Karnataka High Court
Smt Mohini D/O Manjunath Shetty vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 June, 2023
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
WP No. 104818 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 104818 OF 2022 (S-REG)
BETWEEN:
SMT. MOHINI D/O MANJUNATH SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O. 1ST CROSS,
NEAR URDU SCHOOL, MALAPUR,
TQ. DHARWAD, DIST. DHARWAD-580008.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B MANE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
RAKESH S
HARIHAR R/BY ITS SECRETARY,
RAKESH Location: DEPT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
S High Court of
Karnataka,
HARIHAR Dharwad M.S. BUILDING, VIKAS SOUDHA,
Date:
2023.06.26 DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALURU-01.
11:57:24
+0530
2. THE DIRECTOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
9TH FLOOR, VISHWESHRARAIAH TOWER,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALURU-01.
3. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER,
D.C. COMPOUND, B.M. COMPLEX,
BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI-590001.
4. THE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT,
DISTRICT CITY DEVELOPMENT SECTION,
-2-
WP No. 104818 of 2022
TQ & DIST. DHARWAD-580001.
5. THE HUBBALLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION,
R/BY ITS COMMISSIONER, HUBBALLI-580009.
6. THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER,
HUBBALLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
CHITGUPPI HOSPITAL, HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD-580009.
7. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DHARWAD, DIST. DHARWAD-580001.
8. THE CHIEF ACCOUNT OFFICER,
OFFICE OF CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICE,
HUBBALLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINAYAK S KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1-R4 & R7;
SRI. GURUDEV GACHCHINMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R5, R6 &
R8)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENTS DATED 19-7-2022
BEARING £ÀA: JZïrJA¹/20/02/EST-02/2022-23/283 PASSED
BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-N-1 & ETC.
-3-
WP No. 104818 of 2022
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner who is a retired employee of
respondent No.5-Corporation has preferred this writ
petition seeking for the following reliefs:
1. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and quash
the impugned endorsements dated 19-7-2022
bearing £ÀA: JZïrJA¹/20/02/EST-02/2022-23/283
passed by the 5th respondent vide Annexure-N-1.
2. Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing
the respondents 5 and 7 to reconsider the case of
the petitioner for regularization of her services and
consequential benefits by considering all the service
records of the petitioner.
3. Grant any other relief/s deemed fit in the facts
and circumstances of the case, in the interest of
justice and equity.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that she was
appointed as daily wage employee in Chitaguppi hospital
run by respondent No.5-Corporation and the petitioner
WP No. 104818 of 2022
had served in the said hospital continuously for a period of
21 years 9 months and 13 days as per the records of the
hospital. The petitioner's prayer to regularise her service
was not considered by respondent No.5-Corporation and it
is under these circumstances, the petitioner had earlier
approached this Court in WP No.112566/2017, which was
disposed of on 09.03.2021 by a Coordinate Bench of this
Court, directing the respondent No.5 to consider the claim
of the petitioner for regularisation, in the light of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State
of Karnataka Vs.Uma Devi and Others reported in
(2006) 4 SCC 1 and if found eligible, to send a proposal
to respondent No.1 for approval. Pursuant to the said
order passed by this Court, petitioner's case was
considered for regularisation and vide endorsement
Annexure-N1 dated 19.07.2022, respondent No.5-
Corporation has rejected the petitioner's case for
regularisation and being aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner is before this Court.
WP No. 104818 of 2022
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,
Annexure-C dated 24.11.2008 issued by respondent No.5
itself would go to show that the petitioner is qualified to
seek regularisation and the hospital in which the petitioner
was working had recommended the petitioner's case for
regularisation vide communication Annexure-K dated
10.08.2017 and respondent No.5 without taking into
consideration their own communication at Annexure-C
dated 24.11.2008 and the recommendation made by the
hospital, where the petitioner was working, has passed the
impugned order without application of mind. He also
submits that services of three other employees whose
names are found in Annexure-C, have been subsequently
regularised as per Annexure-G and therefore there is no
justification on the part of respondent No.5 to reject the
prayer of the petitioner. Accordingly, he prays to allow the
petition.
5. Learned AGA appearing for respondent No.5
submits that since the petitioner does not fulfil all the 4
requisite criteria for regularisation of her services, as
WP No. 104818 of 2022
prescribed in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Uma Devi (supra), the petitioner's case has
been rejected. He accordingly prays to dismiss the writ
petition.
6. Respondent No.5 had issued communication at
Annexure-C dated 24.11.2008 addressed to the 1st
respondent giving particulars of its daily wage employees.
From the perusal of the said document, it is seen that the
petitioner's name is found at Sl.No.19 of the said
document and in the said document, it is also stated that
the appointment of all the employees whose name is found
in the said document is as against the vacant sanctioned
post and they were duly qualified for the appointment. It
is also stated that they have completed 10 years of their
services as on the said date. It is not the case of
respondent No.5 that petitioner's service was continued by
it on the strength of any interim order passed at the
instance of the petitioner. The hospital in which the
petitioner was working had issued recommendation vide
Annexure-K dated 10.08.2017 wherein recommendation is
WP No. 104818 of 2022
made for regularisation of petitioner's services and it is
also stated that the petitioner's services were satisfactory.
The respondent No.5 without taking into consideration its
own communication at Annexure-C and recommendation
made by the hospital where the petitioner was working
has passed the impugned order.
7. The material on record would also go to show
that services of three other similarly situated employees
who were working with the petitioner have been
regularised by the Corporation. Under these
circumstances, there is no justification on the part of the
respondent No.5 to issue impugned endorsement. Further
the impugned endorsement is also liable to be quashed on
the ground that the same is not a speaking order and
specific reason is not mentioned therein, except stating
that the petitioner does not comply the four conditions as
stated in the case of Uma Devi (supra). Under these
circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned
endorsement cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the
following:
WP No. 104818 of 2022
ORDER
Writ petition is allowed.
The impugned endorsement Annexure-M dated
09.07.2021 issued by the respondent No.5 is quashed and
the matter is remitted to the respondent No.5 to re-
consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation of her
services in the light of the observation made herein and
also taking into the documents at Annexures-C, G and K
and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as
expeditiously as possible, but not later than a period of
three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Kgk/Ct:Bck
