Karnataka High Court

Smt Padmavati B Naganagoudar vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 February, 2025

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                                        -1-
                                                                     NC: 2025:KHC-D:3012
                                                                 WP No. 103107 of 2024




                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                               DHARWAD BENCH

                                  DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

                                                     BEFORE

                                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 103107 OF 2024 (S-DIS)

                             BETWEEN:

                             SMT. PADMAVATI B. NAGANAGOUDAR,
                             AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. PRESENTLY NIL
                             R/O. H.NO.27, Y.S COLONY,
                             NEAR CMDR OFFICE,
                             VEERABHADRESWAR LAYOUT,
                             DHARWAD -580004.
                                                                           ...PETITIONER
                             (BY SRI CHETAN T. LIMBIKAI, ADVOCATE)

                             AND:

                             1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                                  REPRESENTED BY ITS
                                  PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
VISHAL
NINGAPPA                          DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
PATTIHAL
                                  AND PANCHAYAT RAJ,
                                  M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU -560001.
Digitally signed by VISHAL
NINGAPPA PATTIHAL
Location: High Court of
Karnataka Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.02.19 10:32:35
+0530




                             2.   THE COMMISSIONER FOR RURAL DRINKING
                                  WATER AND SANITATION,
                                  2ND FLOOR, KHB COMPLEX
                                  CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G ROAD,
                                  BENGALURU -560009.

                             3.   THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
                                  ZILLA PANCHAYAT, DHARWAD- 08.
                                                                       ...RESPONDENTS
                             (BY SMT. KIRTHILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 & R2,
                                 SRI RAJENDRASWAMI C. HOSAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
                             -2-
                                        NC: 2025:KHC-D:3012
                                    WP No. 103107 of 2024




     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO I.
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED DISMISSAL ORDER DATED 29.02.2024 BEARING
ITS    NO:DAZIPAM/MuKANiAa/SwaBhaMi(Gra)/2023-24/3000
VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND
REINSTATE THE PRESENT PETITIONER IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY. GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF'S AS ARE
DEEMED FIT AND NECESSARY UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE COST OF THIS WRIT PETITION
IN INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:

                       ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question

an order dated 29.02.2024, by which, the third respondent

terminates the service of the petitioner, as a Consultant of

Information, Education and Communication, which comes

under the Scheme-Swatch Bharat Mission.

2. Heard Sri Chetan T. Limbikai, learned counsel

for petitioner, Smt. Kirtilatha R. Patil, learned HCGP for

respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri Rajendraswami C.

Hosamath, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3012

3. Facts in brief, germane are as follows:

The petitioner is appointed as a Consultant on

23.12.2005 in the respondent and is in continuous

employment for the last 18 years. It is the submission of

the petitioner that she has received several certificates for

the work performed throughout these 18 years. For the

year 2021, the performance of the petitioner, according to

the respondent, was not up to the mark. Therefore, a

notice comes to be issued and reply submitted by the

petitioner to the notice results in her termination. The

termination has led the petitioner to this Court in subject

petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that for 18 long years petitioner has worked with

the respondent under the Scheme though, the contract

was renewed from time to time. Non-achievement of

target in a particular year cannot result in termination of

the petitioner, is submission of the counsel appearing for

the petitioner. He would seek to place reliance upon the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3012

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K. Raghupathi

vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others1 to buttress his

submission towards the quashment of the order.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent

No.3 would seek to defend the action of termination,

taking this Court through a communication with regard to

the Scheme for appointment of persons under the

Swachch Bharat Mission. According to the learned

counsel, in terms of the communication, one should get at

least 30 marks in a particular year for continuance of their

services albeit on contract basis. He would submit that

since the petitioner fell short of achieving the said target,

termination was the only option available.

6. Learned HCGP would toe the lines of the learned

counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 and would seek

dismissal of the petition.

(2022) 6 SCC 346

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3012

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions and perused the material on record.

8. The aforenarrated facts are not in dispute. The

issue lies in a narrow campus. The petitioner is appointed

as a Consultant of Information in Education and

Communication coming under the Swachch Bharat Scheme

in the year 2005 and has continued uninterruptedly for 18

years, is a matter of record. A show cause notice comes to

be issued on 22.09.2023 on the score that the petitioner

has fallen short of achieving the target of 30 marks in a

given year, which is said to have depicted poor

performance of the petitioner. Till 18 years, there was no

problem, the performance of the petitioner has been good

and in one particular year, it is said to have fallen short,

which the learned counsel for the petitioner would dispute.

Be that as it may.

9. Non-achievement target for a particular year

cannot mean that the person, who has worked for 18

years in the Scheme, can be shown the doors, on any

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3012

noon day without holding any enquiry or otherwise with

regard to such performance. Even otherwise, the Apex

Court in plethora of cases has held mere non-achievement

of a target or the good performance in a particular year

cannot mean that the services of those persons who were

employed even on contract basis can be terminated. The

Apex Court in the case of K. Raghupathi (supra) has held

as follows:

"9. As per the affidavit of the said University, it could thus clearly be seen that, for every vacant post, the said University publishes an open advertisement inviting applications from all the interested candidates. It would further show that the appointments are made only after the candidates are selected by the Selection Committee. It is thus clear that though the nomenclature given to the appointment is contractual, candidates are required to undergo the entire selection process. It could further be seen that as per the affidavit of the said University itself, though the employees are technically appointed on a contractual basis, they get all the benefits and allowances as per the Rules applicable. The affidavit would further show that even according to the said University, for permanency in tenure, their terms and conditions of appointment are identical to those of regularly appointed candidates.

10. It is thus clear that the appellant was appointed after he underwent the entire selection process. Even as per the University, though the appointment shows that it is on a contractual basis, for all the purposes, it is on a regular basis. It could thus be seen that even for the appointment on a contractual basis in the said University, a candidate is required to undergo the entire selection process. Though he is appointed on a contractual basis, his terms and

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3012

conditions are almost like a regular employee. It will be relevant to note that the Annual Performance Assessment Report (for short "APAR") of the appellant during the period 201213 show his performance to be outstanding. Every other parameter in his APAR is shown as excellent. With regard to his integrity, it is mentioned that there is nothing against the appellant adversely reflecting his integrity. It is further stated in his APAR that he enjoys a good reputation and his integrity is good.

11. It will be further relevant to refer to the counter affidavit filed before this Court on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4. It is stated in paragraph (4) that the reasons for the appellant not being continued in the service are at Annexure P9 (Page 116120) and Annexure P26 (Page 165166).

12. Insofar as Annexure P9 is concerned, it is an APAR to which we have already referred hereinabove. As such, the same cannot be a ground for noncontinuation of the services of the appellant. As a matter of fact, thereafter, the appellant's services have been continued for another one year vide order dated 7.08. 2013.

13. Insofar as the document at Annexure P26 is concerned, it is an administrative warning issued to the appellant by the Dean of the said University on

10.01.2014, which reads thus:

"Office of Dean, Planning & Research

GBU013 /Dplng/09/201421 Dated: 10/1/14

Administrative Warning

It has been observed that you write on files simply "Put up file on such and such date". You have been continuing to do this even after my several verbal communications and warning against this. This is not only against ethics and official decorum but also against administrative norms. In response to my objections you told me that you have been instructed by the finance officer and the earlier officiating registrar, Mr. Pankaj Sharma to do so. You have put this noting even on dates when I have been on leave. Photocopies of such recent

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3012

notings are being attached herewith as evidence. There is also an overwriting in the date mentioned in one of the notings. All your above mentioned activities amount to gross irregularity in your work and also expose your conspirational character. This definitely makes you unfit to work on any responsible position.

You are being served this warning in writing to provide you an opportunity to improve your official working and conduct.

Sd/-

Anuradha Mishra Dean P & R CC:

1. Registrar for information and record

2. PS to Hon'ble Vice-Chancellor for information"

14. It could thus be seen that though the communication of the said University dated 12 th August 2014 states that the appellant's contractual period has expired, in the facts of the present case, it would reveal thathis services were discontinued on account of the allegation made against him by the Dean of the said University. Since even according to the said University, though the employment was contractual but the employee was entitled to get all the benefits of a regular employee, we find that in the facts of the present case, the appellant's services could not have been terminated without following the principles of natural justice. We therefore find that the present appeal deserves to be allowed on this short ground.

15. In the result, the impugned order dated 23 rd May 2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, thereby dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant and the communication passed by the said University dated 12 th August 2014, thereby discontinuing the services of the appellant, are quashed and set aside. he appellant is directed to be reinstated with continuity in service. However, the appellant would not be entitled to any back wages."

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3012

10. In the light of the aforenarrated facts and the

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K. Raghupathi,

the petition deserves to succeed and the orders impugned

to be obliterated.

11. For the aforesaid reasons the following :