Laxmidevi D/O Durgappa vs The Deputy Commissioner And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 3392 Kant

                         1


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
               KALABURAGI BENCH

  DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

                     BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

           W. P. No.202382/2018 (S-REG)

BETWEEN:

LAXMIDEVI,
D/O DURGAPPA,
AGE: ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OCC: ASST. TEACHER,
R/O WARD NO.10,
NATARAJ COLONY,
NEAR IBRAHIMSAB HOUSE,
SINDHNOOR,
TQ. SINDHNOOR, DIST. RAICHUR.

                                   ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI B.K. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

AND :

1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
RAICHUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584101.

2. THE PLANNING DIRECTOR,
DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL,
O/O DY. COMMISSIONER,
DIST. RAICHUR-584101.

3. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
VISVESVARAYYA TOWER, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
                                2


4. THE CHIEF OFFICER,
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
SINDHNOOR,
TQ. SINDHNOOR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 128.

                                       .. RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. ARCHANA P. TIWARI, ADDITIONAL
GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3
SRI R.V. NADAGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.4)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
THAT THIS HON`BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO
4 TO REGULARIZE AND ABSORB THE SERVICE OF THE
PETITIONER AND WHATEVER BENEFITS ARISE THEREIN
SAME IS TO BE PAYABLE BY THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO
4 AS PER ANNEXURE 'A' IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND ETC.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher

on 13.07.1990 against a clear vacancy. The petitioner has

worked ever since, but still her service was not

regularized. The petitioner sought regularization of her

services in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the

case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others vs.

Uma Devi and others [(2006) 4 SCC 1]. The respondent

No.4 addressed a letter to the respondent No.1 mentioning

therein the names of the persons who were entitled to be

regularized. Though the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have

sought and obtained information as to whether the

petitioner had completed 10 years of service and whether

she was qualified to be regularized, the respondents have

not considered her request. Therefore, she has filed the

present writ petition seeking for a writ in the nature of

mandamus directing the respondents to regularize her

services.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for

respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the

respondent No.4.

3. When the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature

of mandamus, the Court can compel the performance of a

statutory authority but seldom would issue an affirmative

direction to regularize the services of the petitioner, since

the petitioner is bound to satisfy the eligibility criteria for

regularization and it is for the official respondents to

consider the same.

4. In that view of the matter, respondent Nos.1

and 3 shall consider the case of the petitioner for

regularization of her service within a period of three

months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this

order.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed off.

Sd/-

JUDGE

sma