Karnataka High Court
Sunil Sidrami Kothiwale vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 December, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17587
WP No. 108004 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 108004 OF 2016 (S-DIS)
BETWEEN:
1. SUNIL SIDRAMI KOTHIWALE,
AGED ABOUT: 40 YEARS,
WORKING AS OPERATOR,
AT/POST: HEBBAL,
TQ: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. RAJU BHARMA ALAGUNDI,
AGED ABUT: 24 YEARS,
WORKING AS OPERATOR,
R/O BASTI GALLI,
ALARWAD,
TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. KEMPANNA KADAPPA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT: 23 YRS,
WORKING AS HELPER,
AT POST NEKAR GALLI,
HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
Digitally signed by
RAKESH S
HARIHAR 4. SANJAY KALGOUDA PATIL,
Location: High Court
of Karnataka, AGED ABOUT: 25 YRS,
Dharwad Bench, WORKING AS HELPER
Dharwad
AT POST: YALIMUNAVALLI ROAD,
HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
5. MAHESH ISHWAR SUNDALE,
AGED ABOUT: 41 YRS,
WORKING AS OPERATOR,
AT/POST: MADDI GALLI,
SANKESHWAR, TQ: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
6. NEMNATH JINNAPPA KAGGUDI,
AGED ABOUT: 37 YRS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17587
WP No. 108004 of 2016
HC-KAR
WORKING AS HELPER,
AT/POST: KESTI,
TQ: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
7. SANKAR SHIVBASAPPA BADIGER,
AGED ABOUT: 36 YRS
WORKING AS HELPER
AT/POST MALLAPUR,
GHHATAPRABHA, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
8. GANGAPA SHRISHAILAPPA SONNAD,
AGED ABOUT: 42 YRS,
WORKING AS HELPER,
AT/POST: RABAKVI,
TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
9. MAHESH NAMDEV SHINDHE,
AGED ABOUT: 24 YRS,
WORKING AS OPERATOR,
AT/POST MALLAPUR,
GHATAPRABHA, TQ: GOKAK,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
10. FAREED FAKRASAB ATTAR,
AGED ABOUT: 40 YRS,
WORKING AS HELPER,
AT: NEGINAL, TQ: NEGINAL,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
11. SHIVANAND LAKKAPPA HUDALI,
AGED ABOUT: 36 YRS
WORKING AS OPERATOR
AT/POST: HOLIHOSUR,
TQ: BAILHONGAL,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
12. NINGAPPA MAHADEV PIDAI,
AGED ABOUT: 39 YRS,
WORKING AS SHIRF OPERATOR,
R/AT: KATAKBAVI, TQ: RAIBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17587
WP No. 108004 of 2016
HC-KAR
13. SHRIDAR PAKIRAPPA GOKAVI,
AGED ABOUT: 41 YRS,
WORKING AS SHIRF OPERATOR,
AT: SUREBAN, TQ: RAMDURG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
14. GURUPRASAD APPANNA PATHRUT,
AGED ABOUT: YEARS,
WORKING AS HELPER
AT/POST: HALLUR,
TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
15. SHIVANAND BASSAPPA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
WORKING AS SHIRF ATTAINDER,
AT POST HANDIGUND,
TQ: RAYBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.
16. SHANKAR RAMAPPA PADI,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
WORKING AS SHIRF ATTAINDER,
AT POST HANDIGUND, TQ: RAYBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
17. CHANNAPPA BASAPPA SARAPANI,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
WORKING AS SHIRF ATTAINDER,
AT POST HANDIGUND, TQ: RAYBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
18. MUTTAPPA SANGAPPA GOLABHAVI,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
WORKING AS SHIFT ATTAINDER,
AT POST PALBHAVI, TQ: RAYBAG,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. A. D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
M.S. BUILDING,
DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALURU-560001.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17587
WP No. 108004 of 2016
HC-KAR
2. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATIN LIMITED,
REPD: BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD,
BANGALURU-560 009.
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR (TL and SS),
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 009.
4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
(HRD ADMINISTRATION),
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION,
CORPORATION LIMITED,
CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
HESCOM, HUBBLLI.
6. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR AND
EMPLOYMENT, M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1 & R6;
SRI. B.S.KAMATE, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR
ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING
THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE MATTER AND ISSUE A
NOTIFICATION ABOLISHING CONTRACT LABOUR IN RESPECT OF SUB-
STATIONS WHERE THE PETITIONERS HAVE BEEN WORKING AS
CONTRACT LABOURERS, AND WITH A FURTHER DIRECTION TO
EXTEND ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONER
INCLUDING THE BENEFIT OF REGULARIZATION ETC., TO MEET THE
ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17587
WP No. 108004 of 2016
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The learned counsel Sri.B.S.Kamate, appearing for the respondents No.2 to 4 submits that the petition's issue in the lis stands answered by the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal Nos.100404-100521 of 2017 (S-Res) along with connected matters dated 05.07.2019, wherein the Division Bench is held as follows:
"17. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of case papers and authorities relied upon by learned advocates in support of their respective propositions, we are of considered view that following points would arise for our consideration:
"(i) Whether learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petitions by rejecting their prayer for regularization?
(ii) Whether learned Single Judge was correct in directing KPTCL - HESCOM and State to formulate a scheme as ordered in paragraph 25(ii) to (iv)?"
RE. POINT NO.(i)
18. In the background of rival contentions raised with regard to regularization, learned Single Judge has noticed and rightly so that writ petitioners had failed to make out a case that their appointment through the independent contract agency was a camouflage or the contract entered by the service provider not being genuine and as such, they have to be treated as employees of the principal employer KPTCL - HESCOM. It is to be further noticed that there is no 'employee' and 'employer' relationship between the petitioners and KPTCL - HESCOM. It can also be noticed that KPTCL has established several Master Unit Sub Stations (MUSS) all over Karnataka including HESCOM division for improving the quality and reliability of power supply. There are number of Master Unit Sub Stations in various parts of -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:17587 WP No. 108004 of 2016 HC-KAR HESCOM. As stated by KPTCL - HESCOM in its statement of objections filed before the learned Single Judge, in each Sub Station only 8 (eight) contract labourers are working in three shifts and the meaning of Sub-station, as defined under Section 2(11)(a) would indicate the purpose of establishing Sub-station. It can be said that each Sub Station being an independent establishment, as defined under Section 2(e) of The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 as it defines "the establishment" to mean any Office or Department of the Government or a local authority. Hence, Sub Stations would clearly come under the definition of establishment. Thus, the argument of petitioners of they being contract labours would not hold water.
19. On account of tender having been called by KPTCL - HESCOM for providing service by personnel, an independent contract agency who was successful bidder was awarded contract to provide service personnel. Accordingly, service provider has provided the petitioners to work in the Sub Station/establishment of Appellant/HESCOM. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that there is no privity of contract between petitioners and KPTCL - HESCOM. The contractual obligation, if any, is between petitioners and the service provider. Thus, appellant KPTCL - HESCOM has no role in the matter of petitioners' employment. At no point of time, they came to be appointed by KPTCL - HESCOM. In fact, it is not even the case of petitioners, they have been appointed directly by KPTCL - HESCOM. In this background, learned Single Judge by relying upon Uma Devi's case referred to supra has rightly turned down the prayer of petitioners for regularization, absorption or continuance of petitioners by KPTCL - HESCOM.
20. We find there is no error committed by the learned Single Judge in refusing the prayer of petitioners for regularization or absorption into the services of KPTCL - HESCOM. Accordingly, we answer point No.(i) formulated hereinabove in favour of appellants - KPTCL - HESCOM and against writ petitioners.
RE. POINT NO.(ii):
21. Learned Single Judge on the premise that petitioners would be facing hardship if they are not provided with an opportunity in the recruitment process has directed -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:17587 WP No. 108004 of 2016 HC-KAR the appellant/KPTCL-HESCOM to provide opportunity to the petitioners to apply to the post by making suitable provision for age relaxation depending on the number of years of service rendered by them.
Hence, in this background the learned single Judge has issued the direction referred to herein supra.
22. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that none of the petitioners were employed by KPTCLHESCOM either by inviting applications after giving due publicity or were employed on contract basis. On the other hand, appellant had invited tender from those applicants who were capable of supplying manpower, for maintenance of MUSS and allied services and successful bidders were awarded the contract to supply manpower and they in turn have recruited petitioners and posted them to KPTCL-HESCOM for being deployed at MUSS and various other departments. Thus, undisputedly petitioners were never engaged by the appellant either directly or indirectly. It would also be appropriate to notice at this stage itself that contracting agency has the sole discretion of terminating the employment of petitioners and deploy them in any other organization. There is no 'employee' and 'employer' relationship between appellant and the writ petitioners.
23. It is not in dispute that appellant is bound by regulations of erstwhile Karnataka Electricity Board (Recruitment and Promotion) Regulations, 1969, which has statutory force and stipulates the procedure for recruitment of personnel to the services of the appellant as well as all other Escom's throughout the State. Thus, Scheme if any formulated by the appellant would be contrary or in deviation to the Regulations and as such, no writ would lie to an instrumentality of State to act contrary to the extant Regulations governing appointments. The object of mandamus being simply to compel performance of a legal duty on the part of such person or body who is entrusted by law to perform that duty had failed to do so. Thus, court in a proceeding for mandamus will not substitute its own wisdom for the discretion vested by law in the person against whom the writ is sought for. As such, direction No.(ii) and (iii) issued to KPTCL-HESCOM would be contrary to the extant regulation governing employment.
-8-NC: 2025:KHC-D:17587 WP No. 108004 of 2016 HC-KAR
24. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS VS. SHYAM YADAV AND OTHERS reported in 1997 (2) SCC 507 has held that persons employed by the State government for undertaking the census operations who were retrenched cannot be directed to be absorbed in the State services. It came to be held by the Hon'ble Apex Court to the following effect:
"16. Some of the petitioners had registered themselves with the Employment Exchange prior to their appointment in connection with 1991 census operations. Their names were forwarded by the Employment Exchange concerned and on that basis they were so appointed on a post connected with 1991 census operations and consequently their names were deleted from the register in the Employment Exchange. Since they have been retrenched from the census office, they are entitled to have their names restored in the register in the concerned Employment Exchange concerned. Similarly, those retrenched employees of 1991 census operations who were not registered with any Employment Exchange can get themselves registered at an Employment Exchange. In accordance with the directions given by the Directorate General of Employment and Training, New Delhi, referred to in the Memo of the Director of Employment and Training, Bihar dated October 18, 1993, such retrenched census employees should be given priority / relaxation by the Employment Exchange wherein they are registered in the matter of sponsoring and forwarding their names for appointment against future vacancies.
17. In the result, the appeals are allowed, the impugned judgments of the High Court, in so far as they direct that the retrenched employees of 1991 census operations are entitled to be given preference in the matter of appointment in the services under the State of Bihar, are set aside. The petitioners can apply for appointment against any post falling vacant if they fulfil the qualification and other conditions prescribed for appointment to such post and, if they so apply, they shall be considered in accordance with the rules governing such appointment. In case they are found to be over age, one time relaxation in age may be given to them provided they were within the -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:17587 WP No. 108004 of 2016 HC-KAR age limit prescribed for appointment at the time of their initial recruitment in the census organisation. It is also directed that registration in the Employment Exchange of those petitioners who were earlier so registered prior to their appointment to the census organisation shall be restored and those who were not registered would be entitled to get themselves registered at the Employment Exchange. The petitioners who are thus registered with the Employment Exchange shall be given priority/relaxation in the matter of forwarding their names for appointment against future vacancies. No order as to costs."
25. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SATYA PRAKASH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS reported in 2010 (4) SCC 179 has drawn the distinction between "irregular appointment" and "illegal appointment"
by referring to Umadevi's case referred to herein supra. It came to be held:
"7. We are of the view that the appellants are not entitled to get the benefit of regularization of their services since they were never appointed in any sanctioned posts. The appellants were only engaged on daily wages in the Bihar Intermediate Education Council.
12. Then, in Umadevi xxx 42.
"53. One aspect xxx from this date".
The Constitution Bench has, therefore, clearly drawn a distinction between temporary employees, daily- wagers and those who were appointed irregularly in the sense that there was non-compliance of some procedure in the selection process which did not go to the root of the selection process. The appellants in our view will not fall in the category of the employees mentioned in paragraph 53 read with paras 15 and 16 of the Constitution Bench Judgment."
26. Hon'ble Apex Court while examining the plea of the workers who were working in the canteen run by the State Government for the benefit of the Secretariat employees and who had claimed they were employees of State Government itself, came to be turned down by holding that it is not open to the High Court in exercise of its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India either to frame a Scheme by
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17587 WP No. 108004 of 2016 HC-KAR itself or to direct the State to frame a Scheme for regularizing the services of ad-hoc employees or daily wages employees who had not been appointed in terms of extant Rules framed either under a Statute or under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It has been further held:
46. The question which now arises for consideration is as to whether the High Court was justified in directing regularization of the services of the respondents. It was evidently not. In a large number of decisions, this Court has categorically held that it is not open to a High Court to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India either to frame a scheme by itself or to direct the State to frame a scheme for regularizing the services of ad-hoc employees or daily wages employees who had not been appointed in terms of the extant service rules framed either under a statute or under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Such a scheme, even if framed by the State, would not meet the requirements of law as the executive order made under Article 162 of the Constitution of India cannot prevail over a statute or statutory rules framed under proviso to Article 309 thereof. The State is obligated to make appointments only in fulfillment of its constitutional obligation as laid down in Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India and not by way of any regularization scheme. In our constitutional schemes, all eligible persons similarly situated must be given opportunity to apply for and receive considerations for appointments at the hands of the authorities of the State. Denial of such a claim by some officers of the State times and again had been deprecated by this Court. In any view, in our democratic polity, an authority howsoever high it may be cannot act in breach of an existing statute or the rules which hold the field.
47. It is not necessary for us to dilate further on the issue as recently in State of U.P. vs. Neeraj Awasthi and others (2005) 10 SCALE 286), it has been clearly held that the High Court has no jurisdiction to frame a scheme by itself or direct framing of such a scheme by the State."
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17587 WP No. 108004 of 2016 HC-KAR
27. In the light of above authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to herein supra, it would not detain us for too long to accept the contention of Mr.B.S.Kamate, appearing for appellant - KPTCL-HESCOM and to brush aside the contention of Mr.Vivek Holla for the reasons aforestated which can be summarized as under:
(a) Petitioners were never appointed by KPTCL- HESCOM,
(b) There is no and there was never privity of contract between the writ petitioners and appellant HESCOM
(c) Writ petitioners were employed and appointed by the contracting agency and as such, they would be bound by the contractual terms,
(d) Appellant - HESCOM is governed by Regulations 1969, insofar as appointment is concerned and thus any Scheme formulated as per the direction of the learned single Judge would be contrary to said Regulations and thereby it would tantamount to "illegal" appointments.
(e) The status of writ petitioners even accepted to be as 'litigous employment' they cannot take umbrage under it, inasmuch as they had never been appointed by the appellant - KPTCL - HESCOM,
(f) The details like names of the persons, number of days worked, salary/wages paid, leave obtained, as to whether they possessed requisite prescribed qualification are never in the know how of the appellant-KPTCL-HESCOM.
28. Thus, in conclusion, it has to be necessarily held, what writ petitioners could not achieve directly would not be entitled to achieve indirectly by seeking preferential treatment for being recruited, sacrificing the rights of those probable candidates, who could not participate in the recruitment process on account of same not having been notified. As such, we are of the considered view that direction issued to the respondent Corporation and the Government at paragraphs 25 (ii) to (iv) would not stand the test of law. Hence, we answer to point No.(ii) formulated hereinabove in the negative i.e., against writ petitioners and in favour of appellant-KPTCL-HESCOM."
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:17587 WP No. 108004 of 2016 HC-KAR
2. In the light of the issue standing covered by the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court (supra), on all its fours and on the same reasons, the subject petition also stands disposed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE RHR/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 116