Karnataka High Court
Smt. Maheshwari.S.Hiremath vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 15 February, 2022
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION No.202400 OF 2018 (S RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. MAHESHWARI.S.HIREMATH
D/O SHIVABASAYYA. B. HIREMATH,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: FULL TIME LECTURER
SSL LAW COLLEGE AND PART TIME
RESEARCH SCHOLAR GULBARGA UNIVERSITY
R/O JAGATH H.NO.2-491, JAGATH
KALABURAGI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI RATNA N. SHIVAYOGIMATH ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LAW
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-01.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
(COLLEGIATE EDUCATION), M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU-1.
3. THE COMMISSIONER DEPT. OF COLLEGIATE
EDUCATION TECHNICAL EDUCATION BHAVANA
PALACE ROAD,
BENGALURU-1.
2
4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
REGIONAL OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF
COLLEGIATE EDUCATION KALABURAGI
DIST. KALABURAGI-585102.
5. THE PRESIDENT
HKE SOCIETY KALABURAGI
DIST. KALABURAGI-585101.
6. THE PRINCIPAL
SETH SHANKARLAL LAHOTI LAW COLLEGE
KALABURAGI
DIST. KALABURAGI-585101.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT MAYA T.R. HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR
DIRECTION OR ORDER WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS,
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 4 TO INCLUDE THE POST OF
THE PETITIONER INTO GRANT-IN-AID, BY CONSIDERING THE
RECOMMENDATION LETTERS DATED 08.02.2013 AND 09.02.2013,
VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND H. RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Heard. It is the case of the petitioner that, petitioner was
enrolled as the Part Time Research Scholar in Ph.D from the
Gulbarga University and petitioner has been appointed as a Part
Time Lecturer by 6th respondent-Collage in the year 2005. It is
also stated in the writ petition that, 6 th respondent-College has
recommended the respondent-Government to include the name
of the petitioner in the grant-in-aid as per Annexures- G, G1 and
G2. However, the same has not been considered by the
respondent- authorities and as such, the 6th respondent-college
has addressed a letter dated 09.02.2013 to the 1 st respondent as
per Annexure-H. It is further stated in the writ petition that the
respondent-authorities, by letter dated 25.07.2019, addressed
letter to the Joint Director, Department of Education, Kalaburgi
and stated that the petitioner has been appointed by the 6 th
respondent-College, without approval from the Government and
therefore, regularisation of the service of the petitioner cannot
be considered. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has
presented this writ petition.
2. Smt Ratna N.Shivayogimath, learned counsel for the
petitioner contended that the petitioner was appointed as Part
Time Lecturer in the 6th respondent- College from the year 2005
and thereafter, she has been appointed as Full Time Lecturer
against the vacant post by the 6th respondent-College, and the
petitioner is also holding Doctor of Philosophy and therefore,
there is no impediment for the respondent-authorities to
consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation of service.
She further contended that the petitioner qualifies for all the four
conditions stipulated at Paragraph 53 of the judgment rendered
in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi
and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and therefore, she
submitted that the writ petition be allowed with a direction to the
respondent-authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for
regularisation of service.
3. Per contra, Smt Maya T R., learned HCGP argued
that since the petitioner has been appointed by the 6 th
respondent-College without securing approval from the
respondent-authorities, and therefore, the case of the petitioner
cannot be considered for regularisation of service and as such,
learned HCGP sought to justify the action of the respondent-
authorities as per letter dated 25.07.2019.
4. In the light of the submission made by the learned
counsel appearing for the parties, the core question to be
answered in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled
for regularisation of service in terms of the law declared by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umadevi referred to supra.
5. Perusal of the writ papers would indicate that the
petitioner is working in the 6th respondent-College since 2005
and work load for the year 2012-13 establishes the fact that, the
service of the petitioner has been utilised by the 6 th respondent-
College, as Full Time Lecturer and she was continued to be in
service as on the date of the filing the writ petition. It is also
evident from the records that the 6th respondent-College
requires the services of the petitioner and she has been
appointed as against the vacant post and in that view of the
matter, I am of the view that there is no impediment for the
respondent-authorities to consider the issue afresh by applying
the principles laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Umadevi referred supra and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law. In view of factual aspects of the case, it is
needless to state that, the letter dated 25.07.2019 addressed by
the Director, Department of Law, Justice and Human Rights to
the Joint Director, Regional Office, Department of Collegiate
Education, Kalaburagi is nonest. Accordingly, letter dated
25.07.2019 is quashed. However, liberty is reserved to the
petitioner to provide all relevant data with regard to service
rendered by her at 6th respondent-College for consideration of
the respondent-authorities and the respondent-authorities shall
consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the conditions
stipulated at paragraph 53 of the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umadevi referred to above. In
view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed and
letter dated 25.07.2019 produced at Annexure-S is quashed.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SB
