Sri Varadaraj @ Muddegowda vs The Secretary Water Resource ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6289 Kant

                                             -1-
                                                     NC: 2023:KHC:31862-DB
                                                      WA No. 1217 of 2022




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

                                          PRESENT
                   THE HON'BLE MR. PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                            AND
                           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
                            WRIT APPEAL NO. 1217 OF 2022 (S-REG)


                   BETWEEN:

                   SRI VARADARAJ @ MUDDEGOWDA
                   S/O LATE DASA VARADEGOWDA
                   AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
                   OCC:WORKING AS TRACER (NOW RTD)
                   OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
                   CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAMA LIMITED
                   2ND KABINI CANAL DIVISION
                   KOLLEGAL
                   MYSORE DISTRICT
Digitally signed   R/AT NO.7/69, KABINI COLONY
by AMBIKA H B      KOLLEGAL
Location: HIGH     MYSORE DISTRICT-570001
COURT OF
KARNATAKA                                                     ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI BABU RAO M, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:


                   1.    THE SECRETARY
                         WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT
                         VIKASA SOUDHA
                          -2-
                                 NC: 2023:KHC:31862-DB
                                  WA No. 1217 of 2022




     DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
     BANGALORE 01


2.   THE CHIEF ENGINEER
     WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT
     ANANDA RAO CIRCLE
     BENGALURU 09


3.   CHIEF ENGINEER
     CAUVERY NIRAVARI NIGAMA
     IRRIGATION (SOUTH) CIRCLE
     MYSORE-570001

                                      ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.SHWETA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R1)


      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 10.10.2022
IN W.P. NO.3250/2012.



      THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                  -3-
                                            NC: 2023:KHC:31862-DB
                                             WA No. 1217 of 2022




                           JUDGMENT

1. Issue notice. The learned Additional Government

Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1.

2. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated

10.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.3250/2012. The appellant had approached the learned

Single Judge seeking quashment of an endorsement dated

14.10.2011 and further direction to the respondents to consider

the case of the appellant for payment of the salary attached to

the post of Draftsman. The learned Single Judge, on hearing

the parties and on perusal of the material placed on record

found that the appellant was appointed as a Tracer on daily

wage basis and when regularization was sought for, the

appellant was regularized in Group 'C' category in the same pay

scale. The contention of the appellant before the learned Single

Judge was that though he entered into service on daily wage

basis, he was discharging his duties as a Draftsman and

therefore, he be regularized as Draftsman and pay scale be

granted to that effect. It was also submitted that the appellant

is similarly circumstanced with other person namely,

Sri Naganna as stated above. The learned Single Judge,

NC: 2023:KHC:31862-DB WA No. 1217 of 2022

observed that there is no merit in the case and the material

placed before the Court was clearly indicative of the fact that

the appellant entered into service as a Tracer and subsequently

was regularized in Group 'C' category and at no point of time,

the appellant was appointed as a Draftsman. A reliance was

placed on a document under caption 'Confirmation Letter'.

3. Perusal of the said confirmation letter placed on

record at Annexure-A clearly shows that the appellant scored

first class in the examination conducted for the post of

Draftsman, but he has worked as a daily wager from 1982 and

has experienced in drawing, tracing and estimation. It is further

stated that the appellant has all the qualities to serve as a

Draftsman. We are unable to accept this document as

appointment order as a Draftsman. Insofar as the other

submission that the appellant is similarly circumstanced with

other person namely, Sri Naganna, the learned Single Judge

found that there is no material to show that Sri Naganna and

the appellant stand on the same footing. As such, the learned

Single Judge was pleased to observe that the appellant could

not have claimed any parity with Sri Naganna.

NC: 2023:KHC:31862-DB WA No. 1217 of 2022

4. Perusal of the letter dated 14.10.2011 at Annexure-

T clearly shows that the appellant was originally appointed as a

Tracer and he was regularized in the post of Tracer. It is further

stated in the said letter that the appellant was basically

appointed on daily wages and not hired as Draftsman and there

is no opportunity to regularize his service in the post of

Draftsman.

5. Considering all these facts, we are of the opinion

that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in

considering the submission and arriving at a conclusion that the

writ petition is devoid of any merits.

6. In view of the above, the writ appeal deserves to be

dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed.

7. In view of the dismissal of the writ appeal, the

pending interlocutory application does not survive for

consideration and the same is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE KPS