Karnataka High Court
Sharanappa S/O Basavaraj K vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited And Anr on 6 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8114
WP No. 203478 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.203478 OF 2017 (S-REG)
BETWEEN:
SHARANAPPA S/O BASAVARAJ K.
S/O BASAVARAJ K. AGE: 42 YEAR,
OCC: DRIVER IN BSNL OFFICE,
R/O H.NO.11-778/2002,
BASAVA NAGAR, BRAHMAPUR,
KALABURAGI - 585102
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DEVRAJ MANOHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED
THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
KALABURAGI TELECOM DISTRICT,
Digitally signed by OLD JAIL GARDEN, KALABURAGI - 585102
RENUKA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER
KARNATAKA E10B, BSNL OFFICE,
OLD JAIL GARDEN,
KALABURAGI - 585102
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANURADHA M. DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSITTUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO,
i) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT
TO REGULARIZE THE SERVICE OF PETITIONER FROM THE DATE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8114
WP No. 203478 of 2017
OF HIS INITIAL APPOINTMENT DATED-01.01.1998 WITH ALL
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER 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)
The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing
the respondents to regularize his service based on his
initial appointment on 01.01.1998, along with all
consequential benefits. The petitioner asserts that he was
appointed as a daily wager from this date and that his
employment should now be formalized.
2. The learned standing counsel representing
respondent No.1 has argued that the petitioner's approach
to this Court is premature, as he has not first sought
remedy through appropriate channels before approaching
the writ Court. The counsel points out that the petitioner
has not produced any documentary evidence in support of
his claim of appointment as a daily wager, thus failing to
substantiate his foundational claim.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8114
3. Upon examining the writ papers, it is apparent
that no supporting documents, aside from the writ petition
itself, have been presented to substantiate the petitioner's
allegations. It is a well-established principle that the
issuance of a writ of mandamus requires the petitioner to
demonstrate both a legally enforceable right and a
corresponding failure by the respondent, generally a public
authority, to fulfil a public duty. Courts have consistently
held that a writ of mandamus is only available when the
petitioner has exhausted other available remedies and has
substantiated both a clear legal right and a public duty
that remains unfulfilled. Relevant judgments reiterate that
a party must satisfy these preconditions for a writ of
mandamus to be granted, such as in Union of India vs.
S.B. Vohra1and State of West Bengal vs. Nuruddin
Malik2.
4. In the present case, the writ petition lacks
critical documentation and particulars that would
2004 (2) SCC 150
AIR 1999 SC 1466
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8114
substantiate the petitioner's claim to the right he asserts,
namely, that he was appointed as a daily wager with the
required eligibility for regularization. However, the lack of
particulars does not preclude the petitioner from
submitting a detailed representation to the competent
authority. This approach aligns with the judgment
in Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas
Bhanji3, wherein the Court held that an aggrieved party is
expected to substantiate claims before a mandamus can
issue. Thus, the petitioner is afforded the opportunity to
submit a detailed representation, establishing his
employment status and eligibility for regularization with
supporting documentation.
5. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of
with liberty to the petitioner to submit a comprehensive
representation to the concerned authority to substantiate
his claims for regularization, including the details of his
initial engagement as a daily wager and his eligibility. The
1952 AIR 16
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8114
petitioner may, thereafter, approach this Court for relief if
his representation is not addressed in a reasonable
manner.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
SRT
CT-SW
