[Cites 40, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Registrar vs State Of Karnataka on 16 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.705 OF 2024 (S-RES)
C/W
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.646 OF 2024
WRIT APPEAL NO.629 OF 2024 (S-REG)
WRIT APPEAL NO.711 OF 2024 (S-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO.742 OF 2024 (S-RES)
IN WA NO.705/2024
BETWEEN:
1. THE REGISTRAR
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE
GKVK, BENGALURU 560 065.
REP. BY REGISTRAR
DR. BASAVEGOWDA,
S/O NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.
2. THE REGISTRAR
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE,
MANDYA 571401.
REP. BY REGISTRAR,
DR. BASAVEGOWDA,
S/O NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
3. THE REGISTRAR
ZARS, V.C. FARM,
MYSORE 571405.
REP. BY REGISTRAR,
DR. N. SHIVAKUMAR,
S/O NANJAPPA,
2
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SACHIN B.S., ADV. )
AND:
1. SRI CHIKKANNA
S/O RAMAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OFFICE UAS V C FARM,
MANDYA 571 405.
2. SRI H. C. SHANKARAIAH
S/O CHIKKAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT HULLAL GRAMA MANDYA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT 571405.
OFFICE ZARS, V. C. FARM,
MANDYA 571 405.
3. SMT. SHETTAHALLI NINGAMMA
W/O LATE SHETTAHALLI THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT E, 8 SRS COLONY, ZARS,
V C FARM, MANDYA, DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-574105.
OFFICE ZARS V C FARM,
DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK
AND DISTRICT-574105.
4. SRI SHASHI
S/O SHEKARA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT RRS QUARTERS,
MYSORE-571435.
OFFICE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE,
NAGENAHALLI, MYSORE DISTRICT-571405.
5. SRI BOMMAYYA
S/O PUTTAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT RRS QUARTERS,
MYSORE-571435.
3
OFFICE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE,
NAGENAHALLI, MYSORE DISTRICT-571405.
6. SRI KRISHNA D K
S/O KENCHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT UAS, VC FARM,
MANDYA-571405.
7. SRI SHIVANNA
S/O LATE GENDE BORAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT ARS COLONY, ZARS, V C FARM,
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405
OFFICE ZARS VC FARM,
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405.
8. SMT. MAHADEVAMMA
S/O LATE SANMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT DATC VC FARM,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405
OFFICE DATA V C FARM, DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405.
9. SRI M S BILIGOWDA
S/O LATE POSE SIDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT MALLANAYAKANA KATTE,
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405
OFFICE ZARS V C FARM,
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405.
10 . SMT. SANNAMMA M
W/O M S BILIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT MALLANAYAKANA KATTE, DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405
OFFICE MALLANAYAKANA KATTE,
4
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405.
11 . SRI C M BOVAIAH
S/O MANCHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI,
KERAGUDU HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405
OFFICE CHOKKANAHALLI,
KERAGUDU HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405.
12 . SRI VENKATESHA
S/O SANNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT GANADALU VILLAGE,
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405
OFFICE GANADALU VILLAGE,
DUDDA HOBLLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405.
13 . SRI BASAVARAJU
S/O LATE PUTTACHANNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT KADUKOTTANAHALLI,
DODDAMULAGUDU POST,
BANNUR HOBLI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT-571405
OFFICE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE
V C FARM, MANDYA-571405.
14 . SRI BHAGYA
S/O LATE LINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT MALLANAYAKANA KATTE,
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405.
OFFICE ZARS VC FARM,
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405.
5
15 . SRI NARAYANA
S/O LATE MALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT K HONNALAGERE,
MADDUR TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571433
OFFICE ZARS V C FARM,
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405.
16 . SRI GANADALU JAYALAKSHMI
W/O VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT GANADALU VILLAGE,
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TOWN AND DIST-571405
OFFICE ZARS V C FARM,
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405.
17 . SRI PRAKASH
S/O LATE SANNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405
OFFICE ZARS V C FARM,
DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405.
18 . SRI CHIKKIRAMMA
W/O SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT SRS COLONY NO.E7,
ZARS V C FARM, MANDYA TALUK
AND DISTRICT-571405
OFFICE UAS V C FARM, MANDYA-571405.
19 . SRI A SHIVANNA
S/O MARIYAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT ZARS V C FARM,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405.
6
20 . SRI NAGESH
S/O CHAMIAH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT ARS COLONY, VC FARM,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405
OFFICE KRISHI VIGNANA KENDRA,
V C FARM, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571405.
21 . SRI. PUTTARAJU
S/O. JOGAIAH,
R/AT HULIKERE KOPPALU, DUDDA HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT 571405,
OFFICE - UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE,
VC FARM, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT 571405.
22 . SRI. H SANNE GOWDA
S/O. MADE GOWDA,
R/AT SRS COLONY, NO.E7,
ZARS V C FARM,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT 571405,
OFFICE ZARS, VC FARM,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT 571405.
23 . SMT. HEGGADAHAVI MAHADEVAMMA
W/O. H. SANNE GOWDA,
R/AT SRS COLONY, NO.E7, ZARS VC FARM,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT 571405,
OFFICE ZARS, VC FARM,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT 571405.
SRI SWAMY S/O MANJANNA
SINCE DECEASED
24 . VISHALAKSHI
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
GANANGURU, SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK,
MANDYA 571807.
25 . MANOJ G S
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT 24-57 GROUND FLOOR,
2ND CROSS,
MOHAMMED LAYOUT
7
BHOOPASANDRA RMV 2ND STAGE,
KARNATAKA 560094.
26 . SHILPA G S
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT 54 KARIYAPPANA DODDI
BIDADI, RAMANAGARA
KARNATAKA 562109.
27 . SRI KRISHNA
S/O SRINIVAS RAO,
R/AT GANDALU,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT 571405
OFFICE UAS VC FARM
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT 571405.
28 . SRI P M MAHADEVAYYA
S/O MADHAYYA,
OFFICE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE,
VC FARM, MANDYA TALUK
AND DISTRICT 571405.
29 . SRI. AMMALLI PUTTASWAMY
W/O. ERRAIAH,
R/AT SRS COLONY,
NO.E7, ZARS VC FARM, MANDYA TALUK
AND DISTRICT 571405.
OFFICE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE,
VC FARM, MANDYA TALUK
AND DISTRICT 571405.
30 . SRI. B N NINGAIAH
S/O. MADAYYA,
R/AT BETTAHALLI, NELREKERI POST,
SRIRANGAPATTANA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT 571415,
OFFICE ZARS, VC FARM,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT 571405.
31 . SMT. PUTTALAKSHMI
S/O. SIDDAIAH,
R/AT SRS COLONY,
8
NO.E7, ZARS, VC FARM,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT 571405.
OFFICE ZARS VC FARM,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT 571405.
32 . SMT. UMA
W/O. NINGARAJU,
R/AT NO.263, DUDDA HOBLI,
GANDALU, MANDYA DISTRICT 571405.
OFFICE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE,
VC FARM, MANDYA TALUK
AND DISTRICT 571405.
33 . SMT. GANDALU KEMALAMMA
S/O. KEMPAIAYYA,
R/AT GANDALU, VC FARM POST
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT 571405,
OFFICE ZARS, VC FARM, MANDYA
TALUK AND DISTRICT 571405.
34 . SMT. HOSAHALLISHIVAMMA
S/O BASAVARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
OFFICE ZARS V C FARM
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICCT 571405.
35 . SRI. CHANDRA
S/O. CHOWDAIAH,
R/AT GANDALU,
MANDYA DISTRICT 571405.
OFFICE UAS VC FARM,
MANDYA 571405.
36 . SRI. CHANNAPPA
S/O. SANNAPPA,
R/AT GANDALU,
MANDYA DISTRICT 571405.
37 . SMT. PREMA
W/O. SIDDARAJU,
R/AT GANDALU,
MANDYA DISTRICT 571405.
9
OFFICE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE,
VC FARM, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT 571405.
38 . SRI. YOGESH
S/O. PUTTAMADAIAH,
R./AT SRS COLONY, NO.E7,
ZARS V C FARM, MANDYA TALUK
AND DISTRICT 571405,
OFFICE ZARS, VC FARM,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT 571405.
39 . SRI.N SHIVASWAMY
S/O. MALLIGOWDA,
OFFICE ZARS, VC FARM,
MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT 571405.
40 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
AGRICULTURAL AND HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT,
MS BUILDING,
BENGALURU 560001.
41 . THE SECRETARY
GOVT. OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL
HUSBANDRY AND FISHERIES
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU 560001.
42 . THE KARNATAKA VETERINARY
ANIMAL AND FISHERIES SCIENCE UNIVERSITY
KVAFSU, MYSURU 560024.
REGISTRAR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V. LAKSHMINARAYAN, SR. ADV. FOR
SRI. VIKRAM BALAJI, ADV. FOR C/R1 TO R39;
SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG WITH
SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R40 TO R42)
THIS WA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 7.3.2024 IN W.P.NO.10632 OF 2021 AND ETC.
10
IN CCC 646/2024:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SUJATHA DEVI R.
WIFE OF SRI. SATEESHA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
WORKING PRESENTLY AS FARM LABOUR (D-GROUP),
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS,
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE,
G.K.V.K., BENGALURU - 560 065.
2. SRI. N. SRINIVASA,
SON OF SRI. NANJUNDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
WORKING PRESENTLY FARM LABOUR (D-GROUP),
DEPARTMENT OF AGRONOMY,
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
G.K.V.K, BANGALORE- 560 065.
3. SRI. S. RAJANNA,
SON OF SIDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
WORKING PRESENTLY AS FARM LABOUR (D-GROUP),
DEPARTMENT OF SERICULTURE, CAS,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
G.K.V.K., BANGALORE- 560 065.
4. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA,
WIFE OF NARASIMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
WORKING AS FARM LABOURER,
DEPARTMENT OF GENETICS AND PLANT BREEDING,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
CAS, G.K.V.K.,
BANGALORE- 560 065.
5. SRI. RAJU. P @ PERUMAL,
SON OF MUNISWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
WORKING AS FARM LABOURER,
DEPARTMENT OF BOTANICAL GARDEN
11
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
CAS, G.K.V.K.,
BANGALORE- 560 065.
6. SRI. L. NARAYANA SWAMY,
SON OF LAKSHMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
WORKING PRESENTLY AS FARM LABOUR,
A.I.C.R.P. SMALL MILLETS,
ZARS, UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
UAS, G.K.V.K.,
BANGALORE- 560 065.
7. SRI. RAMEGOWDA M.
SON OF MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
WORKING PRESENTLY FARM LABOUR,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
G.K.V.K., BANGALORE- 560 065.
8. SRI. T.G. SIDDARAJU,
SON OF SRI. GOVINDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
WORKING PRESENTLY FARM LABOUR,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AND ABM,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
COA, G.K.V.K., BANGALORE- 560 065.
9. SRI. BYLAPPA B.
SON OF SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
WORKING PRESENTLY FARM LABOUR,
OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
G.K.V.K., BANGALORE- 560 065.
10 . SMT. JAYAMMA,
WIFE OF SRI. CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
WORKING AS FARM LABOURER,
DEPARTMENT OF SERICULTURE,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
12
G.K.V.K., BANGALORE-560065.
11 . SRI. HANUMANTHARAYA,
SON OF SRI. NARASIMHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
WORKING PRESENTLY AS FARM LABOURER,
HORTICULTURAL DEPARTMENT,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
G.K.V.K., BANGALORE-560 065.
12 . SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
WIFE OF SRI. JANA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
WORKING AS FARM LABOURER,
FARM OFFICE, ZARS,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
G.K.V.K., BANGALORE- 560 065.
13 . SRI. N.M. PUTTASWAMY,
SON OF LATE MALLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
WORKING IN PG BOYS HOSTEL,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
G.K.V.K., BANGALORE- 560 065.
...COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI I. THARANATH POOJARY, SENIOR ADV. FOR
SMT. VEENA T.N., ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDING, 4TH FLOOR SACHIVALAYA,
BENGALURE.
...PROFORMA RESPONDENT
2. DR. BASAVE GOWDA
THE REGISTRAR,
THE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
UAS, G.K.V.K. BENGALURU.
13
3. SMT. M.S. PRATHIBA,
THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
THE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
UAS, G.K.V.K. BENGALURU.
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG WITH
SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR PROFORMA R1;
SRI. B.S.SACHIN, ADV. FOR R2 & R3)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 11 & 12 OF THE
CONTEMPTS OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO ISSUE
SUMMONS, PROSECUTE AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED FOR
DELIBERATE AND WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDERS
DATED 7.3.2024, IN W.P.NO.27478 OF 2023, PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
IN WA NO.629/2024
BETWEEN:
1. THE REGISTRAR
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCEINCES
GKVK, BANGALORE-560065.
2. THE AGRICULTURE RESEARCH STATION
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH
HASSAN-573201.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI M.SREENIVASA, ADV. )
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETAY
AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT
M. S. BUILDING
BANGALORE-560001.
14
2. THE SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FISHERIES
M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.
3. THE REGISTRAR
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCEINCES
HASSAN-573225.
4. THE KARNATAKA VETRENARY
ANIMAL AND FISHERIES SCIENCE
UNIVERSITY, (KVAFSU)
HASSAN, REGISTRAR.
NOTE:
THE OFFICE OF 4 AND 5
NOT AT ALL SITUATED AT HASSAN
5. SMT. NAGAMMA
W/O NANJUNDECHAR
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT B M ROAD, HALADAHALLI GATE
MADENUR, HASSAN-573225.
W/A AGRICULTURE RESEARCH STATION
MADENUR, HASSAN-573225.
6. SMT. PADMA
W/O DODDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI,
RAGIMUDDANAHALLI, K. BYADARAHALLI,
HASSAN-573220.
W/A COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE,
KARKERE
HASSAN 573225.
7. SMT. NANAJAMMA
W/O MANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/A 102, NEAR KERE CHANNARAYAPATANA
SOMANATHANAHALLI, SAGATHAVALLI,
CHANNARAYAPATANA, HASSAN-573116
W/O AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION
15
MADENUR, HASSAN-573225.
8. SMT. LALITHA
W/O MANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT NO.9 SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI,
HADAHALLI, MADENUR, HASSAN-573225.
W/A AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION,
MADENUR, HASSAN-57325.
9. SRI KUMARA H K
S/O LATE KALASEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI, HADAHALLI,
MADENUR, HASSAN-573225,
W/A AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION
MADENUR, HASSAN-573225.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG WITH
SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1 & R2)
THIS WA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.3.2024 MADE IN WRIT
PETITION NO.4553/2022 IN SOFAR IT RELATES TO AGAINST
RESPONDENT NO.5 TO 9 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
IN WA NO.711/2024
BETWEEN:
1. UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE
GKVK, BENGALURU-560065.
REP. BY REGISTARR
DR. BASAVEGOWDA
S/O NANAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
2. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER SCIENCES
16
U.A.S., GKVK, BENGALURU-560065.
REP. BY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
SMT. PRATHIBA M. S.
D/O LATE SHIVASWAMY M. K.
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SACHIN B.S., ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI NARAYANASWAMY K. T.
S/O K L THAMMANNA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
WORKED AS FARM LABOUR
(D GROUP) DEPARTMENT OF FOOD SCIENCE AND
NUTRITION, CAS,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL
SCIENCES, GKVK,
BANGALORE-560065.
2. SRI ANANTHA
S/O MUDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
WORKED AS FARM LABOURER
FARM OFFICE, ZARS
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
GKVK, BANGALORE-560065.
3. SRI H S NAGARAJU
S/O LATE SUBBAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
WORKING AS UG BOYS HOSTEL
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
GKVK, BANGALORE-560065.
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
AGRICULTURE
AND HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING,
4TH FLOOR, SACHIVALAYA,
BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI I.THARANATH POOJARY, SENIOR ADV. FOR
17
SMT. VEENA T.N., ADV. FOR C/R1 TO R3;
SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG WITH
SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R4)
THIS WA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 7.3.2024 IN W.P. NO.27469 OF 2023 AND ETC.
IN WA NO.742/2024
BETWEEN:
1. UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE
GKVK, BENGALURU-560065.
REP. BY REGISTARR
DR. BASAVEGOWDA
S/O NANAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
2. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER SCIENCES
U.A.S., GKVK, BENGALURU-560065.
REP. BY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
SMT. PRATHIBA M. S.
D/O LATE SHIVASWAMY M. K.
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SACHIN B.S., ADV.)
AND:
1. SMT. SUJATHA DEVI R
W/O SRI SATEESHA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
WORKING PRESENTLY AS FARM LABOUR (D-GROUP)
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL
ECONOMICS COLLEGE OF
AGRICULTURE, G K V K
BANGALORE - 560 065.
2. SRI N SRINIVASA
SON OF SRI NANJUNDAPPA
18
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
WORKING PRESENTLY FARM LABOUR (D-GROUP)
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
G K V K, BANGALORE - 560 065.
3. SRI S RAJANNA
SON OF SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
WORKING PRESENTLY AS FARM LABOUR (D-GROUP)
DEPARTMENT OF SERICULTURE, CAS,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
G K V K, BANGALORE - 560 065.
4. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
WIFE OF NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
WORKING AS FARM LABOURER
DEPARTMENT OF GENETICS AND
PLANT BREEDING
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
CAS, G K V K,
BANGALORE-560065.
5. SRI RAJU P @ PERUMAL
SON OF MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
WORKING AS FARM LABOURER
DEPARTMENT OF BOTANICAL
GARDEN UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL
SCIENCES ACAS, G K V K,
BANGALORE 560065.
6. SRI L NARAYANA SWAMY
SON OF LAKSHMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
WORKING PRESENTLY AS FARM LABOUR
A.I.C.R.P SMALL MILLETS
ZARS, UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
UAS, G.K.V.K
BANGALORE - 560 065.
7. SRI RAMEGOWDA M
19
SON OF MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
WORKING PRESENTLY FARM LABOUR
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE, G.K.V.K.
BANGALORE - 560 065.
8. SRI T G SIDDARAJU
SON OF SRI GOVINDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
WORKING PRESENTLY FARM LABOUR
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING
AND ABM,
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
COA, G.K.V.K, BANGALORE - 560 065.
9. SRI BYLAPPA B
SON OF SRI HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
WORKING PRESENTLY FARM LABOUR
OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
G.K. V. K, BANGALORE 560065.
10 . SMT. JAYAMMA
WIFE OF SRI CHINNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
WORKING AS FARM LABOURER
DEPARTMENT OF SERICULTURE
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
G K V K, BANGALORE 560065.
11 . SRI HANUMANTHARAYA
SON OF SRI NARASIMHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
WORKING PRESENTLY AS FARM LABOURER
HORTICULTURAL DEPARTMENT
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
G.K.V.K, BANGALORE - 560 065.
12 . SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
WIFE OF SRI JANA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
20
WORKING AS FARM LABOURER
FARM OFFICE ZARS
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
G.K.V.K., BANGALORE 560065.
13 . SRI N M PUTTASWAMY
SON OF LATE MALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
WORKING AS PG BOYS HOSTEL
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
G.K.V.K., BANGALORE 560065.
14 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING 4TH FLOOR SACHIVALAYA
BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI I.THARANATH POOJARY, SENIOR ADV. FOR
SMT. VEENA T.N., ADV. FOR C/R1 TO R13;
SRI REUBEN JACOB, AAG WITH
SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN AGA FOR R14)
THIS WA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 7.3.2024 IN W.P.NO.27478 OF 2023 AND ETC.
THESE WRIT APPEALS AND CCC HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 21.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
21
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
Writ Appeals No.705/2024, 629/2024, 711/2024 and
742/2024 are filed by the University of Agricultural Science
('University' for short) challenging the common order dated
07.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ
Petitions No.10632/2021 c/w. 4553/2022, 27469/2023 and
27478/2023. Contempt of Court Case No.646/2024 is filed
alleging willful disobedience of the Order dated 07.03.2024
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.27478/2023.
2. We have heard Shri V. Lakshminarayana, learned
Senior Counsel as instructed by Shri. Vikram Balaji, learned
advocate and Shri. I. Tharanath Poojary, learned senior
counsel as instructed by Smt. Veena T.N, learned advocate
appearing for the private parties; Shri Sachin B.S., and Shri
M. Sreenivasa, learned counsel appearing for the University;
and Shri Reuben Jacob, learned Additional Advocate General
along with Smt. Pramodhini Kishan, learned Additional
Government Advocate for the State.
3. The facts of the case as pleaded by the appellants
are that the respondents are long-serving daily-wage
workers of the University of Agricultural Science ('University'
for short) - many of whom have completed 30-35 years of
service. The workers sought for regularisation on completion
of 10 years of service in parity with others who were already
regularised, and non-discrimination in pay and service
benefits.
4. The University in its 379th meeting dated
05.01.2019, resolved to regularise 128 daily-wage
employees including some of the writ petitioners. However,
the Government by letter dated 18.02.2019, withheld
approval to the Board's decision and later rejected the
regularisation proposal, stating that the employees were
covered under the Welfare Act and not were eligible for
absorption. Consequently, following the Government's
refusal, the Board in its 386th meeting on 01.09.2020,
withdrew the earlier proposal for regularisation.
5. It was further contended that 171 daily wage
employees including some of the private respondents had
already been granted all statutory benefits under the
Karnataka Daily Wage Employees' Welfare Act, 2012
('Welfare Act, 2012' for short) and that they are not entitled
to seek regularisation.
6. The learned Single Judge noted that the Board of
the University on several occasions had recommended the
regularisation of the daily-wage employees. However, the
sole impediment cited by the University was the absence of
consent from the State Government. The learned Single
Judge concluded that such consent was unnecessary
inasmuch as the financial burden was to be borne entirely by
the University. It was also noted that the Board possessed
the statutory authority to create non-teaching posts.
7. It was held that the action of the Government in
bringing 171 employees under the purview of the Welfare
Act amounted to deemed creation of sanctioned posts. The
bar on regularisation as laid down in The Secretary, State
of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others
reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 was not attracted in the
present case. The writ petition was allowed, directing the
University to regularise the services of 128 daily-wage
workers.
8. The contempt proceedings against the appellants
stem from the non-compliance of orders in W.P. No.
27478/2023 directing the University to regularise the
respondents.
9. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing
for the appellants in W.A.No.711/2024 and
W.A.No.742/2024 that the appellants herein were the
petitioners in W.P.No.27469/2023 and 27478/2023,
respectively. They were persons who had already been
regularised in service by the University. It is submitted that
on 13.08.2009 in Annexure 'F' Order produced in
W.P.No.10632/2021 was passed, regularising the services of
K.P. Raju and seven others. However, the claim made by the
appellants for regularisation was rejected on 23.10.2008,
which led to filing of W.Ps.No.11642-78/2012. By Order
dated 20.04.2012, this Court directed the University to
consider the case of the appellants for regularisation without
reference to the impugned endorsement dated 23.10.2008.
When the said direction was not implemented, CCC
No.2694-2708/2013 was filed. During the pendency of that
proceeding, the University submitted a modified order of
regularisation by which the services of the appellants were
regularised. Recording the said order of regularisation, the
contempt proceedings were closed on 22.06.2014.
Thereafter, a review petition was filed before this Court,
which was also rejected on 02.02.2016.
10. It is submitted that it was thereafter that the
request of the 128 workers for regularisation was considered
by the University and the University recommended such
regularisation. However, the State Government passed an
order dated 18.02.2019 directing the University to keep the
resolution in abeyance and to reconsider the resolution. On
04.06.2019, the matter was reconsidered and the University
reiterated that the regularisation of 128 employees was to
be effected without casting any financial burden on the State
Government. Further communications occurred, however,
the State refused to grant permission for regularisation on
the ground that the benefit of the Welfare Act had been
extended to the employees and that there was no sanction
post to accommodate them. The 128 employees raised the
question of parity and contended that earlier batches of
identically situated employees had been regularised. As an
answer to the said contention, it is submitted that the orders
of regularisation of Sujatha Devi and 16 others were
recalled.
11. The learned Single Judge considered the
contentions advanced and found that the University had
taken a clear decision to regularise the services of the
employees and that no Government sanction for creation of
the posts is required. The orders withdrawing the
regularisation of Sujatha Devi and others was quashed and
it was declared that the regularisation orders shall stand
restored and all consequential monetary benefits shall be
paid to the said employees within two months from date of
receipt of the copy of the order.
12. In the appeals, the appellants contend that the
learned Single Judge disregarded the mandatory
requirements of Section 13(2)(XIII) of the University of
Agricultural Sciences in Bangalore Act, 2010 ['University Act'
for short] which allows for the creation of teaching and non-
teaching posts only with prior Government approval. They
contend that the judgment of the learned Single Judge
ignores Section 3 of the Welfare Act, which only permits
daily-wage employees, once notified under the Act, to
continue on daily wages until the age of 60 and does not
authorise their regularisation.
13. Despite the Act, the learned Single Judge
assumed that sanctioned posts existed for the 128 daily-
wage employees and treated their continuation under the
Welfare Act as equivalent to the creation of posts. It is
submitted that the Government never created or sanctioned
any Group-D posts for these workers and the finding of
"deemed creation of posts" is completely unwarranted and
unjustified.
14. The appellants further submitted that the
respondent workers did not produce any appointment orders
showing that they were initially appointed against
sanctioned posts by a competent authority. Their
engagement was purely on a daily-wage basis. Hence, their
case squarely falls within the bar laid down in Umadevi's
(supra), and reaffirmed in Vibhuti Shankar Pandey v.
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2023) 3
SCC 639, which prohibited regularsation of workers who
were never appointed to sanctioned posts.
15. Shri B.S.Sachin, learned counsel appearing for
the Univeristy in W.A.No.711/2024 and W.A.No.742/2024
has placed the following decisions:-
• M.P.Housing Board & Anr. v. Manoj Shrivastava,
reported in 2006(2) Supreme 354;
• Union of India & Ors. v. Ilmo Devi & Anr., reported in
2021 0 Supreme (SC) 596; and
• Vibhuti Shankar Pandey v. The State of Madhya
Pradesh & Ors., reported in 2023 0 Supreme (SC) 96;
16. Shri M. Sreenivasa, learned counsel appearing for
the University in W.A.No.629/2024 has placed the following
decisions:-
• Smt. Sujata Devi R. and others v. Shri Bharathlal
Meena and others decided on 17.01.2014 in
C.C.C.No.2694-2708/2013;
• Smt. Sujata Devi R. and others v. Shri Bharathlal
Meena and others decided on 23.04.2015 in
C.C.C.No.2694-2708/2013; and
• Smt. Sujata Devi R. and others v. Shri Bharathlal
Meena and others decided on 21.08.2013 in
C.C.C.No.633-647/2013.
17. Shri V. Lakshminarayana, learned senior counsel
appearing for the private parties has brought to our notice
the orders passed by the University regularising the services
of identically placed employees. It is submitted that since
the employees were continuing without any break for more
than 30 years, the contention that the posts are not
sanctioned is only a hyper-technical plea raised to deny the
benefit of regularisation to the petitioners while identically
placed persons have already been granted all benefits of
regularisation. It is submitted that in several identical cases,
the benefit of regularisation had been extended to persons
who had completed 10 years of service after 01.07.1984 and
such directions of the Court had been given full effect to. It
is contended that since the writ petitioners were admittedly
fully qualified and had been carrying out the duties in the
posts for three decades and more, there is absolutely no
bona fides in the contention that the posts are not available
to accommodate them. It is further contended that then
question of the power of the University to create
administrative posts and to appoint persons to such posts
has also been specifically decided with reference to the
statutory provisions and no interference whatsoever is called
for.
18. It is further submitted that their regularisation is
justified based on long years of service as well as parity with
similarly placed employees already regularised by the State
and the University. Further, this position has been upheld
and confirmed by the Apex Court in Malathi Das's case
(Supra). It is submitted that the University itself regularised
the respondent workers through an order dated 22.07.2024
pursuant to interim directions, and the State has regularised
numerous comparable employees in other departments.
19. It is contended that objections based on financial
constraints, sanctioned posts, cut-off dates are misplaced,
especially since the University possesses statutory power to
create posts and had already resolved to regularise
employees through its own funds. The withdrawal of earlier
regularisation orders by the University is alleged to be
improper. On these grounds, the respondents seek
confirmation of the regularisation order and dismissal of the
appeals.
20. Shri V. Lakshminarayana, learned senior counsel
appearing for the private parties in W.A.No.705/2024 has
placed the following decisions:-
• K.P.Raju & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, by order dated
31.03.2003 passed in W.P.Nos.13858-13857/2000;
• Smt. Premakala Shetty v. The Common Cadre
Committee & Anr., by order dated 12.11.1998 passed
in W.P.Nos.1338/1998 connected matters;
• State of Karnataka & Ors. v. T.B.Manjunath & Ors.,
reported in ILR 2003 KAR 2827;
• The State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Revanna S., by order
dated 09.07.2019 passed in C.A.No.5292/2019;
• Jivanlala v. Pravin Krishna & Ors., reported in (2016)
15 SCC 747;
• Dhananjoy Karmakar v. State of West Bengal & Ors.,
reported in (2015) 17 SCC 504;
• Malathi Das & Ors. v. Suresh & Ors., reported in
(2014) 13 SCC 249;
• Sri. C.G.Jagadeesh v. The State of Karnataka & Ors.,
by order dated 23.04.2014 passed in
W.P.No.54284/2013 (S-KAT);
• The State of Karnataka v. Sri. R.Jagadeesh & Ors., by
order dated 13.11.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.45/2013 &
3477-3482/2013 (S-RES);
• Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., reported
in 2025 SCC online SC 1735;
• Raman Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., by
order dated 03.07.2023 passed in
SLP(C).No.7898/2020;
• Ravi Verma & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., by order
dated 13.03.2018 passed in C.A.Nos.2795-
2796/2018;
• Nagabhushana v. State of Karnataka & Ors., by order
dated 19.07.2019 passed in W.P.No.44548/2016 (S-
RES);
• Sri. Nagendra S.G. & Ors. v. Dr. K.C.Veeranna & Ors.,
by order dated 30.04.2024 passed in C.A.
No.5586/2024;
• The State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Mayanna Gowda M.
& Ors., by passed in SLP(C)No.42180/2024;
• Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3826;
• The State of Karnataka & Anr. v. K.Bhaghyalakshmi
and Ors., by order dated 29.10.2013 passed in
W.P.Nos.15716/2013;
• The Karnataka Casual & Daily v. The State of
Karnataka & Ors., by order dated 22.09.1998 passed
in W.P. Nos.12610/1993 & 28248-449/1998;
• The State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Shri Ningappa
Gudagi, by order dated 24.03.2025 passed in
W.P.No.1180/2024 (S-REG);
• Union of India & Ors. v. Central Administrative
Tribunal & Ors., reported in (2019) 4 SCC 290;
• Nihal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., reported
in (2013) 14 SCC 65;
• Om Prakash Banerjee v. The State of West Bengal &
Ors., by order dated 19.05.2023 passed in
C.A.No.4210/2023;
• State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Khatoonbi, by order
dated 27.03.2019 passed in W.P.No.107600/2017 (S-
KAT);
• The Principal Secretary & Ors. v. Smt. Vijayamma, by
order dated 30.10.2019 passed in W.P.No.4282/2012
(S-RES);
• P. Junjappa v. The Principal Chief Conservator of
Forests, by order dated 17.03.2025 passed in
W.P.No.6238/2020 (S-KSAT) connected matters;
• The State of Karnataka & Anr. v. M.A.Biradar & Anr.,
by order dated 04.09.2024 passed in
W.P.No.100387/2023 (S-REG);
• Venkataraju V v. State of Karnataka, by order dated
10.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.4268/2022 (S-KSAT);
• Sri. Nagendra S.G. & Ors. v. Dr. K.C.Veeranna & Ors.,
by order dated 30.04.2024 passed in C.A.
No.5586/2024;
• Karnataka Veterinary Animal & Fisheries Sciences
University v. Someshwara and Ors., by order dated
16.10.2024 passed in C.A.No.5586/2024;
• The Chief Secretary & Ors. v. Mahedevappa, by
passed in SLP (C) NO.4469/2022;
• Sri. Mahadevappa v. The Chief Secretary & Ors., by
order dated 17.11.2022 passed in CCC
No.100149/2021;
• The State of Karnataka v. A.K.Vasantha & Ors., by
order dated 13.01.2003 passed in W.P.No.793-
796/2003(S-KAT);
• Sri. Venkataraju V. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., by
order dated 10.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.4268/2022
(S-KSAT);
• The State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Shri Ningappa
Gudagi, by order dated 24.03.2025 passed in
W.P.No.1180/2024 (S-REG);
• The Secretary to Govt. v. Dr. Parappa Shankarappa,
by order dated 30.09.1999 passed in
W.A.Nos.968/1998, 108/1986 & 1108-29/1999; and
• The University of Agricultural Sciences v. Dr.
Digambarappa & Ors., by order dated 24.06.2022
passed in W.A.Nos.100263-100264/2022 (S-RES).
21. Shri. I. Tharanath Poojary, learned senior counsel
appearing for the private parties in W.A.No.711/2024 and
W.A.No.742/2024 would submit that in view of the fact that
the private respondents had been regularised in service after
considering all relevant aspects of the matter, the
withdrawal of the regularisation after 5 years was
completely unjustified. It is further contended that the fact
that their services had been regularised, had been submitted
before this Court in a pending Contempt of Court Case and
the Contempt of Court Case had been closed recording the
said submission. Thereafter, a review petition was
attempted which was also rejected. It is submitted that in
the above circumstances, the order recalling the
regularisation amounts to a contempt in the face of the
Court and cannot be sustained under any circumstances.
22. Shri I. Tharanath Poojary, learned senior counsel
appearing for Workmen in W.A.No.711/2024 and
Complainants in C.C.C.No.646/2024, has placed the
following decisions:-
• K.P.Raju and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., by
order dated 31.03.2003 passed in W.P.Nos.13858-
13867/2000;
• Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., reported
in 2025 SCC online SC 1735;
• State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. v. District Bar
Association, reported in (2017) 3 SCC 410;
• Malathi Das and Others v. Suresh and Others,
reported in (2014) 13 SCC 249;
• The State of Karnataka & Anr. V. Revanna S., by order
dated 09.07.2019 passed in C.A.No.5292/2019;
• Hanumantharayappa V. and Ors. v. Principal
Secretary, Higher Education Department,
Government of Karnataka and Another., reported in
2022 SCC online KAR 553;
• Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi &
Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1;
• Dharwad Distt. P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage
Employees Association & ors. v. State of Karnataka
& ors., reported in (1990) 2 SCC 396;
• Smt. Sujatha Devi R., v. Bharathlal Meena & Ors., by
order dated 17.01.2014 passed in CCC.2694/2013;
and
• State of Karnataka & Ors. v. M.L.Kesari & Ors.,
reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247.
23. Having considered the contentions advanced, we
notice that the only question that requires examination in
the instant case is whether the judgment of the learned
Single Judge which directed the regularisation service of the
writ petitioners, who had admittedly been working for more
than 30 years in the University requires any interference.
24. The ground on which the request for
regularisation was rejected by the Government was that the
posts were not created after obtaining sanction from the
Government. The learned Single Judge, considering the
contentions advanced, as also the judgments of the Apex
Court, found that the very fact that the service of the
petitioners had been continued without break for more than
30 years would show that the posts are in existence and the
University cannot function without the services of the writ
petitioners.
25. Further, relying on Sections 7, 10, and 11 of the
University Act, it was found that the substantive provision of
the enactment confers power on the University to create the
posts and in the light of the proposal forwarded by the
University, which specifically stated that the entire
expenditure would be borne by the University, no sanction is
required for the creation of course or the regularisation of
the employees.
26. The learned Additional Advocate General submits
that the present arguments advanced by the University are
to the effect of that the Government is required to fund the
expenditure of regularisation. It is submitted that the
Government has no objection to the University regularising
the services of the writ petitioners provided the Government
is not mulcted with the financial liability of such
regularisation. However, it is contended that the finding of
the learned Single Judge that the grant of the benefits under
the Welfare Act amounts to "deemed sanctioning of posts"
will have unforeseen consequences in other cases where
posts do not exist and that the said finding should be
vacated.
27. Having considered the contentions advanced, we
notice that the appeals are preferred only by the University
and no appeal is filed by the Government. It is clearly
stated by the learned Additional Advocate General that the
Government has no objection to the regularisation if the
University takes on the financial responsibility. We notice
that the University itself had repeatedly raised the request
for regularization of the petitioners and similarly situated
employees stating that their services are required and that
they are fully qualified to hold their respective posts. The
learned Single Judge clearly held that there is power in the
University to create administrative non-teaching posts which
are required for conduct of the University. This was the
contention of the University as well.
28. The writ petitioners are admittedly persons
employed in Group-C and Group-D posts and whose services
have been continued without a break for more than 30
years. The proposals forwarded by the University would
specifically show that they had intended to regularise the
services of the employees and to meet the expenses of such
regularisation from the funds available with University.
29. In Dharam Singh's case (supra), the Apex Court
observed that:-
"When public institutions depend, day after day, on
the same hands to perform permanent tasks, equity
demands that those tasks are placed on sanctioned posts,
and those workers are treated with fairness and dignity.
The controversy before us is not about rewarding irregular
employment. It is about whether years of ad hoc
engagement, defended by shifting excuses and pleas of
financial strain, can be used to deny the rights of those
who have kept public institutions running. We resolve it
by insisting that the public employment should be
organised with fairness, reasoned decision-making, and
respect for the dignity of work."
It was further held that refusal to sanction posts
cannot be immune from judicial scrutiny for arbitrariness. It
was emphasized that State cannot balance budgets on those
who perform the most basic and recurring public functions.
In Jaggo's case (supra), the Apex Court has held at
paragraphs No.20 and 27 as follows:-
"20. It is well established that the decision in Uma
Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who
have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and
necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities.
The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries
and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional
requirements. However, where appointments were not
illegal but possibly "irregular," and where employees had
served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned
functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and
humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged,
continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks
inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time,
transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a
scenario demanding fair regularization. In a recent
judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar v. Union of India,
it was held that procedural formalities cannot be used to
deny regularization of service to an employee whose
appointment was termed "temporary" but has performed
the same duties as performed by the regular employee
over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular
employee. The relevant paras of this judgment have been
reproduced below:
"6. The application of the judgment in Uma
Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit
squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific
circumstances under which the appellants were
employed and have continued their service. The
reliance on procedural formalities at the outset
cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive
rights that have accrued over a considerable
period through continuous service. Their promotion
was based on a specific notification for vacancies
and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection
process involving written tests and interviews,
which distinguishes their case from the
appointments through back door entry as
discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).
7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi
(supra) also distinguished between "irregular" and
"illegal" appointments underscoring the importance
of considering certain appointments even if were
not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed
Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been
made illegally if they had followed the procedures
of regular appointments such as conduct of written
examinations or interviews as in the present
case..."
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion,
it is imperative for government departments to lead by
example in providing fair and stable employment.
Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended
periods, especially when their roles are integral to the
organization's functioning, not only contravenes
international labour standards but also exposes the
organization to legal challenges and undermines
employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices,
government institutions can reduce the burden of
unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold
the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant
to embody. This approach aligns with international
standards and sets a positive precedent for the private
sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall
betterment of labour practices in the country."
30. In the instant case, the fact that the writ
petitioners were working without break in non-teaching
posts in Group C and D under the University is not in
dispute. The learned Single Judge had considered the
contentions advanced and had examined the provisions of
the University Act and held that the substantial power was
conferred to the University to create non-teaching posts.
This Court in The State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Revanna
S., by order dated 09.07.2019 passed in
C.A.No.5292/2019, has clearly held that grant of benefits
under the Welfare Act, 2012 cannot be a reason to deny
regularization in deserving cases.
31. The judgments relied on by the learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners would apply with
all force to the facts of these cases. It is clear that the
judgment of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi's case
(supra) cannot be made an instrument of oppression to deny
regularisation after extracting service for decades on end.
Further, we are also in agreement with the proposition that
the grant of benefits under the Welfare Act cannot be a
ground to deny the substantial relief of regularisation.
32. We notice that the real import of the judgment of
the Apex Court in Uma Devi's case (supra), was that the
State and public authorities should not facilitate back door
entry into public employment by-passing the tenets of
fairness and equal opportunity in public employment and the
principles of merit and reservation. The Apex Court has
repeatedly held that the judgment of the Constitution Bench
cannot be used as a weapon of oppression by the very same
authorities who had initially made the daily wage
appointments without following due procedure, to deny
equal pay and service benefits to employees whose services
have been utilized, without break, for decades. The fact that
benefits under the Welfare Act, 2012 have been extended to
the employees can also not stand in the way of their
regularisation in view of the clear stand repeatedly taken by
the University.
33. However, we make it clear that the finding that
the grant of benefits under the Welfare Act amounts to grant
of Government Sanction for creation of posts cannot be a
sound legal proposition. The said observation is vacated. We
hold that the hyper-technical contentions that the posts
have not been created with Government Sanction cannot
stand in the way of regularization of the writ petitioners
services.
34. In the above circumstances, the appeals fail, the
same are accordingly dismissed. The directions of the
learned Single Judge shall be complied with, within a period
of three months.
CCC No. 646/2024 is accordingly closed with liberty to
the complainants to reopen the CCC, if the directions are not
fully complied with, within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
Pending interlocutory applications shall stand disposed
of in all the cases.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
cp*
