Karnataka High Court
Dr. Basalingamma D/O Shivaraya H vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 5 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8101
WP No. 201198 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 201198 OF 2021 (S-REG)
BETWEEN:
DR. BASALINGAMMA D/O SHIVARAYA H.,
AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC: GUEST-LECTURER,
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WORK,
GULBARGA UNIVERSITY, GULBARGA,
R/O. JAYANAGAR,
GULBARGA-585104.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANTOSH ANNAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed by REPRESENTED BY ITS
NIJAMUDDIN
JAMKHANDI PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
Location: HIGH DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
COURT OF M.S. BUILDING,
KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE REGISTRAR
GULBARGA UNIVERSITY (JNANA GANGA),
GULBARGA-585106.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.R.V. NADAGOUDA , ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SMT. ARATI PATIL, HCGP FOR R1)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8101
WP No. 201198 of 2021
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO
REGULARIZE THE SERVICE OF THE PETITIONER AS A
LECTURER WITH ALL BENEFITS FROM THE DATE OF HER
INITIAL APPOINTMENT. B) ISSUE A FURTHER DIRECTION,
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO RELIEVE OR
DISCONTINUE THE PETITIONER FROM SERVICE TILL HER
CLAIM IS CONSIDERED FOR REGULARIZATION OF SERVICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
In the captioned petition, the petitioner is seeking a
direction at the hands of this Court against respondents to
regularize her service as lecturer with all benefits from the
date of her initial appointment.
2. Factual Background of the Case: The petitioner,
holding a postgraduate degree in social work, responded
to a notification issued by Respondent No.2, the
University, which invited applications from eligible
candidates for the post of Assistant Professor. As per her
qualifications, the petitioner was deemed eligible and was
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8101
subsequently appointed to the position of Assistant
Professor in 2004. Since her appointment, the University
has continued to utilize her services on a consolidated
salary basis, incrementally increasing the remuneration
over time. In support of her expertise and commitment to
the field, the petitioner has furthered her academic
credentials, earning a Master of Philosophy degree in 2006
and a Doctor of Philosophy in Social Work in 2011.
Additionally, she completed a postdoctoral fellowship
specifically for women, successfully fulfilling a five-year
tenure by 2011-12. Despite her contributions and
academic achievements, the petitioner asserts that the
University has consistently required her to work
extensively, from 9 to 16 hours a day based on
departmental demands, without regularizing her position.
3. The petitioner, referencing a judgment from a
Coordinate Bench of this Court in a similar matter (WP No.
51342/2016 and related cases), submitted a formal
representation to the University. She emphasized that her
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8101
service extended beyond 20 years, thereby fulfilling the
eligibility for consideration under regularization policies.
Despite her extensive tenure, the respondents have not
taken action on her representation, which prompted her to
file the current writ petition, seeking a directive to
regularize her employment.
4. Heard arguments from both the petitioner's and
respondents' counsels.
5. The petitioner's counsel reiterated the
arguments detailed in the petition, specifically relying on
the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this
Court in an analogous set of facts. He highlighted that, in
that case, lecturers who were appointed either under
Section 51-B of the Karnataka State University Act, 1976,
or under Section 56 of the revised Act, had filed petitions
seeking a writ of mandamus for regularization. The
Coordinate Bench, after considering the facts and
referencing the precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of Karnataka & Others v. Umadevi &
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8101
Others (2006) 4 SCC 1, directed the respondent
University to implement a scheme for regularization.
Acknowledging the long-term service of those lecturers,
the Coordinate Bench issued specific directions to the
University to establish a one-time measure for
regularization.
6. Upon review of the aforementioned Coordinate
Bench judgment, it is evident that the Bench recognized
the prolonged service period of over ten years rendered by
the petitioners therein. Consequently, the Coordinate
Bench provided clear instructions, excerpted as follows:
"i.The University was directed to implement a
one-time regularization measure for petitioners
appointed under Section 51B of the Karnataka
State Universities Act, 1976, or Section 56 of
the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, with
at least ten years of continuous service
preceding the enactment of new regularization
rules.
ii.The University was instructed to initiate and
complete the regularization process within six
months. The University could require those
without certain qualifications, such as
NET/SLET, to acquire them within a reasonable
timeframe post-regularization, as stipulated in
the 2004 statutes.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8101
iii.It was directed that until the petitioners'
cases were reviewed per the new rules, they
should not be dismissed or removed from their
positions.
iv.The University was also instructed to adhere
to reservation rosters to the extent possible in
regularizing services."
7. After considering the principles established by
the Coordinate Bench and the Supreme Court in Uma
Devi, this Court finds that the petitioner, who possesses
the necessary qualifications, including a doctoral degree,
merits the issuance of directions to the respondent
University. This conclusion is reached given the petitioner's
substantial academic achievements and her service record
as documented in the writ petition. Drawing from the
Coordinate Bench's judgment in comparable circumstances
and the Supreme Court's guidance in the case of Uma Devi
supra, the Court hereby issues the following order:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed in part.
ii. Respondent No.2/the University, is
directed to initiate the process of
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8101
regularizing the petitioner's employment,
as a one-time measure, in recognition of
her appointment under Section 56 of the
Karnataka State University Act, 2000, and
her twenty years of service.
iii. The University shall complete this
regularization process within six months
from the date of this order.
iv. The University may impose a condition on
the petitioner to acquire any essential
qualifications, such as NET/SLET, required
under current UGC norms if not already
obtained. The petitioner must fulfill this
requirement within a reasonable
timeframe post-regularization, as
provided in the 2004 statutes.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
NJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13, CT-SW
