Karnataka High Court
Mr. Venkatesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 2024
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44063-DB
WA No. 1544 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1544 OF 2023 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
MR. VENKATESH
S/O THIMMAIAH
AGE 56 YEARS,
WATCHMAN, PANCHAYATH RAJ
ENGINEERING SUB DIVISION,
NAGAMANGALA - 571432
MANDYA DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VICTOR MANOHARAN S.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATH RAJ
AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
M.S.BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
Digitally signed 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
by
MARIGANGAIAH ZILLA PANCHAYATH,
PREMAKUMARI MANDYA DISTRICT,
Location: HIGH MANDYA - 571401.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER,
PANCHAYATH RAJ ENGINEERING DIVISION,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.SUKANYA G.BALIGA .,AGA)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44063-DB
WA No. 1544 of 2023
01.06.2023 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION No. 44983 OF 2019 (S-
RES) OF THE LEARNED SINGLE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
This writ appeal is directed against the learned Single
Judge's order dated 01.06.2023 in W.P.No.44983/2019,
whereby appellant's request for direction to respondents to
consider the case of the appellant for regularization of his
service is rejected.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Victor
Manoharan.S., for appellant and learned Additional
Government Advocate Smt.B.Sukanya Baliga for
respondents. Perused the writ appeal papers.
3. Learned counsel Victor Manoharan.S., for the
appellant would submit that appellant was initially
NC: 2024:KHC:44063-DB
appointed on daily wage basis on 06.07.1989 and
subsequently under Annexure-A dated 15.07.1999, he was
brought on to Supernumerary post, but his case is not
considered for regularization. Hence, he has made
representation to the respondent Authorities and as they
failed to consider his case for regularization, he was before
the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.44983/2019 seeking
for a direction to consider his case for regularization.
Learned Single Judge recording the statement of
respondents that similar request made in
W.P.No.10824/2018 was rejected by order dated
29.03.2021, rejected the writ petition.
4. If similar request by similarly situated daily
wage employees are rejected, we do not find fault with the
learned Single Judge's order. Moreover, it is for the
appellant to establish before this Court while seeking
direction for regularization, that the appellant was
appointed on daily wage basis against sanctioned post by
the competent authority and as on the date of his initial
NC: 2024:KHC:44063-DB
appointment on daily wage basis, he possessed the
requisite qualification. No document is placed on record to
establish that appointment of the appellant on daily wage
basis was against the sanctioned vacant post.
5. In the above circumstances, we do not find any
merit in the writ appeal and accordingly, writ appeal
stands rejected.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
NC
