Karnataka High Court
Annapurna Uppin vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 10 February, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION No.202958/2018 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
ANNAPURNA UPPIN
W/O JAGADISH KUMAR MAMADAPUR
AGE: 35 YEARS
OCC: STATE HRD CO-ORDINATOR
ATTACHED TO ZILLA PANCHAYAT KALABURAGI
R/O CHINCHOLI LAYOUT, KALABURAGI
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI P.VILASKUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI P. NITESH VILAS KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ
& RURAL DEVELOPMENT
M.S.BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI
BENGALURU-1
2. THE COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DRINKING WATER
& SANITATION DEPARTMENT
2ND FLOOR KHB COMPLEX
KAVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560009
2
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
ZILLA PANCHAYAT
KALABURAGI-585102
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR R. TENGLI, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI VENKATESH C. MALLABADI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE NOTIFICATION DATED 25.08.2018 ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2 PUBLISHED IN KANNADA DAILY NEWS
PAPER "VIJAYA KARNATAKA" DATED 29.08.2018 WHICH IS AT
ANNEXURE-A INSOFAR AS PETITIONER POST IS CONCERNED
AT COLUMN NO.4, AND ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 03.02.2022, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this writ petition, petitioner has assailed the
Notification dated 25.08.2018 issued by the second
respondent, inviting applications for the post of Training
Co-ordinators (HRD).
2. Petitioner claims to be appointed as State
Training Co-ordinator (HRD) in the office of respondent
No.3, after participation in the interview on 05.04.2010. It
is further stated that the petitioner has executed
undertaking before respondent No.3 and her appointment
is against permanent vacancy and the same is essential
insofar as sanitation and cleanliness programme and
project launched by the respondent-authorities. The
respondent-authorities continued the services of the
petitioner as a temporary employee instead of appointing
her as permanent employee. In the meanwhile, petitioner
requested the respondent-authorities for regularization of
her services. However, the respondent-authorities have
issued notification dated 25.08.2018 (Annexure-A) inviting
applications from the eligible candidates for various posts
including Training Co-ordinators. Being aggrieved by the
same, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.
3. Sri P.Vilaskumar, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of Sri Nitesh Kumar, learned counsel
for the petitioner argued that the impugned notification
issued by the respondent-authorities is contrary to law as
the respondent-authorities are not allowed to invite new
applications from the candidates for the post of temporary
Training Co-ordinator in the place of petitioner.
Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court.
4. Sri Shivakumar R. Tengli, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for respondent-
authorities sought to justify the impugned notification at
Annexure-A and submitted that though the impugned
notification is issued, the respondent-authorities have not
resorted to disturb the petitioner at any point of time and
therefore, by reiterating the averments made in the
statement of objections, sought to justify the impugned
action.
5. In the light of the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, the issue
involved in this writ petition is,
Whether a temporary employee be
replaced/substituted by another temporary
employee?
6. Undisputedly, the petitioner has been
appointed as Temporary Training Co-ordinator pursuant to
the Notification dated 25.08.2018 and she has been
continued to work on contractual obligation. Subsequently,
the respondent-authorities have issued the impugned
notification at Annexure-A calling for appointment on
temporary basis. It is well settled principle of law that one
temporary employee cannot be replaced or substituted by
another temporary employee. In this regard, the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Hargurpratap Singh vs. State
of Punjab and Others reported in (2007)13 SCC 292 at
paragraph-3 has held as under:
"3. We have carefully looked into the
judgment of the High Court and other pleadings
that have been put forth before this Court. It is
clear that though the appellants may not be
entitled to regular appointment as such it cannot
be said that they will not be entitled to the
minimum of the pay scale nor that they should
not be continued till regular incumbents are
appointed. The course adopted by the High
Court is to displace one ad hoc arrangement by
another ad hoc arrangement which is not at all
appropriate for these persons who have gained
experience which will be more beneficial and
useful to the colleges concerned rather than to
appoint persons afresh on ad hoc basis.
Therefore, we set aside the orders made by the
High Court to the extent the same deny the
claim of the appellants of minimum pay scale
and continuation in service till regular
incumbents are appointed. We direct that they
shall be continued in service till regular
appointments are made on minimum of the pay
scale. The appeals shall stand allowed in part
accordingly."
7. Following the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex
Court, I am of the view that one contractual/adhoc
employee cannot be replaced by another contractual/adhoc
employee. However, a contractual engagement in favour
of an employee would always be subject to right of the
employer to resort to a method of regular appointment. It
would also be open for the employer to dispense with the
service of a contractual employee, if the work and conduct
is found wanting. If there be no requirement of work, it
would again be open for the employer to dis-engage the
contractual appointment. In that view of the matter,
apprehension expressed by the petitioner that she may be
replaced pursuant to issuance of the notification cannot be
ruled out in the circumstances of the case. The
respondent-authorities at paragraph-23 of the statement
of objections stated that they have not disturbed the
petitioner yet.
8. In that view of the matter, writ petition is
disposed of observing that the petitioner cannot be
replaced by another temporary employee. Respondent-
authority is directed not to take coercive steps against the
petitioner till regular appointment is made in accordance
with law. However, it is open for the respondent-
authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for
regularization in the light of the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of
Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi (3) and others
reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1.
Writ petition is disposed of in view of the
observations made above.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NB*
