Karnataka High Court
M. Nagendra Naik vs State Of Karnataka on 3 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:161
WP No. 20832 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 20832 OF 2019 (S-REG)
BETWEEN:
M. NAGENDRA NAIK,
S/O M MANA NAIK,
AGED 35 YEARS,
WORKING AS OFFICIAL IN CHARGE
SUPERVISOR KARNATAKA STAE COIR
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,
HEGELEGERE, HOSADURGA TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
R/O HEGELEGERE , HOSADURGA TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DEEPAK S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by SUCHITRA M 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
J
Location: High BY ITS SECRETARY,
Court of
Karnataka DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE,
M.S. BUILDINGS, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE KARNATAKA STATE COIR
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
VITC BUILDINGS, KASTURABA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.N. VENUGOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. HARISH A.S, HCGP FOR R1)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:161
WP No. 20832 of 2019
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE PETITIONERS
FOR REGULARIZATION OF SERVICE IN KARNATAKA STATE
COIR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed seeking
mandamus against the respondents to consider the
petitioner's representation seeking regularization of
service with respondent No.2.
2. The petitioner is working with respondent No.2
at Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District, for more than 10
years. The petitioner claimed that his service is continuous
and unblemished. The present petition is filed alleging that
there is total inaction on the part of respondent No.2 in
not complying with the direction issued by this Court in
W.P.Nos. 10745-10756/2012, wherein respondent No.2
was directed to consider the case of the petitioner and
similarly placed employees for regularisation.
NC: 2024:KHC:161
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned HCGP for respondent No.1. Perused the records.
4. The co-ordinate bench of this Court while
examining the case of the present petitioner and other
similarly placed employees of respondent No.2, taking
note of the judgment rendered in the case of State of
Karnataka vs. Umadevi1, held that the present
petitioner and similarly placed employees have been
appointed against clear vacancies and they have
completed 10 years of service in the said post and as such
they are entitled for regularization into service. It is in this
background, a direction was issued to respondent No.2 to
consider the case of the petitioners therein for
regularisation as and when it becomes imperative for the
corporation regarding giving preference and priority to the
petitioners.
2006 (4) SCC 1
NC: 2024:KHC:161
5. The petitioner in the captioned petition has
placed reliance on the latest judgment rendered by the co-
ordinate bench in W.P.Nos.27019-27020/2017 and
connected cases, which was filed at the instance of
similarly placed employees who were parties to the earlier
petitions. Paragraph Nos.6 to 8 would be relevant and the
same is culled out as under:
"6. Having heard the learned Counsels,this court
is of the opinion that the case of the petitioners will have
to be considered by the second respondent-Corporation,
in the light of the directions already issued by this Court
in writ petitions mentioned above. This Court has also
taken note of the fact that the draft of the C & R Rules
which were communicated to the State may receive
approval in the near future. But the fact remains that
irrespective of whether the C & R Rules may or may not
be approved by the State Government, the second
respondent Corporation is duty bound to comply with the
directions issued by this Court.
7. It is asserted by the learned Counsel for the
petitioners that sufficient vacancies are there in the
respondent-Corporation and the petitioners could be
regularized in terms of the directions earlier issued by this
Court.
8. In the light of the above, these petitions are
Disposed of with a direction to the second respondent-
NC: 2024:KHC:161
Corporation to consider the representation of the
petitioners for regularization, in terms of the order dated
18.07.2012 issued by this Court in W.P.Nos.10745-
10756/2012 as expeditiously as possible and in any
event, within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order. If the
representation given by the petitioners are not available
with the respondent-Corporation, the memorandum of
these writ petitions ma be treated as a representation by
the petitioners."
6. In the light of directions issued in the batch of
petitions as per Annexure-A and also the observations
made by the co-ordinate bench in the latest judgment vide
Annexure-H to the petition, I am of the view that the
petitioner is entitled to seek direction against respondent
No.2 as there is inaction on the part of respondent No.2 in
not complying with the direction issued by this Court. In
the light of observations made supra, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed with a direction to
respondent No.2/corporation to consider the
representation of the petitioner for
NC: 2024:KHC:161
regularisation in terms of the order dated
18.07.2012 passed by this Court in
W.P.Nos.10745-10756/2012;
ii. Respondent No.2 is hereby directed to pass
appropriate orders bearing in mind the
direction issued by this Court within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order;
iii. It is made clear that if the representation
submitted by the petitioner is not available
with respondent No.2/corporation, respondent
No.2 shall treat this memorandum of petition
as a representation and pass appropriate
orders in terms of directions issued by this
Court in W.P.Nos.10745-10756/2012.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HDK
CT: BHK
