Miss. Bemina J.A. W/O Mr. Dinesh ... vs The Director General And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 3394 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

     WRIT PETITION Nos.222819-821/2020 (S, REG)

BETWEEN

1.     MISS. BEMINA J.A.
       W/O MR. DINESH,
       AGE: 39 YEARS,
       OCC: ASST. PROFESSOR IN THE
       DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRIC
       NURSING ESIC COLLEGE OF
       NURSING, ATTACHED TO ESIC
       MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL,
       SEDAM ROAD, KALABURAGI-585 106.

2.     MRS. SENTHIL KAVITA R.
       W/O MR. SENTHIL KUMAR R.
       AGE: 43 YEARS,
       OCC: ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN THE
       DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL & SURGICAL
       NURSING ESIC COLLEGE OF
       NURSING, ATTACHED TO ESIC
       MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL,
       SEDAM ROAD, KALABURAGI-585 106.

3.     MR. BHEEMASHANKAR
       S/O APPASAB HOSMANI,
       AGE: 35 YEARS,
       OCC: ASST. PROFESSOR IN THE
       DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL & SURGICAL
                         2




      NURSING, ESIC COLLEGE OF
      NURSING, ATTACHED TO ESIC
      MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL,
      SEDAM ROAD, KALABURAGI-585 106.

                                   ...PETITIONERS

(SRI. P.VILASKUMAR MARTHAND RAO, ADVOCATE)

AND

01. THE DIRECOR GENERAL,
    ESIC HEAD QUARTER,
    PANCHADEEP BHAVAN,
    COMRADE INDRAJEET GUPTA (CIG) MARG,
    NEW DELHI 110001.

02. THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE
    CORPORATION, HOSPITAL & MEDICAL COLLEGE,
    SEDAM ROAD, KALABURAGI-585 106,
    THROUGH ITS DEAN.

03. THE VICE PRINCIPAL,
    ESIC COLLEGE OF NURSING,
    ATTACHED TO ESIC MEDICAL COLLEGE
    & HOSPITAL, SEDAM ROAD,
    KALABURAGI-585106.
                                 ....RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SANJEEVKUMAR C. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR
R-1 AND R-2;
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.3 SERVED)

   THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FOR QUASHING THE
INTERNET DOWNLOADED COPIES OF NOTIFICATIONS
ISSUED    BY    RESPONDENT    NO.2    VIDE   NO.
532/GLBNC/A/12/27/2019 DATED 18.01.2020 WHICH IS
                              3




AT   ANNEXURE-A    AND    CORRIGENDUM    OF   SAID
NOTIFICATION         VIDE        ORDER         NO.
532/GLBNC/A/12/27/2019 DATED 23.01.2020 WHICH IS
AT ANNEXURE A-1 CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS      DIRECTING   THE   RESPONDENTS     TO
REGULARIZE THE SERVICE OF THE PETITIONERS NO. 1 TO
3 FROM THE DATE OF THEIR INITIAL APPOINTMENTS AND
EXTEND ALL THE BENEFITS OF PERMANENT/REGULAR
EMPLOYEES AND EXTEND ALL SUCH BENEFITS WHICH
ARE OTHERWISE PERMANENT OR REGULAR EMPLOYEES
ARE ENTITLED.


     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

                         ORDER

The petitioners have challenged the Notification

issued by Respondent No.2 dated 18.01.2020 and the

corrigendum dated 23.01.2020. The petitioners have also

sought for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the

respondents to regularize the services of petitioner Nos. 1

to 3 from their initial appointment and extend all the

benefits.

2. The petitioners' claim that they were appointed

against the permanent vacancies as Associate Professor

and Assistant Professor respectively in the year 2013 and

2014 respectively. Though their appointment were against

clear vacancies, yet they were treated as contract

employees. Petitioners contend that the respondents have

now issued a Notification dated 12.02.2020 for recruitment

of Vice Principal cum Professor, Associate Professor and

Assistant Professor, again on contractual basis for one

year. Therefore, the learned counsel for petitioners

contend that when the petitioners were already appointed

on contractual basis they cannot be replaced by another

set of contractual employees. In this regard the learned

counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on judgment

of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hargurpartap

Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, reported in

(2007) 13 SCC 292 and contends that a contract

employee cannot be replaced by another contractual

employee. Learned counsel also placed reliance on a

judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition

No. 6878/2020 (S REG).

did not dispute the fact that the petitioners are all

contractual employees and they are continued in service as

on the date of filing of the Writ Petition. He also did not

dispute Notifications issued at Annexure A and A-1, by

which the respondents invited applications from eligible

candidates for appointment on contractual basis.

4. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble

Supreme Court referred above, this Writ Petition is

allowed. The impugned notification inviting applications

from eligible candidates for appointment on contractual

basis is quashed. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall

continue the appointment of petitioners until a Notification

is issued for regular recruitment. The issue of

regularization of petitioners is left open to be considered

by the respondents.

Sd/-

JUDGE

*MK