Karnataka High Court
Umesha T. N vs State Of Karnataka on 13 June, 2023
Bench: E.S.Indiresh
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:20204
WP NO.3718 OF 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.3718 OF 2023 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. UMESHA T.N.
S/O NAGARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RANGANATHAPURA,
MADALURU POST,
SIRA TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT- 572 137.
2. KANTHARAJU T.
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
NO.1753,D-GROUP LAYOUT,
ANNAPURNESWARI NAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 091.
3. NARASIMHA MURTHY H.N.
S/O NARASIMHAIAH
Digitally signed by
ARUN KUMAR M S AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
HARADAGERE VILLAGE AND POST,
NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 222.
4. MANJUNATHA T.B.
S/O G.B. BASAVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
SIDDALINGESWARA PRINTERS
OPPOSITE B.G. PALYA CIRCLE,
TUMAKUR - 572 101.
5. K.H. JAGADISH
S/O HUCHAGANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:20204
WP NO.3718 OF 2023
KODIGEHALLI,
BYATHA POST, URDIGERE HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 140.
6. MALLESH S.M.
S/O MALLIKARJUNAIAH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
SUBBANNANAPALYA,
HULIKAL POST, KUDURU HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 561 101.
7. C.L. MANJUNATH
S/O LATE LAKSHMANAIAH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
OLD POST OFFICE ROAD,
VENAKTESHPURA, SIRA GATE,
TUMAKURU - 572 106.
8. MAHESH
S/O GANGARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
VENAKTESHPURA, SIRA GATE,
TUMAKURU - 572 106.
9. S.C. JAYARAMA
S/O CHALUVEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
M. SHIVARA VILLAGE AND POST,
BAGURU HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATTANA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 111.
10. KUSHA D.A.
S/O LATE AMASEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
DARASIHALLI VILLAGE,
M. SHIVARA POST, BAGURU HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATTANA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 111.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:20204
WP NO.3718 OF 2023
11. SRINIVAS G.
S/O GIRIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
NO.5, 7TH 'B' MAIN,
MADDURAMMA LAYOUT,
SUNKADAKATTE,
BENGALURU NORTH - 560 091.
12. ARUNAKUMAR N.
S/O NILAKANTAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
NO.116, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
3RD CROSS, HOISALANAGARA,
SUNKADAKATTE,
BENGALURU - 560 091.
13. VENUGOPALA B.S.
S/O SIDDAGANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
BETTANAGERE VILLAGE, HUSKUR POST,
DASANAPUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU - 562 162.
14. DODDAIAH G.T.
S/O THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
KENGAL GOLLARAHATTI,
BARAGENAHALLI POST,
SOMAPURA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGAURU RURAL DISTRICT - 572 111.
15. SRINIVAS C.K.
S/O KARITIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
NO.27/1, 3RD MAIN, 2ND STAGE,
BAPUJINAGAR,
BENGALURU SOUTH - 560 026.
16. RAVIKUMAR T.N.
S/O NARAYAN MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:20204
WP NO.3718 OF 2023
NO.2, MALLIGE ROAD,
1ST CROSS, GOKUL BADAVANE,
TUMAKUR.
17. NARAYANA SWAMY C.
S/O CHIKKABERANNA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
SETTERAHALLI, VISHWANATHAPURA POST,
KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
18. HANUMANTHA RAJU B.
S/O H.C. BHEEMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
P.N.R. PALYA, SIRA GATE,
TUMAKURU - 572 106.
19. PRASANNA MURTHY M.,
S/O MARULAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
LAKKUR THOTA, SOMAPURA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
20. CHIKKANNA K.C.
S/O CHIKKAHANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
KAMALAPURA, DEVARAHOSHALLI POST,
SOMAPURA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
21. HANUMANAYAK
S/O CHINNANAYAK
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
GOLLAHALLI TANDYA,
ANANTARAHALLI POST,
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL.
22. SIDDARAJU
S/O JAGGAIAH
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:20204
WP NO.3718 OF 2023
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
BETTANAGERE VILLAGE, HUSKUR POST,
DASANAPUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU - 562 162.
23. KUMARASWAMY H.S.
S/O SANNARANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
KUSHALAPURA, BARAKANAHALU POST,
C.N. HALLI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
24. SOMASHEKRA T.
S/O THOPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
MARALENAHALLI, WARD NO.1,
SIRA GATE,
TUMAKURU -572 106.
25. MANJUNATHA C.
S/O C. CHOWDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
GORURU VILLAGE, SOLURU HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 127.
26. GANGADARAPPA S.R.
S/O RAMALINGANAYAKA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
SASALU VILLAGE AND POST,
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 226.
27. KRISHNAPPA P.C.
S/O CHIKKARANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
PINNENAHALLI, HOSAKERE POST,
GUBBI TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
28. RANGANARASIMAIAH
S/O RANGAIAH
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC:20204
WP NO.3718 OF 2023
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
SIDUGANAHALLI, HARTHI POST,
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
29. SRINIVASA B.N.
S/O NARASIMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RAYAN NAGARA, NELAMANGALA,
BENGALURU RURAL.
30. MURTHY
S/O AJJAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
KENGAL GOLLARAHATTI,
BARAGENAHALLI POST, SOMAPURA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 572 111.
31. BUGUDEGAWDA M.R.
S/O LATE RANGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
B. MUDUGERE, KENCHANAHALLI POST,
BELLURU HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT.
32. MAHADEVASWAMY K.N.
S/O NANJUNDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
ANTHARASANAHALLI,
ARAKERE POST, MADHUGIRI ROAD,
TUMAKURU - 572 106.
33. RAGAVENDRA NAYAKA U.G.
S/O GOVINDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
UNAGANALA, HOSAKERE POST,
HAGALAVADI HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK,
TUMAKURU - 572 222.
34. SHANKARA K.S.
S/O SEENAPPA
-7-
NC: 2023:KHC:20204
WP NO.3718 OF 2023
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
KARALUPALYA, CHANNENAHALLI POST,
BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMAKURU TAUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
35. SIDDARAJU H.
S/O HANUMANTHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
CHIKKAGUNDAGALLU, HOBALAPURA POST,
KORA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM A. HUILGOL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SAMARTH PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY IS UNDER SECRETARY,
DEAPRTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION
AND LITERACY,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DIRECTOR
GOVERNMENT SECURITY PRESS,
PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
TUMKUR ROAD,
BENGALURU URBAN - 560 058.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.S. NAGARAJA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE PORTION OF THE ORDER WHEREIN THE JOBS OF
THE PETITIONERS IS TERMINATED IN ORDER DATED 07TH
FEBRUARY, 2023 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1-UNDER
SECRETARY VIDE ANNEXURE-G; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS
TO REGULARIZE THE SERVICES OF THE PETITIONERS IN VIEW
OF THEM HAVING BEEN WORKING WITH THE RESPONDENT
FOR THE LAST 22 YEARS; AND ETC.
-8-
NC: 2023:KHC:20204
WP NO.3718 OF 2023
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this writ petition, petitioners are assailing order of
termination dated 07th February, 2023 (Annexure-G) passed by
the respondent No.1-Government.
2. The grievance of petitioners in this writ petition is that
though the petitioners were working with the respondent No.2
for more than two decades, the case of petitioners has not
been considered for regularisation.
3. Heard Sri. Vikram A. Huilgol, learned Senior Counsel
on behalf of Sri. Samarth Prakash, appearing for petitioners
and Sri. M.S. Nagaraja, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for respondents.
4. Sri. Vikram A. Huilgol, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for petitioners contended that, firstly, petitioners
were working at printing press, Tumakuru and they have been
transferred to the Government Press at Peenya Industrial Area.
Thereafter, the Government has taken a decision to close the
Peenya establishment and therefore, entire machinery at
Peenya establishment was transferred to Mysuru Road
NC: 2023:KHC:20204
WP NO.3718 OF 2023
establishment. In furtherance of the same, petitioners have
been removed from service. Hence, learned Senior counsel
appearing for petitioners sought for interference of this Court in
the light of judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of KARNATAKA VETERINARY ANIMAL &
FISHERIES SCIENCES UNIVERSITY vs. SRI. NAGENDRA
S.G. AND OTHERS passed in Writ Appeal No.1185 of 2021
decided on 10th January, 2022.
5. Sri. Vikram A. Huilgol, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for petitioners, particularly, invited the attention of
the Court to the Paragraph 6 of judgment in the case of
NAGENDRA S.G. (supra) and contended that the yardstick
which has been adopted by the respondent No.2 insofar as
other candidates are concerned and the same could be
extended to the petitioners herein also. Accordingly, he sought
for interference of this Court.
6. Per contra, Sri. M.S. Nagaraja, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for respondents vehemently
contended that the petitioners are appointed through outsource
and not against the sanctioned post and as such, the case of
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:20204
WP NO.3718 OF 2023
petitioners could not be considered for regularisation. Learned
Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents
further contended that the petitioners have been appointed
through outsource agency and there is no employer and
employee relationship between respondent No.2 and the
petitioners and therefore, unless the relationship is established
by petitioners, no relief could be granted in this writ petition.
Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition by
referring to the statement of objections.
7. In the light of submission made by learned counsel
appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioners
were working with the respondent No.2. Perusal of the writ
papers would indicate that petitioners were in service with the
respondent No.2 for more than two decades. In the light of
factual aspects on record, I have carefully examined the
observation made in the case of NAGENDRA S.G. (supra),
wherein the Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to
consider the case of employees therein who sought for
regularisation in the light of judgment rendered by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of SHEO NARAIN NAGAR AND
OTHERS vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:20204
WP NO.3718 OF 2023
reported in (2018) 13 SCC 432 and direction was issued to the
respondent therein to consider the case of petitioners for
regularisation. Careful examination of impugned order dated
07th February, 2023 (Annexure-G) would indicate that, steps
have been taken by the respondent-Government to continue
the service of outsource employees. In view of law declared
by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SHEO NARAIN NAGAR
(supra) and Division Bench of this Court in the case of
NAGENDRA S.G. (supra), I am of the view that respondent
No.2 shall consider the grievance of petitioners in the light of
judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court and pass
appropriate orders, within an outer limit of two months from
the date of receipt of this order. Ordered accordingly. It is
made clear that, this Court has not expressed any opinion on
merits of the case. With these observations, writ petition
stands disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE
ARK
