Karnataka High Court
Eranna S/O Chandrahekarayya Kavdimath vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 January, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:859
WP No. 106610 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.106610 OF 2024 (S-REG)
BETWEEN:
ERANNA
S/O. CHANDRAHEKARAYYA KAVDIMATH,
AGE: 59 YEARS,
OCC: SERVICE IN MINOR IRRIGATION
DEPARTMENT, R/O: KAVALOOR ONI,
KOPPAL, TQ AND DIST: KOPPAL - 583 231.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR BALAGERIMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF MINOR IRRIGATION
VISHAL AND GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT,
NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
Digitally signed by VISHAL
BENGALURU - 560 001.
NINGAPPA PATTIHAL
Location: High Court of
Karnataka Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.01.21 12:19:16
+0530
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
DEPARTMENT OF MINOR
IRRIGATION AND
GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT,
VIJAYPURA - 184 120.
3. THE SUPERINDEANT ENGINEER,
DEPARTMENT OF MINOR IRRIGATION AND
GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT,
KALBURGI CIRCLE KALBURGI - 585 211.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:859
WP No. 106610 of 2024
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
DEPARTMENT OF MINOR IRRIGATION
AND GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT
KOPPAL - 583 231, DIST: KOPPAL.
5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
THE DEPARTMENT OF MINOR IRRIGATION
AND GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT,
KOPPAL-583 231, DIST: KOPPAL.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 TO R5;)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDR ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER
OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OR
DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED
02/08/2024 BEARING NO.SAM.SAKAANIE/SANI AND
AMAA/UV/KOO/DIXI/2024-25/558 ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT/THE AEE KOPPAL PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G. A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR
ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO
REGULARIZE THE SERVICE OF PETITIONER AS ON THE DATE
ELIGIBLE AND TO GIVE ALL THE BENEFITS IN TERMS OF THE
REPRESENTATION VIDE ANNEXURE-E DATED 24/6/2024 AND
ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:859
WP No. 106610 of 2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner is before the Court, calling in
question, the impugned endorsement, dated 02.08.2024
by which, the claim of the petitioner for regularization of
his services is turned down by the State.
2. Heard the learned counsel Shri Vijaykumar
Balagerimath appearing for the petitioner and Smt.
Kirtilatha R.Patil, learned HCGP appearing for the
respondent - State.
3. The petitioner is appointed on daily wages in
the respondent / Department of Minor Irrigation on
13.02.2014, the list is drawn of persons who had
completed 10 years of service and in the list the petitioner
figures at Sl. No.321. It transpires that, similarly placed
persons knocked at the doors of the Court seeking
regularization, which reach the Apex Court in the
judgment of MALATHI DAS (RETIRED) NOW P.B.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:859
MAHISHY AND OTHERS VS. SURESH AND OTHERS1.
The Apex Court directs regularisation of 74 persons who
are before the Apex Court pursuant to the direction of the
Apex Court it transpires that in the very same Department
certain employees who were juniors to the petitioners
have been regularised. The petitioner's case is not
considered and an endorsement is issued that the
petitioner is not entitled for such regularization.
4. The statement of objections are filed in the case
at hand in which the contention of the state inter alia is as
follows:
"4. It is respectfully submitted that, the order
passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.3338/2014 is applicable only to the Petitioners who
have approached the Hon'ble Court and there is no
specific order in the said order to regularize the service of
similarly placed persons. Hence the order relied by the
petitioner is not applicable to the petitioner. It is
submitted that Annexure-C was passed in respect of the
petitioners who have approached the court."
(2014) 13 SCC 249
NC: 2025:KHC-D:859
5. It is the case of the State again inter alia that
there is no specific order passed by any Court to regularise
the services of the petitioner or any similarly situated
persons as obtaining in Civil Appeal quoted supra. It is not
in dispute that, the petitioner is an appointee like the
others, who had knocked at the doors of the Apex Court
has also like others who are regularised pursuant to the
order passed by the Apex Court.
6. The petitioner appears to have been picked and
chosen for a differential treatment which smacks
arbitrariness on the part of the State as similarly placed
persons have to be accorded similar belief not that
everyone should not knocked at the doors of this Court as
the State can bear the brunt of litigation and not an
employee for driving every employee to this Court seeking
the very same relief. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to
direct the State to consider the case of the petitioner In
strict consonance with what the Court has held in
MALATHI DAS (supra) and what the State itself has done
NC: 2025:KHC-D:859
in terms of the Government Order dated 27.04.2015
(Annexure-C) which was pursuant to the order passed by
the Apex Court.
7. In that light, the petition deserves to succeed.
The endorsement dated 13.02.2014 stands quashed.
Mandamus issues to the respondents to consider the case
of the petitioner bearing in mind the observations made in
the course of the order within an outer limit of two
months, if not earlier. The petitioner shall be entitled to all
consequential benefits that would flow from such
consideration.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
VNP / CT: ASC
