Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri. S. T. Narayana Gowda on 10 November, 2021
Bench: S.Sujatha, S Rachaiah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S. SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. RACHAIAH
WRIT PETITION No.6285/2021 (S-KSAT)
c/w.
WRIT PETITION No.6284/2021, (S-KSAT)
WRIT PETITION No.6378/2021 (S-KSAT)
W.P.No.6285/2021
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS,
PORTS & INLAND WATER TRANSPORT
3RD FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
NATIONAL HIGHWAY ZONE
K.R. CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 560 001
3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
NATIONAL HIGHWAY SUB-DIVISION
K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001
.. PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.ARUNA SHYAM .M., AAG
a/w. SMT.SHILPA S. GOGI, HCGP) (PHYSICAL HEARING)
2
AND:
SRI.B.RAJANNA
S/O. LATE BASAVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
NATIONAL HIGHWAY SUB-DIVISION
BENGALURU - 560 001 .. RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.RANGANATH S.JOIS, ADVOCATE) (VC)
---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
(a) CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE ORDER
DT.26.08.2020 IN APPLICATION NO.1430/2019 PASSED BY
THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, AT
BENGALURU;
(b) ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH / SET-ASIDE THE
ORDER DT. 26.08.2020 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN
APPLICATION NO.1430/2019 (ANNEXURE-C); AND
(c) DISMISS THE APPLICATION NO.1430/2019 FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU.
W.P.No.6284/2021
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS,
PORTS & INLAND WATER TRANSPORT
3RD FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING
3
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
(C & D), K.R. CIRCLE
BENGALURU - 560 001
3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
NO.2, SUB-DIVISION
CHANNAPATTANA
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562159
.. PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.ARUNA SHYAM .M., AAG
a/w. SMT.SHILPA S. GOGI, HCGP) (PHYSICAL HEARING)
AND:
SRI.S.T.NARAYANA GOWDA
S/O. S.K.THIMME GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PWD SUB-DIVISION, NO.2
CHANNAPATTANA
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
RESIDING AT D.T.RAMU CIRCLE
PWD QUARTERS, CHANNAPATTANA
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 160 .. RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.RANGANATH S.JOIS, ADVOCATE) (VC)
---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
(a) CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE ORDER
DT.26.08.2020 IN APPLICATION NO.3367/2019 PASSED BY
THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, AT
BENGALURU;
4
(b) ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH / SET-ASIDE THE
ORDER DT. 26.08.2020 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN
APPLICATION NO.3367/2019 (ANNEXURE-B); AND
(c) DISMISS THE APPLICATION NO.3367/2019 FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU.
W.P.No.6378/2021
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS
& INLAND WATER TRANSPORT (SERVICES) C-1
3RD FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
(C & D), K.R. CIRCLE
BENGALURU - 560 001
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT
SUB-DIVISION, GUBBI TALUK
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 101
.. PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.ARUNA SHYAM .M., AAG
a/w. SMT.SHILPA S. GOGI, HCGP) (PHYSICAL HEARING)
AND:
SRI.JAGADEESHAIAH
SINCE DECEASED, REP. BY LRs.,
VIDE COURT ORDER DT.27.10.2021
5
1(a) SMT. SHASHIKALA R
W/O. LATE JAGADEESHAIAH
AGED 49 YEARS
R/O. NO.AMSHAJA NILAYA
KEB LAYOUT,
NEAR LAKSHMI THEATER
BATWADI, TUMKUR
1(b) ANKITH J
S/O. LATE JAGADEESHAIAH
AGED 26 YEARS
R/O. NO.AMSHAJA NILAYA
KEB LAYOUT,
NEAR LAKSHMI THEATER
BATWADI, TUMKUR
.. RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RANGANATH S.JOIS, ADVOCATE) (VC)
---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
(a) CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE ORDER
DT.26.08.2020 IN APPLICATION NO.4881/2019 PASSED BY
THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, AT
BENGALURU;
(b) ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH / SET-ASIDE THE
ORDER DT. 26.08.2020 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN
APPLICATION NO.4881/2019 (ANNEXURE-B); AND
(c) DISMISS THE APPLICATION NO.4881/2019 FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
S.RACHAIAH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
6
ORDER
Since common and akin issues are involved in these
matters they are taken up together and disposed of by this
common order.
2. These writ petitions are filed by the petitioner/State
challenging the common order dated 26.08.2020 passed by the
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru ("Tribunal"
for short) dated 26.08.2020 in application Nos.1430/2019,
3367/2019 and 4881/2019.
In W.P No.6285/2021
3. The respondent was working as Assistant Engineer in
Public Works Department on daily wage basis ever since his
initial appointment i.e. with effect from 07.05.1986 as against
the vacant post. His service was terminated with effect from
25.02.1988. He has approached the Labour Court against the
termination. The Labour Court allowed the reference and
directed to re-instate the respondent. The State Government
has filed W.P Nos.33401/2002 C/w 25911/2002 challenging the
award of the Labour Court. This Court, on 27.03.2006 dismissed
the writ petition and confirmed the order of the Labour Court.
4. The respondent further submits that several Junior
Engineers/ Assistant Engineers have been appointed on contract
basis and have been regularized by order dated 29.09.1994 even
in the absence of vacant post. Hence, they also seek
regularization on principle of parity with other employees.
5. Sri.Aruna Shyam, learned Additional Advocate
General representing the State submits that the respondent was
not appointed to the sanctioned post and he is not having
continuity of service, hence the Government has rightly issued
the endorsement. Further, learned Additional Advocate General
submits that viewed from any angle, the respondent is not
eligible to be regularized. The Tribunal ought not to have
considered the applications. Since the Tribunal has committed
an error in setting aside the endorsement issued by the
Government, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to
set aside the order passed by the Tribunal, hence, he prays to
allow the petition.
In W.P No.6284/2021
6. The respondent in W.P No.6284/2021 was working
as a Junior Engineer with effect from 25.07.1983 in the office of
the Assistant Executive Engineer No.2, Sub Division, Public
Works Department, Channapatna. His service was terminated
without an order with effect from 19.05.1985. As against the
termination, he filed a reference before the Labour Court. The
Labour Court allowed the reference and directed for
reinstatement. Since the Government has not implemented the
orders of the Labour Court, he has approached this Court
seeking direction to implement the order of the Labour Court.
This Court, by order dated 01.07.2003 directed the Government
to implement the award of the Labour Court, against which, the
State Government had filed a writ petition before this Court in
W.P No.25648/2004 seeking to set aside the award passed by
the Labour Court. This Court dismissed the writ petition with a
direction to implement the award and directed the payment of
back wages to the respondent herein. The respondent herein
has made a representation to the Government stating that he
has completed 33 years in the department and hence, requested
the authority to regularize him also on par with other similarly
placed employees. The same came to be rejected by the
Government vide endorsement dated 31.01.2019, against which,
the respondent herein approached the Tribunal seeking to set
aside the endorsement. The Tribunal after considering the
material and facts of the case allowed the petition by setting
aside the endorsement issued by the Government dated
31.01.2019.
7. Sri.Aruna Shyam, learned Additional Advocate
General representing the State submits that the respondent was
not appointed as against the sanctioned post and he is not
having continuity of service, hence the Government has rightly
issued the endorsement. Further, learned Additional Advocate
General submits that viewed from any angle, the respondent is
not eligible to be regularized, the Tribunal ought not to have
considered the applications, since the Tribunal has committed an
error in setting aside the endorsement issued by the
Government, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to
set aside the order passed by the Tribunal, hence, he prays to
allow the petition.
8. Per contra, Sri.Ranganath S.Jois, learned counsel for
the respondent submits that so for as the sanctioned post is
concerned, it is the scheme formulated in view of the judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court directing the daily wage workers to be
regularized. Hence, the question of appointment to the
sanctioned post would not arise. Further, he submits that so far
as continuity of the service of the respondent herein is
concerned, the Government has terminated illegally without
giving opportunity. Hence, the respondent approached the
Labour Court. The Labour Court considering all the documents
and evidence advanced has rightly passed the award to reinstate
the respondent. Hence, the arguments canvassed by the
learned Additional Advocate General cannot be taken into
consideration, as such, the learned counsel prays to reject the
writ petition with cost.
In W.P No.6378/2021
9. The brief facts of the case of the respondent herein
are that the respondent was working as Junior Engineer with
effect from 01.03.1988 in the office of the Assistant Executive
Engineer, Gubbi, Tumkur District. His service of 10 years was
completed as on 31.03.1988. In the year 1999, he has made a
representation to the Government seeking his regularization on
the ground that similarly situated daily wage employees were
appointed with diploma and engineering qualification, though
they have not been appointed against a sanctioned post their
appointment have been regularized by virtue of an order dated
29.09.1994. Hence, he is seeking regularization on par with
other employees by virtue of Government order dated
29.09.1994.
10. Sri.Aruna Shyam, learned AAG representing the
State submits that the respondent worked as daily wage
employee engaged in PWD on 05.09.1998. Further, he has not
completed 10 years or more in the duly sanctioned post since he
had not obtained requisite qualification to the said post. He has
not produced any marks card to show that he has completed
Bachelor of Engineer as on date when the other employees were
regularized. Hence, question of giving the benefit on par with
other employees would not arise. Further, he submits that
respondent was engaged on daily wage basis under Monthly
Rated Establishment from 01.03.1988 till 1998 without having
any prescribed qualification to the post of Assistant Engineer.
This fact ought to have been considered by the Tribunal, the
Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that he has completed
10 years of service and he had prescribed qualification as on
date when the Government Order dated 30.06.1998 was in
force. The learned counsel seeks to set aside the order of the
Tribunal.
11. Sri.Ranganna S.Jois, learned counsel for the
respondent submits that the Government has not at all
considered the representation made by the respondent though
similarly placed diploma or engineering graduates have been
regularized. The respondent herein was discriminated by the
Government. The Government ought to have considered the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MALATHI
DAS (retired) now P.B.Mahishy & Others v. SURESH & Others
reported in (2014) 13 SCC 249 ("MALATHI DAS case" for short)
instead of considering the judgment in the case of SECRETARY,
STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others v. UMADEVI & Others reported
in (2006) 4 SCC 1 ("UMADEVI case" for short). Since the
Government has committed an error in not considering the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and not considering the
respondent's representation, the Tribunal has rightly appreciated
and appropriately allowed the application and he submits to
dismiss the writ petition with costs.
12. We have carefully considered the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the material on record. At this point, it is relevant to
refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
UMADEVI (supra). Paragraph 53 of the judgment is relevant for
consideration which reads as under:
"53. One aspect needs to be clarified.
There may be cases where irregular
appointments (not illegal appointments) as
explained in S.V. Narayanappa, R.N.
Nanjundappa and B.N. Nagarajan and referred
to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified
persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might
have been made and the employees have
continued to work for ten years or more but
without the intervention of orders of the courts
or of tribunals. The question of regularization
of the services of such employees may have to
be considered on merits in the light of the
principles settled by this Court in the cases
above referred to and in the light of this
judgment. In that context, the Union of India,
the State Governments and their
instrumentalities should take steps to
regularize as a one time measure, the services
of such irregularly appointed, who have worked
for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts
but not under cover of orders of courts or of
tribunals and should further ensure that
regular recruitments are undertaken to fill
those vacant sanctioned posts that require to
be filled up, in cases where temporary
employees or daily wagers are being now
employed. The process must be set in motion
within six months from this date. We also
clarify that regularization, if any already made,
but not sub judice, need not be reopened
based on this judgment, but there should be
no further by-passing of the constitutional
requirement and regularizing or making
permanent, those not duly appointed as per
the constitutional scheme."
13. On careful perusal of the above judgment, we are of
the opinion that certain guidelines for regularisation have been
issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UMADEVI
(supra), the same are summed up and following are the three
essential requirements for regularization which are as under:
a) Employees should have been appointed as against the
sanctioned post.
b) Employees should have worked for more than 10 years
as daily wage worker / ad-hoc worker.
c) They should have possessed the minimum qualification
stipulated for the appointment
Subject to three requirements being satisfied, even if the
appointment process did not involve competitive selection, the
appointment would be treated irregular and not illegal and
thereby qualify for regularization.
14. On careful perusal of the material adduced by the
respondents in their reply as well as the documents, it would
disclose that both the respondents have fulfilled the
requirements as stipulated in UMADEVI's case stated supra.
However, the Government/petitioners herein denied the benefit
of regularization to the respondents herein which is in violation
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also the principles of
parity. As similarly situated employees have been regularized by
virtue of the order dated 29.09.1994, the same could have been
given to the respondents also. Considering the above mentioned
point, it is necessary to extract paragraph No.1 of the order
dated 02.12.1994 which reads as follows:
"1. Government are pleased to direct that the
Daily Rated Engineering Graduates and
Diploma Holders working in Public Works and
Irrigation Departments who have been
appointed on or after 1-7-84 and before 15-
10-92 and who are continuing in service as on
29-9-94 and who fulfill all the conditions laid
dated 6-8-90, DPAR 13 SLC 94 dated 29-9-94
and ¹D¸ÀÄE 17 ¸É¸ÀÜD 94 dated 20-10-94 shall be
brought on Monthly Rated Establishment
against the Monthly Rated Establishment posts
created in the Government Order."
The above requirements clearly indicate that number of
sanctioned posts of Assistant Engineers was 326 and Junior
Engineers was 528 in Monthly Rated Establishment. The posts in
M.R.E cease when the incumbent is absorbed in regular service
or resigns from service. It is made clear that clause No.5 of the
Government Order dated 02.12.1994 stipulates certain
guidelines which are mentioned below:
(i) "They should have been appointed on or after
1-7-84 and before 15-10-92.
(ii) They should be continuing in service beyond
1-7-84 or from the date of appointment on daily
wages whichever is later till the date of 29-9-94.
(iii) They should have been employed and continued
on whole-time basis till 29-9-94.
(iv) The daily rated Graduate Engineers brought on
Monthly Rated Establishment are eligible for
consolidated salary of Rs.2050/- per month
subject to educational qualification and other
qualifications prescribed in the Cadre and
Recruitment Rules to the post of Assistant
Engineer.
(v) The daily rated Diploma Engineers brought on
Monthly Rated Establishment are eligible for
consolidated salary of Rs.1520/- per month
subject to educational qualifications and other
qualifications prescribed in the Cadre and
Recruitment Rules to the post of Junior Engineers.
(vi) Further, they will be entitled to an Annual
Increase of Rs.15/- (without any allowance)
subject to following the principles laid down in
Rule 51 of Karnataka Civil Service Rules.
(vii) All the Graduate Engineers and Engineering
Diploma holders who do not fulfill the eligibility
and suitability criteria laid down above, for
absorption in Monthly Rated Establishment shall
be retrenched. All such retrenched Graduate
Engineers and Engineering Diploma Holders shall
be entitled to claim compensation gratuity if any,
to which they are legally eligible.
(viii) They shall be posted against the vacant posts in
the department and for the period such vacant
posts are held by the Engineers on Monthly Rated
Establishment in accordance with these orders,
the regular post in the time scale of pay shall
stand held in abeyance.
(ix) The daily rated Diploma and Graduate Engineers
who are brought under Monthly Rated
Establishment in accordance with these orders are
liable for transfer and such transfer should as for
as possible be within the zones and no such inter-
zonal transfer should be made without prior
approval of Government."
15. By virtue of the above circular and its conditions
some of the ad-hoc/daily wage workers have been regularized.
Though after having fulfilled the criteria stipulated in the circular,
the respondents herein have not been considered for
regularisation. The scheme of regularization has been denied,
hence, they have approached the Labour Court for their
continuity of service for their illegal dismissal/termination from
the respective departments. The issue of their illegal
termination has already been decided by the Labour Court and
affirmed by this Court on 27.03.2006 in W.P Nos.33401/2002
C/w 25911/2002. Such being the fact their regularization for the
post has been denied. It is contrary to the circular issued by
the same Government. Since the respondents herein have
fulfilled the criteria and other similarly placed employees have
already been regularized by virtue of circular dated 29.09.1994
and by virtue of UMADEVI's case, these respondents
representation should have been considered by the authority.
The Government has erred in coming to the conclusion that, the
respondents herein have not fulfilled the conditions as stipulated
in the case which is bad in law and unsustainable.
16. Further, it is relevant to place in reliance to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MALATHI
DAS (retired) now P.B.Mahishy & Others v. SURESH & Others
reported in (2014) 13 SCC 249. It is relevant to extract
paragraphs 13 and 14 which read as under:
"12. It is not in dispute that the original batch of
employees who had filed writ petition Nos. 33541-
571/1998 on the basis of which the writ petitions
filed by the respondents herein (W.P. Nos. 39117-
176/1999) were allowed by the order dated
15.12.1999 have been regularized. It is also not in
dispute that out of the 445 employees who had
filed writ petition Nos.39117-176/1999, by
separate government orders, the service of 161, 64
and 55 employees have been regularized in three
batches. The records placed before the Court would
indicate that 7 other persons have been regularized
during the pendency of the present appeal. In a
situation where a Scheme had been framed on
29.12.2005 to give effect to the order of the High
Court dated 15.12.1999 passed in the writ petitions
filed by the respondents herein and many of the
similarly situated persons have been regularized
pursuant thereto the action of the appellants in not
granting regularization to the present respondents
cannot appear to be sound or justified. The fact
that the regularization of 55 employees, similarly
situated to the present respondents, was made on
18.04.2006 i.e. after the decision of this Court in
Umadevi is also not in serious dispute though Shri
Bhat, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants,
has tried to contend that the said regularizations
were made prior to the decision in Umadevi. The
date of the order of regularization of the 55
persons i.e. 18.4.2006 will leave no doubt or
ambiguity in the matter.
13. In the aforesaid undisputed facts it is wholly
unnecessary for us to consider as to whether the
cases of persons who were awaiting regularization
on the date of the decision in Umadevi is required
to be dealt with in accordance with the conditions
stipulated in para 53 of Umadevi (supra) inasmuch
as the claims of the respondent employees can well
be decided on principles of parity. Similarly placed
employees having been regularized by the State
and in case of some of them such regularization
being after the decision in Umadevi (supra) we are
of the view that the stand taken by the appellants
in refusing regularization to the respondents cannot
be countenanced. However, as the said stand of the
appellants stem from their perception and
understanding of the decision in Umadevi we do not
hold them liable for contempt but make it clear that
the appellants and all the other competent
authorities of the State will now be obliged and
duty bound to regularize the services of the
respondents (74 in number) which will now be done
forthwith and in any case within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of this order."
On perusal of the above judgment, it is very clear that the
principles of parity would be applicable to the similarly placed
employees for regularization. Considering the above said
judgment and facts of the case on hand, the respondents are
entitled for principles of parity for their regularization.
17. Insofar as W.P No.6378/2021 is concerned, the
respondent in the case was appointed as Junior Engineer with
effect from 01.03.1988 to 31.08.1999 and he was also brought
under Monthly Rated Establishment as on 31.07.1998 and
appointed as Assistant Engineer. He has made representation to
the Government to consider for regularization as he has
completed 10 years of service as daily wage workers and also
had passed the stipulated educational qualification i.e. B.E
Degree as on the date before considering him under M.R.E.
scheme. As per the records, it reveals that the respondent in
this case had obtained B.E Degree in the year 1995. So
considering the service and educational qualification he should
have been considered for regularization as per the circular dated
29.09.1994. However, the Government/ petitioners herein failed
to consider the representations and issued endorsement stating
that the respondents have not fulfilled the criteria of UMADEVI's
case (supra), point No.1 and 4 which is contrary to the circular
dated 29.09.1994.
18. To sum up the contentions of respondents, the
respondents have fulfilled the criteria of continuity of service of
more than 10 years and also had obtained requisite
qualifications as stipulated in the C & R Rules for the post of
Assistant Engineers etc. Inspite of having passed the two
stipulated conditions, they have been denied for reguarization.
It reveals from the record that one of the respondents herein has
already retired and one of the respondents has died and his legal
representatives are brought on record. The Government ought
to have considered the representations by virtue of order of the
Tribunal.
19. On perusal of the well reasoned order passed by the
Tribunal, we are of the considered opinion that interference in
such order would not be called for and we do not find any
infirmity or irregularity in the order which is impugned herein, as
a result, writ petitions filed by the State stands dismissed.
In view of the disposal of the main matters, pending IA's
stands disposed off as calling for no further orders.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
UN
