Karnataka High Court
Shri. Ramesh S/O Jambanna Beleri vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 June, 2023
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
WP No. 103548 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 103548 OF 2018 (S-REG)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. RAMESH S/O JAMBANNA BELERI,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BILL COLLECTOR,
TOWN PANCHAYATH, YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.A.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
Digitally
VISHWESHARAIAH TOWER,
signed by
RAKESH S
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE.
HARIHAR
RAKESH Location: High
S Court of
Karnataka, 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
HARIHAR Dharwad
Date: KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL.
2023.06.20
16:16:04
+0530
4. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR,
DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL.
5. THE CHIEF OFFICER,
TOWN PANCHAYATH, YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINAYAK S. KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1-R4;
SRI. D.L.LADKHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
-2-
WP No. 103548 of 2018
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 18.08.2017 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENHT NO.2 IN NUMBER GA . Sam . 21694 / DMA / 55 /
M.G.R / 2017-18 AS PER ANNEXURE-N & ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with
the prayer to quash the endorsement Annexure - N dated
18.08.2017 issued by the 2nd respondent and to issue a
writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to
regularize the services of the petitioner with effect from
01.08.2009.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
also perused the material on record.
3. The petitioner was allegedly appointed as a Bill
Collector on daily wage basis by the 5th respondent
Panchayat with effect from 01.11.1995. The petitioner had
made a representation to regularize his services and since
the same was not considered by the concerned authorities,
WP No. 103548 of 2018
he had earlier approached this Court in W.P.
No.106844/2014. This Court taking into consideration the
recommendations made by the Deputy Commissioner
dated 28.06.2007 and also having regard to the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State
of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi and others reported in
(2006) 4 SCC 1 had disposed of the writ petition with a
direction to consider the case of the petitioner for
regularization on the basis of the recommendation dated
28.06.2007 and 03.12.2008 and also taking into
consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Umadevi's case. Thereafter, the impugned
endorsement has been issued by the 2nd respondent
rejecting the petitioners prayer for regularization of his
services, on the ground that the petitioner's appointment
was not against a vacant sanctioned post. Being aggrieved
by the said endorsement dated 18.08.2017, the petitioner
is before this Court.
WP No. 103548 of 2018
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the appointment of the petitioner was against a vacant
sanctioned post and the same is evident from the
recommendation Annexure - B dated 28.06.2007 issued
by the Deputy Commissioner and also from the
communications at Annexure - K dated 01.06.2015. He
submits that the petitioner's application seeking
regularization has not been considered by the competent
authority in compliance of the orders passed by this Court
in W.P. No.106844/2014.
5. Per contra, learned AGA has argued in support
of the impugned endorsement and submits that since the
petitioner does not qualify to be considered for
regularization in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi's case, the
competent authority has rightly issued the impugned
endorsement and accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ
petition.
WP No. 103548 of 2018
6. This Court while disposing of W.P.
No.106844/2014 had considered the recommendations
made by the Deputy Commissioner and the Town
Panchayat in favour of the petitioner, wherein it has been
stated that the appointment of the petitioner was against
a vacant sanctioned post. It is under these circumstances,
this Court had directed the competent authority to
reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the
recommendations made in faovur of the petitioner and
also taking into consideration the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umadevi's case. However, the
impugned endorsement has been issued by the 2nd
respondent without complying the directions issued by this
Court in W.P. No.106844/2014. The reasonings assigned
by the 2nd respondent for rejecting the petitioner's case for
regularization is erroneous on the face of the record.
Therefore, it is evident that the 2nd respondent had not
taken into consideration the recommendations at
Annexures - B, D and K dated 28.06.2007, 15.12.2007
and 01.06.2015 respectively. Under the circumstances,
WP No. 103548 of 2018
the impugned endorsement cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned
endorsement Annexure - N issued by the 2nd respondent is
quashed and the matter is remitted to the 2nd respondent
to reconsider the case of the petitioner strictly in
compliance of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.
No.106844/2014 disposed of on 10.04.2015 and also the
observations made hereinabove.
The said exercise shall be done by the 2nd respondent
as expeditiously as possible but not later than a period of
six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Rsh/Ct:Bck
