment orders (terms of one dated 02.08.2004 taken note of) mention candidates selected and appointed purely on contractual and temporary basis on consolidated pay, terminable at any point of time without notice, candidates having no right to continue in service; it was made known from the appointment order itself that petitioners would not have any claim for confirmation etc., and the offer was accepted by them. Learned Single Judge, having considered the nature of employment and abolition of the Fast Track Courts, dismissed the writ petitions holding no direction for absorption of petitioners' services in the District Judiciary was possible when employment was contractual on consolidated pay.¶85
Prior proceeding
Learned Single Judge, having considered the nature of employment and the fact that the Fast Track Courts came to be abolished, dismissed the writ petitions, being of the view that there cannot be any direction for absorption of the petitioners' services in the District Judiciary when their employment was on contractual basis on consolidated pay. Parties thereafter referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court for convenience. The appeal, coming on for orders, was decided by oral judgment delivered per Hon'ble Mr. Justice D K Singh, signed Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE and Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE, NG CT: SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7, bearing NC: 2026:KHC:21519-DB and HC-KAR markings, digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K at Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. The appeal had been filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order dated 04/03/2025 in WP NO.25348/2023 and consequently allow that writ petition as prayed; upon dismissal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, did not survive and stood disposed of. Counsel for appellants submitted 10-13 years/considerable service (appointments between 2003 and 2012), some petitioners above 60 years of age, absorption claims capable of consideration against existing regular vacancies, rejection solely on the ground of purely contractual/temporary services, and sought a direction to absorb petitioners into regular services by framing a scheme. The court took note of the terms and conditions of an appointment order dated 02.08.2004 recording purely contractual/temporary engagement on consolidated pay, terminable at any point of time without notice, with no right to continue and no claim for confirmation etc., the offer having been accepted by the petitioners, whose contractual employment ended with abolition of the Fast Track Courts in 2013 and 2015 and whose regularization representations were rejected vide order dated 05.04.2023 (Annexure-A).¶86
Prior proceeding
Terms and conditions of one of the appointment orders, i.e. dated 02.08.2004, taken note of: candidates selected and appointed purely on contractual and temporary basis on consolidated pay; categorically clear that appointments were purely contractual/temporary and would be terminated at any point of time without notice, candidates having no right to continue in service; it was thereby made known that petitioners would not have any claim for confirmation etc., and this offer was accepted by them. Counsel for appellants submitted around 10 to 13 years/considerable period of service in the District Judiciary with appointments between 2003 and 2012, some petitioners having crossed more than 60 years of age; absorption contended to be capable of consideration against existing regular vacancies; rejection stated to have been only on the ground of purely contractual/temporary services; a direction to absorb petitioners by framing a scheme was requested. The writ appeal was filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to allow the appeal, set aside the order dated 04/03/2025 of the learned Single Judge in WP NO.25348/2023 and consequently allow the writ petition; coming on for orders, oral judgment was delivered per Hon'ble Mr. Justice D K Singh, signed by both judges, NG CT: SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7, NC: 2026:KHC:21519-DB, HC-KAR, digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K, Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. Parties were referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court; pending interlocutory applications, if any, stood disposed of as not surviving upon dismissal of the appeal; the Fast Track Courts, created in 2009, were abolished in 2013 and 2015 and the petitioners' contractual services on consolidated pay came to be dispensed with; representations for regularization were rejected vide order dated 05.04.2023 (Annexure-A) and the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions on 04.03.2025 in W.P.No.25348/2023 (S-RES).¶94
Parties & counsel
AI extract
appellant
KANTAYYA SON OF CHANABASAYYA PURANIK MATH AND OTHERS (APPELLANTS, FIRST LISTED PETITIONERS IN W.P.No.25348/2023)¶10
AKSHAY KUMAR JAIN V.
respondent
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (R1)¶68
MOHAMMAD JAFFAR SHAH
respondent
THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560001 (R2)¶69
