Partly allowed

Mahesha Naik v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Jun 2026WP/6936/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A party-in-person Librarian serving ad hoc for nearly 17 years in an aided college sought regularisation from 2009 and consequential benefits. Relying on four Supreme Court judgments favouring regularisation of long-serving ad hoc employees, the court allowed the petition in part, directing respondents to reconsider his case within one month in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to reconsider the petitioner's representation for regularisation per cited Supreme Court judgments within one month.

Mahesha Naik Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:30641 WP No. 6936 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 6936 OF 2026 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MAHESHA NAIK S/O GOPI NAIK, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, AMMANAPURA VILLAGE AVVERAHALLI POST RAMANAGARA-562159

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. MAHESH NAIK (PARTY-IN-PERSON))

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGE EDUCATION, SESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶16

APS EDUCATIONAL TRUST, N.R.COLONY, BANGALORE-560019, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY REGISTERED UNDER TRUST ACT

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:30641 WP No. 6936 of 2026

¶18

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

APS EDUCATIONAL TRUST, N.R.COLONY, BANGALORE-560019, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT REGISTERED UNDER TRUST ACT

¶21

APS EVENING DEGREE COLLEGE, N.R.COLONY, BANGALORE-560019, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL.

¶22

A.R. ACHARYA, TRUSTEE, APS EDUCATIONAL TRUST, N.R.COLONY, BANGALORE-560019

¶23

K.P. NARASIMHA MURTHY, TRUSTEE, APS EDUCATIONAL TRUST, N.R.COLONY, BANGALORE-560019.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. G. RAMESH NAIK, AGA FOR R1& R2 SRI. S.W. ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R5 SRI. C N S SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R7)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING FOR DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT NUMBERS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 TO REGULARIZE THE SERVICES OF THE PETITIONER IN THE POST OF THE LIBRARIAN AT APS EVENING DEGREE AIDED COLLEGE EFFECTIVE FROM 2009 OR UPON COMPLETION OF 10 YEARS OF SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SETTLED LAW AND THE JUDGEMENT OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WP NO. 101459/2023 (S-RES) DATED 20.02.2015 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNX-S AND TO CALCULATE AND DISBURSE ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS WITH ARREARS AND FULL BACK WAGE SALARY FROM 2009 INCLUDING WITHHELD ANNUAL INCREMENTS FOR THE YEARS 2011, 2015 AND 2020

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:30641 WP No. 6936 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

AND TO PAY MONETARY BENEFITS WITH COSTS OF THIS PROCEEDINGS TILL AWARDS. B. DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NUMBERS 3,4,5 TO IMPLEMENT AND PAY THE UGC 6^TH PAY SCALE WITH ARREARS AS SANCTIONED VIDE ORDER DATED 08/06/2016 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-D. REF NO APSET 1573/2016-17/ C) DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NUMBERS 1,2,3,4,5 TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED LETTER DATED AUGUST 22, 2022 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-Q, SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT NUMBER 6, AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NUMBERS. 1,2,3,4,5 TO PROCEED WITH REGULARIZE THE PETITIONER SERVICE AT GOVERNMENT LEVEL. AFFIRM AND UPHOLD THE JOINT DIRECTORS CERTIFIED CHECKLIST IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-R.

¶31

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

The petitioner/party-in-person has filed this writ petition seeking for a mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner in the post of Librarian at APS Evening Degree Aided College effective from 2009, or, upon the completion of 10 years of service, whichever is earlier, in accordance with the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sukhendu

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:30641 WP No. 6936 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Bhattacharjee vs. The state of Assam¹ , Dharam Singh and others vs. State of UP² , Shripal & Anr. V. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad³ and Jaggo vs. Union of India and others⁴ .

¶38

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

¶39

The petitioner joined respondent No.5 – College as an ad hoc Librarian at a consolidated salary of ₹3,500/-. The appointment of the petitioner was as a full-time Management Librarian against a clear vacancy at APS Evening Degree Aided College. While the petitioner has completed 10 years of unblemished service against a clear vacancy in the Aided College, the petitioner had submitted representations for regularization of his service. The

¶40

1 Civil Appeal No.4514 of 2025 dated 21.05.2026

¶41

2 Civil Appeal No.8558 of 2018 dated 19.08.2025

¶42

3 2025 (4) SLR 467(SC)

¶43

4 AIR 2025 SC 296

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:30641 WP No. 6936 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

respondents have not considered the representations submitted by the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.

¶47

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a statement of objections denying the allegations made in the writ petition and contended that the appointment of the petitioner is purely on ad hoc basis and hence, he is liable to be removed at any time without prior notice. It is also contended that the petitioner is not entitled for regularisation of service. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.

¶48

Respondent Nos.3 to 7 filed a statement of objections denying the allegations made in the writ petition and contended that the petitioner is not entitled for regularization of service as the petitioner himself had given an undertaking while reporting for duty that he will abide by the terms and conditions of respondent No.3 Institution and one of the terms and conditions was that he will not have any claim over

¶49

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:30641 WP No. 6936 of 2026

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

the post nor entitled for any compensation in the event of removal from duty. Hence, pray to dismiss the writ petition.

¶52

Heard the arguments of the petitioner/party-inperson and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶53

The petitioner/party-in-person submits that initially the petitioner was appointed as an ad hoc Librarian on 30.01.2009 and he has rendered service for more than 10 years and the petitioner is entitled for regularisation of his service. He submits that the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner for regularisation of service.

¶54

To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Jaggo v. Union of India and others⁵ , Dharam Singh and others v. State of UP and another⁶ ,

¶55

5 AIR 2025 SC 296

¶56

6 CA No.8558 of 2018 dated 19.08.2025

¶57

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:30641 WP No. 6936 of 2026

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

Shripal & Anr. V. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad⁷ and Sukhendu Bhattacharjee v. The State of Assam⁸ . Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

¶61

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the appointment of the petitioner is an ad hoc appointment and he can be removed at any time without holding any enquiry. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for regularisation of service. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶62

Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶63

It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is working in respondent No.3 - College for nearly 17 years without any interruption. The petitioner submitted an

¶64

7 2025 (4) SLR 467(SC)

¶65

8 Civil Appeal No.4514 of 2025 dated 21.05.2026

¶66

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:30641 WP No. 6936 of 2026

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

application for regularization of service, however, the respondents declined to regularise the service of the petitioner. In view of the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Jaggo v. Union of India and others⁹ .

¶69

The respondents are required to reconsider the representation of the petitioner for regularisation of service in terms of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jaggo, Dharam Singh, Shripal and Sukhendu Bhattacharjee ( supra ).

¶70

In view of the above discussion, I pass the following:

¶71

ORDER

¶72

(i) The writ petition is allowed in part .

¶73

(ii) The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for regularisation in terms of the judgment passed by

¶74

9 AIR 2025 SC 296

¶75

NC: 2026:KHC:30641 WP No. 6936 of 2026

¶76

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of Jaggo, Dharam Singh, Shripal and Sukhendu Bhattacharjee ( supra ) within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law.

¶79

Sd/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶80

¶81

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Mahesha Naik v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesha Naik v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Devaraj Vs the Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewerage Board

Sri Ramesh S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Udaya Singh Govind Singh, Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Latha a Raju Vs the Addl Chief Secretary

Pyari Jan Vs Ameer Jan

Saifulla Khan Vs the Union of India