Karnataka High Court
Habeeb Pasha vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 June, 2023
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
WP No. 101320 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 101320 OF 2021 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. HABEEB PASHA,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING DIVISION,
R/O. NANDI NAGAR, KOPPAL,
DIST: KOPPAL-582114.
2. MOHAMMED JAVEED PASHA,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE
PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING DIVISION,
R/O. BEHIND TALUKA, KOPPAL,
DIST: KOPPAL-582114.
Digitally
signed by
RAKESH S 3. SHARANAPPA VEERAPPA DEVAREDDI,
HARIHAR
RAKESH Location: AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
High Court
S of Karnataka, PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING DIVISION,
HARIHAR Dharwad
Date: R/O. KALYAN NAGAR, KINNAL ROAD, KOPPAL,
2023.06.16
13:27:47
+0530
DIST: KOPPAL-582114.
4. SHABBER HUSAIN,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING DIVISION,
R/O. BANNIKATTI ONI, KOPPAL,
DIST: KOPPAL-582114.
5. MAHESH HADIMANI,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING DIVISION,
R/O. JAWHAAR ROAD, KOPPAL,
-2-
WP No. 101320 of 2021
DIST: KOPPAL-582114.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ANAND R KOLLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY ITS SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND
PANCHAYAT RAJ, BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO THE GOVERNMENT,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ZILLA PANCHAYAT, KOPPAL-582114.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1-R3;
SRI. BHUSHAN KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING
THE IMPUGNED ORDERS/ENDORSEMENTS DATED 17.12.2020
BEARING NO. f¥ÀAPÉÆ/¹§âA¢-1/¹Dgï-196/2015-16 PASSED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.4 AUTHORITY AS THE SAME IS
HEREWITH PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXUE-E, E1, E2,
E3 AND E4 RESPECTIVELY & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
WP No. 101320 of 2021
ORDER
1. The petitioners, who are appointed by the
fourth respondent as daily wagers have preferred the
instant writ petition with the prayer to quash the
impugned orders dated 17.12.2020 issued by the fourth
respondent vide Annexures-E, E1, E2, E3 & E4 and
consequentially issue a writ of mandamus directing the
respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners to
the respective posts held by them.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and also perused the material available on record.
3. The petitioners were appointed as daily wagers
by the fourth respondent and the particulars of the date of
their appointment and their qualification are as follows:
Date of
Sl.
Petitioner Name joining of Qualification Category
No.
service
1. Habeeb Pasha 01.10.1995 SSLC & JODC C Grade
Mohammed Javeed
2. 01.01.1998 SSLC C Grade
Pasha
Sharanappa SSLC &
3. 01.04.1998 C Grade
Veerappa Devareddi Diploma Civil
4. Shabbeer Hussain 01.03.1999 SSLC C Grade
5. Mahesh 01.06.2000 SSLC C Grade
WP No. 101320 of 2021
4. The petitioners had filed applications seeking
regularization of their services and since the same was
erroneously rejected, the petitioners had earlier
approached this Court in WP Nos.100525-100528/2017
and connected writ petitions. The said writ petitions were
disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court by order
dated 06.11.2019 and the matter was remitted to the
respondent No.4 to consider the case of the petitioner for
regularization afresh in terms of the scheme of
regularization under which the daily wage employees were
considered and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as
possible. The respondent No.4 has thereafter issued
impugned orders/endorsements dated 17.12.2020 vide
Annexure-E series, rejecting the claim of the petitioners.
Assailing the same, the petitioners are before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
from the appointment orders which are available at
Annexure-A series, it is clear that the petitioners
WP No. 101320 of 2021
appointment was against vacant sanctioned posts. He
submits that the petitioners are fully qualified for
regularization of their services and all the qualifying
criteria prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of State of Karnataka Vs.Umadevi and others
reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 are fulfilled by the petitioners
and therefore the respondent No.4 was not justified in
issuing the impugned endorsements.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.4 who has filed his statement of objection
has argued in support of the impugned endorsements and
submits that since the petitioners do not fulfill the criteria,
their case has been rejected by the respondent No.4.
Therefore he prays to dismiss the writ petition.
7. The impugned endorsements at Annexure-E
series dated 17.12.2020, are issued by respondent No.4
rejecting petitioners prayer for regularization principally on
two grounds; firstly, on the ground that the appointment
of the petitioners was not against any vacant sanctioned
WP No. 101320 of 2021
posts and secondly, on the ground that the petitioners had
not completed 10 years of continuous service from the
date of their appointment as on 10.04.2006.
8. From the perusal of the appointment orders
available at Annexure-A series, it is seen that appointment
of the petitioners are against the vacant sanctioned posts.
9. From the date of their appointment, some of
the petitioners have completed 10 years of continuous
service as on 10.04.2006. This Court while disposing of
the earlier writ petitions filed by the petitioners, had
directed the respondent No.4 to take into consideration
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Karnataka and others Vs. M.L.Kesari and
others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247, while considering
the applications made by the petitioners for regularization
of their services. This Court has specifically observed that
the case of the petitioners for regularization is required to
be considered under the scheme of regularization, under
which other similarly situated persons were considered for
WP No. 101320 of 2021
regularization. This exercise appears to have not been
done by the respondent No.4 while issuing impugned
endorsements. Further the impugned endorsements are
similar and the reasoning assigned by respondent No.4 for
rejection of the petitioners' application are common,
though dates of appointment of the petitioners and their
qualifications are different. Therefore it is clear that there
is no application of mind by the respondent No.4 before
passing the impugned endorsements.
10. Under these circumstances, the impugned
endorsements are unsustainable. Accordingly, the
following:
Order
Writ petition is partly allowed.
The impugned endorsements Annexure-E, E1, E2, E3
and E4 dated 17.12.2020 issued by respondent No.4 are
quashed and the matter is remitted to the respondent
No.4 to reconsider the case of the petitioners for
regularization in compliance of the orders passed by this
WP No. 101320 of 2021
Court in WP Nos.100525-100528/2017 and connected writ
petitions disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court
on 06.11.2019. Since the prayer of the petitioners for
regularization has been pending for considerable period of
time, it is needless to state that respondent No.4 shall
make every endeavor to pass appropriate orders as
expeditiously as possible, but not later than a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Vnp* & Kgk / CT:BCK
