Karnataka High Court
The Director vs Shri. Raghvendrarao S/O. Venkobrao on 3 July, 2024
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9034-DB
WA No.100252 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
WRIT APPEAL NO.100252 OF 2021 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
THE DIRECTOR
BELGAUM INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES(BIMS),
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BELGAUM-590001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VEERESH R. BUDIHAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI RAGHVENDRARAO S/O. VENKOBRAO
AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. ARTIST,
BELGAUM INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BELGAUM-590001.
2. SHRI RANGAPPA S/O. BHARAMAPPA GONNAGAR
AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER,
BELGAUM INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,(BIMS)
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BELGAUM-590001.
KM
3. SHRI YOGESHWAR S/O. DUNDAPPA WALI
SOMASHEKAR
AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER,
Digitally signed by K M
SOMASHEKAR
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
BELGAUM INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,(BIMS)
DHARWAD BENCH
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BELGAUM-590001.
4. SHRI SANJEEV S/O. RUDRAPPA IMOJI
AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. OFFICE ATTENDER,
BELGAUM INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,(BIMS)
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BELGAUM-590001.
5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY. ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
& FAMILY WELFARE (MEDICAL EDUCATION),
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
6. THE GOVERNING COUNCIL,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9034-DB
WA No.100252 of 2021
OF BELGAUM INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,(BIMS),
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BELGAUM-590001.
(R/BY ITS CHAIRMAN)
7. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
ANAND RAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001.
8. M/S. RANGANATH ENTERPRISES,
VISHAL NAGAR, 3RD CROSS, BELLARY.
(R/BY ITS PROPRIETOR)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4,
SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R5,
NOTICE TO R6 TO R8 ARE SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
18.03.2021 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT IN
WP NOS.112095-112098 OF 2014 AND FURTHER TO DISMISS THE
SAID WRIT PETITIONS.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, S G PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra-Court appeal is filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, by respondent No.4/Belagavi
Institute of Medical Sciences1, aggrieved by order dated
18.03.2021 passed in WP Nos.112095-2098/2014, wherein the
resolution passed on Subject No.10 by respondent No.2 dated
21.06.2014 and Communication dated 2.7.2014 (Annexure-P)
passed by respondent No.4/BIMS are quashed with a direction
to respondents No.2 & 4 to continue the services of the
'BIMS', for short
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9034-DB
petitioners on contract and consolidated salary basis, in terms
of appointment order dated 30.06.2010 and extend all
consequential benefits to them and further directed that if a
request is made by the petitioners to regularize or absorb their
services, it is expected that respondents No.2 and 4 shall
consider the same in accordance with law.
2. Parties would be referred to as they stood before
the learned Single Judge. Appellant herein was respondent
No.4 and respondents No.1 to 4 were petitioners before the
learned Single Judge.
3. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that, in
terms of Annexure-C, dated 30.06.2010, petitioner No.1 was
appointed as Artist, petitioners No.2 and 3 were appointed as
Drivers and petitioner No.4 was appointed as Office Attendant.
When they were working as such, respondent No.2-Governing
Council of respondent No.4/BIMS passed resolution dated
21.06.2014 to appoint the petitioners and pay financial benefits
through outsource agency. Challenging the said resolution
dated 21.06.2014 and subsequent Communication dated
2.7.2014 along with prayer for a mandamus to respondents
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9034-DB
Nos.2 and 4 to continue and absorb the services of the
petitioners and to extend all consequential benefits, the
petitioners were before this Court in the aforesaid writ
petitions. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
learned Single Judge allowed writ petitions and quashed the
resolution dated 21.06.2014 and subsequent Communication
dated 2.7.2014 with a direction to respondents No.2 and 4 to
continue the services of the petitioners on contract and
consolidated salary basis, in terms of appointment order dated
30.06.2010 and extend all consequential benefits to them.
Learned Single Judge also directed that if a request is made by
the petitioners to regularize or absorb their services, it is
expected that respondent No.2 and 4 shall consider the same in
accordance with law. Aggrieved by the same, respondent
No.4/BIMS is in this intra-Court appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Veeresh R Budihal
for appellant/BIMS, learned counsel Sri.A.S. Patil for
respondents No.1 to 4/petitioners, learned Government
Advocate Sri. G.K. Hiregoudar for respondent No.5 and perused
writ appeal papers.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9034-DB
5. Sri. Veeresh R Budihal, learned counsel for
respondent No.4/BIMS would submit that the petitioners'
appointment is stop gap ad hoc arrangement on contract basis,
till regular appointments are made. It is submitted that the
petitioners have no right to seek continuation of their services
on contract basis or for absorption in respondent No.4/BIMS.
Learned counsel would submit that direction of learned Single
Judge to absorb the services of the petitioners is contrary to
catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is further
submitted that the petitioners were aware of nature of their
appointment. Further, learned counsel inviting attention of this
Court to Annexure-C, appointment letter dated 30.06.2010
would submit that the appointment order itself makes it clear
that their appointments were on contract basis till the posts are
filled up on regular basis. Thus, learned counsel would submit
that the petitioners have no right to seek regularization or
continuation of their appointments on contract basis. Thus, he
prays for allowing the appeal.
6. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. A.S. Patil for the
petitioners would submit that the petitioners sought
continuation of their services on contract basis and further, no
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9034-DB
reason was assigned by respondent No.4/BIMS to shift the
petitioners from contract appointment to that of appointment
through outsource as Artist, Drivers and Office Attendant.
Learned counsel referring to Annexure-C dated 30.06.2010
would submit that as there was difficulty in outsource
appointment, the petitioners were appointed on contract basis
till regular appointments are made. He further submits that
without assigning any reason as to why the petitioners have to
come through outsource agency, Governing Council of
respondent No.4/BIMS passed impugned resolution dated
21.06.2014. Learned counsel inviting attention of this Court to
learned Single Judge's order would submit that there is no
positive direction to respondents No.2 and 4 to regularize or
absorb the petitioners. Learned Single Judge has made an
observation that if request is made by the petitioners to
regularize or absorb their services, then respondent No.2 and 4
shall consider the same in accordance with law. Thus, learned
counsel would submit that in terms of appointment order dated
30.06.2010, the petitioners are entitled to continue their
services till regular appointments are made or till consideration
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9034-DB
of their request for absorption or regularization. Thus, he
prays for dismissal of writ appeal.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of writ appeal papers, the only point that falls
for consideration in this writ appeal is as to whether impugned
order of learned Single Judge requires interference?
8. Our answer to the above point would be in the
"negative" for the following reasons:
9. Under Annexure-C dated 30.06.2010, the petitioner
No.1 was appointed as Artist, petitioners No.2 and 3 were
appointed as Drivers and petitioner No.4 was appointed as
Office Attendant on contract and consolidated salary basis, till
the posts are filled up on regular basis. A reading of Annexure-
C dated 30.06.2010 makes it abundantly clear that due to
frequent changing of the staff by outsourcing agencies, the
maintenance Directors' Chamber is affected and as such, the
appointment was very essential. The posts against which the
petitioners are appointed are sanctioned vacant posts. The
impugned resolution without assigning any reason resolves to
get the services of the petitioners through outsource agency.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9034-DB
No reasons are assigned for such resolution/decision, which is
contrary to Annexure-C, appointment order dated 30.06.2010.
Under Annexure-C, the petitioners were appointed on contract
basis till posts are filled up on regular basis. Admittedly, there
is no proposal for filling up the said posts on regular basis.
Without there being any proposal to fill up the posts on regular
basis, Governing Council of respondent No.4/BIMS could not
have resolved to get the services of the petitioners through
outsource agency. Thus, we do not find any error or illegality
in the learned Single Judge's order.
10. Nextly, learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the learned Single Judge directed respondent No.4/BIMS
to regularize the services of the petitioners. On going through
the impugned order under appeal, it is very clear that there is
no such positive direction to respondents No.2 & 4 to regularize
the services of the petitioners. Learned Single Judge has only
observed that if a request is made by the petitioners to
regularize or absorb their services, respondents No.2 and 4
shall consider the same in accordance with law. Mere direction
to consider would not have any adverse affect on respondent
No.4. Therefore, if request is made by the petitioners for
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9034-DB
regularization or absorption of their services, respondents No.2
and 4 are expected to consider the same in accordance with
existing policy with regard to regularization of services keeping
in mind latest decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court with regard
to regularization.
11. With the above observations, writ appeal stands
disposed off.
Pending applications are disposed off as not surviving for
consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
JTR
CT:VP
