Karnataka High Court
S.T. Siddaraju vs State Of Karnataka on 25 October, 2024
Author: S.G.Pandit
Bench: S.G.Pandit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:43156-DB
WP No. 18870 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 18870 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1. S.T. SIDDARAJU
S/O LATE THAMMAIAH SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT
DTP OPERATOR
WORKING ON OOD BASIS
IN THE OFFICE OF THE
FINANCE DEPT., VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001
2. C. SHIVANNA
S/O CHIKKA BYATANNA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT
Digitally signed by
SHAKAMBARI GOVT. PRINTING PRESS
Location: HIGH R.V.COLLEGE POST
COURT OF
KARNATAKA MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 059
3. S. VENKATESH
S/O LATE SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
ASSISTANT BINDER
WORKING IN GOVT. PRINTING PRESS
R.V.COLLEGE POST
MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 059
4. N. NINGARAJU
ASSISTANT OFFSET MACHINE MINDER
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:43156-DB
WP No. 18870 of 2021
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
WORKING IN GOVT. PRINTING PRESS
R.V.COLLEGE POST, MYSORE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 059
5. GOVINDARAJU B.V
S/O VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
ASSISTANT OFFSET PRINTER
WORKING IN GOVT. PRINTING PRESS
R.V.COLLEGE POST
MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 059
6. VENKATESHA T
S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
ASSISTANT BINDER
WORKING IN GOVT. PRINTING PRESS
R.V.COLLEGE POST
MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 059
7. C.B. MAHESH
S/O CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
WORKING IN GOVT. PRINTING PRESS
R.V.COLLEGE POST
MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 059
8. SMT. A.M. GANGAMMA
W/O B. SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
ASSISTANT BINDER
WORKING IN GOVT. PRINTING PRESS
R.V.COLLEGE POST
MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 059
9. SRI. D. SUBBARAYAGOWDA
S/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
ASSISTANT BINDER
WORKING AGAINST THE POST OF FDA
WORKING IN GOVERNMENT
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:43156-DB
WP No. 18870 of 2021
PRINTING PRESS
VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHAILENDRA M.R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001
BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
2. EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
PRIMARY AND HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION
6TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
3. THE DIRECTOR OF
PRINTING, STATIONERY AND
PUBLICATIONS IN KARNATAKA
GOVERNMENT CENTRAL PRESS
8TH MAIN, R.V.COLLEGE POST
MYSORE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 059
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO ORDER DATED 14TH
SEPTEMBER 2020, PASSED IN APPLICATION NOS.5723-
5735/2018 OF KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, AT ANNEXURE - A AND PERSUSE THE
SAME AND QUASH THE 4TH SEPTEMBER 2020, PASSED IN
APPLICATION NOS.5723-5735/2018 OF KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, AT ANNEXURE - A,
AND ALLOW THE APPLICATIONS BY GRANTING THE PRAYERS
MADE THEREIN, BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY
OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION, AS THE CASE MAY BE AND ETC.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:43156-DB
WP No. 18870 of 2021
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
Petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated
14.09.2020 in Application Nos.5723-5735/2018 passed by
the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru
(for short, 'Tribunal') are before this Court whereby
applications filed by the petitioners for regularization of
their services is dismissed.
2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Shailendra.M.R., for
petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate
Sri.H.K.Kenchegowda for respondents 1 to 3. Perused the
writ petition papers.
3. Learned counsel Sri.Shailendra.M.R. for
petitioners would submit that the petitioners were
appointed on daily wage basis in the 3rd respondent - the
NC: 2024:KHC:43156-DB
State Government, Printing, Stationary and Publications
Department during the period from 1987 to 1990. The
appointment of the petitioners was against the sanctioned
posts by competent Authority. As the petitioners fulfill the
criteria prescribed in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court
in SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS VS.
UMADEVI AND OTHERS1, the petitioners would be entitled
for regularization of their service. Learned counsel would
invite attention of this Court to endorsement dated
11.12.2017 (Annexure-A6) wherein the petitioners'
request for regularization is rejected solely on the ground
that the petitioners are not appointed against the
sanctioned posts. Learned counsel would submit that the
petitioners were in fact appointed against the sanctioned
vacant post and in support of his contention, he would
invite our attention to Annexure-R1 produced along with
counter statement said to have been filed by the
petitioners before the Tribunal. Learned counsel would
(2006) 4 SCC 1
NC: 2024:KHC:43156-DB
submit that the information furnished to the petitioners
under RTI indicates that there are sufficient vacant posts
during the year 1993-94 and as such he submits that
petitioners were appointed against vacant sanctioned
posts. Thus, he submits that action of the respondents in
rejecting the cases of the petitioners for regularization is
wholly arbitrary and unreasonable. Hence, he prays for
allowing the writ petition.
4. On the contrary, learned Additional Government
Advocate supports the order passed by the Tribunal and
further submits that there is no material to establish that
the petitioners were appointed against the vacant
sanctioned posts. Learned Additional Government
Advocate submits that the cases of the petitioners and
similarly situated persons could be considered for
regularization only if they fulfill the criteria prescribed in
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph 53 of
the UMADEVI'S case supra. Thus, he prays for dismissal
of the writ petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:43156-DB
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the
only point that would arise for our consideration is as to,
Whether interference is required with the
impugned order passed by the Tribunal?
6. The answer to the above point would be in the
Negative for the following reasons:
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in UMADEVI case
supra has made it clear that a temporary employee or
daily wage employee would be entitled for consideration of
his/her case for regularization, only if he/she fulfills the
criteria that appointment shall be against vacant and
sanctioned post; by competent authority; and if he/she
fulfills the qualification prescribed for the post. In the
instant case, petitioners have failed to establish that their
appointment was against the sanctioned vacant posts. The
material produced by the petitioners relates to the year
1993-94 vacancies, whereas the petitioners according to
them, were appointed on daily wage basis during the year
NC: 2024:KHC:43156-DB
1987-90. Unless the petitioners prove that their
appointment is on daily wage basis against the sanctioned
vacant post, they would not be entitled for regularization.
8. The Tribunal referring to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in UMADEVI case supra and
subsequent judgments has rightly come to the conclusion
that there is no document to support the pleadings and
that they fulfill the condition prescribed in UMADEVI case
supra.
9. We do not find any merit in the writ petition.
Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected.
Sd/-
(S.G.PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
PSJ,NC
