(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
2. Heard Sri Aravind D. Kulkarni, learned counsel
for petitioners, Sri Sharad V. Magadum, learned AGA for
respondents No.1 to 3 and Sri V.M. Sheelavant, learned
3. The petitioners are all working in the cadre of
disposed on 10th April, 2019. The facts narrated therein if
paraphrased to the subject order would suffice. The
4. Shri V. Laxminarayana further submits that
the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary,
State of Karnataka and Ors vs. Umadevi and Ors.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1773
[(2006) 4 SCC 1] having been explained in the
subsequent decisions in the case of Narendra Kumar
Tiwari and Ors. vs. the State of Jharkhand and Ors.
[AIR 2018 SC 3589] and in the case of Union of
India & Ors. vs. Central Administrative Tribunal &
Ors. etc., in SLP(C) Nos.37798-37799 of 2013,
disposed off on 08th January 2019 the official
respondents are not justified in not approving the
appointment of petitioners on regularization of their
services by the fourth respondent - Veershaiva
Vidyavardhaka Sanga, which the Sanga is agreeable to
do as is coming out from it's Statement of Objections.
5. Shri V. Laxminarayana submits that there
is no qualitative and quantitative difference between the
discharge of duties of a Teacher in Private Institutions
and a teacher of a Government Institutions inasmuch as
both they do, the very same job; if all petitioners are
appointed after selection to the existing vacancies of the
sanctioned Posts, then they cannot be paid, salary
lesser than would similarly circumstanced Teachers in
the Government Institutions drawn, in view of the
provisions of Section 83 of the Karnataka Education Act,
1983 and the Rules promulgated thereunder; the Apex
Court in catena of decisions has reiterated the law
relating to remunerative equality i.e., "equal pay for
equal work"; in view of latest decision of Apex Court in
the case of Sabha Shanker Dube vs. Divisional Forest
Officer & Ors in Civil Appeal Nos.10957-10963 of 2018,
disposed off on 14.11.2018 the claim of the petitioners
in this regard also merits due consideration at the hands
of the official respondents.
6. Lastly, Shri V. Laxminarayana relying upon the
Karnataka Educational Institutions (Regulations of
Admission in the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region) Order,
2013, dated 06.11.2013 and 12.07.2013 and the
Karnataka Public Employment (Reservation in
appointment for Hyderabad-Karnataka Region) Order,
2013, dated 06.11.2013 promulgated by the Governor
of Karnataka State under Article 371] of the
Constitution of India granting special status to the
Hyderabad-Karnataka Area, submits that the official
respondents having not adverted to paragraph 13-C in
both these orders have erred in not extending their
benefits to the petitioners who hail from Hyderabad
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1773
Karnataka Area.
7. Learned Additional Government Advocate,
Shri A.R. Rodrigues submits that the petitioners are not
entitled to any relief at the hands of this Court
inasmuch as the fourth respondent - Veershaiva
Vidyavardhaka Sanga has made these appointments in
gross violation of legal requirements and prescriptions;
their selection and appointment was not followed by the
due publication of the vacancies in the newspaper; it
was also not preceded by prior permission of the
Department; in making such appointment, the
reservation and roster have not been followed by the
respondent - Management. So arguing he seeks
dismissal of the writ petitions.
8. Learned panel counsel Shri V.M. Sheelvant
for fourth respondent - Veershaiva Vidyavardhaka
Sanga taking the Court through its Statement of
Objections supported the case of petitioners stating that
the objectionable stand of the respondent officials is
coming in the way of grant of regularization to the
petitioners and of extending the regular pay scales
admissible to the Posts in question that are yet to be
approved and thereafter to be admitted to the Grant in
Aid.
9. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioners, learned Additional Government
Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3, and the learned
panel counsel for the fourth respondent. I have perused
the petitions papers and the Statement of Objections
filed by the fourth respondent. I have adverted to the
ruling cited at the Bar.
10. All the petitioners being fully qualified and
eligible came to be selected and appointed to the
respective posts against the existing vacancies is not in
dispute; fourth respondent - Veershaiva Vidyavardhaka
Sanga in its Statement of Objections at paragraph Nos.2
& 3 specifically stated as under:
"2. It is submitted that the petitioners
are working as Assistant Professor in the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1773
respondent No.4 College as against the
sanctioned posts subject to the approval of
the Department. Since they are working for
more than ten years, the Management has
passed a resolution on 28-5-2004 to
absorb them into the services as they are
duly qualified.
3. ...... If there are vacancies meant
for reservation policy as per the policy of the
Government. If the vacancies are to be set
apart to fulfil the said reservation policy, the
Management has agreed to set apart those
vacancies. On this condition also vacancies
can be permitted to be filled up by
absorbing the Writ Petitioners. Since these
lecturers have gained experience and the
college will be benefited in meeting the
educational standards, realizing all
circumstantial factors the Management has
agreed to absorb them into the services
subject to the approval by the Department."
The above fair stand of the respondent Institution
answers the apprehension which the official respondents
may have as to the likely loss of posts earmarked for
the reserved candidates under the policy of the State.
11. Objection of the official respondents to the
approval and appointment of the petitioners is not
otherwise also not sustainable in view of the
Government Order, ¸ÀPÁðj DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: ¹D¸ÀÄE 6 ¸ÉûªÀÄ
2014, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ 5.2.2015, the relevant paragraph
whereof reads as under:
"C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼À PÉÆgÀvɬÄAzÁV «ÄøÀ¯Áw ªÀUÀðUÀ¼À jPÀÛ
¸ÁÜ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨sÀwð ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁUÀzÉà G½zÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ
DAiÉÄÌUÀ¼À°è £ÀµÀÖªÀ£ÀÄß ¨sÀwð ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä PÉÆAqÉÆAiÀÄÄåªÀ
¥ÀæQæAiÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄA¢£À 3 £ÉêÀÄPÁwUÀ¼ÀÄ CxÀªÁ UÀjµÀ× 5
PÁå¯ÉAqÀgï ªÀµÀðUÀ¼ÀªÀgÉUÉ EzÀgÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÀÄ ªÉÆzÀ¯ÉÆÃ
C°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɸÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. ªÀÄÆgÀ£ÉÃ
£ÉêÀÄPÁwAiÀÄ°è CxÀªÁ UÀjµÀ× 5£Éà PÁå¯ÉAqÀgï ªÀµÀðzÀ CAvÀåzÀ°è
AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà «ÄøÀ¯Áw jPÀÛ ¸ÁÜ£ÀªÀÅ ºÉÆAzÁtÂPÉAiÀiÁUÀzÉÃ
G½zÀÄPÉÆAqÀgÉ, CªÀÅ ªÀVÃðPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÀ¼ÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîvÀÛªÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1773
ªÀÄÄA¢£À £ÉêÀÄPÁw (4£Éà £ÉêÀÄPÁw) CxÀªÁ ªÀÄÄA¢£À
PÁå¯ÉAqÀgï ªÀµÀðzÀ°è (DgÀ£ÉAiÀÄ) CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉƸÀ jPÀÛ
¸ÁÜ£ÀUÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¹ gÉÆøÀàgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɸÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ."
The above Government Order apparently relaxes the
rigor of reservation and roster, if the candidates
belonging to the reserved categories are not available
for recruitment in three consecutive recruitments or for
a period of five years, whichever is earlier.
12. The above Government Order appears to
spring from the Apex Court decision in the case of
M.Nagaraj and others vs. Union of India and
others reported in (2006) 8 SCC 212, wherein
paragraph No.100 reads as under:
"Introduction of "time" factor in view of
Article 16(4-B):
100. As stated above, Article 16(4-B)
lifts the 50% cap on carry-over vacancies
(backlog vacancies). The ceiling limit of 50%
on current vacancies continues to remain. In
working out the carry- forward rule, two
factors are required to be kept in mind,
namely, unfilled vacancies and the time
factor.
This position needs to be explained.
On one hand of the spectrum, we have
unfilled vacancies; on the other hand, we
have a time spread over a number of years
over which unfilled vacancies are sought to
be carried over. These two are alternating
factors and, therefore, if the ceiling limit on
the carry over of unfilled vacancies is
removed, the other alternative time factor
comes in and in that event, the time scale
has to be imposed in the interest of
efficiency in administration as mandated by
Article 335. If the time-scale is not kept
then posts will continue to remain vacant for
years, which would be detrimental to the
administration. Therefore, in each case, the
appropriate Government will now have to
introduce the time-cap depending upon the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1773
fact situation. What is stated hereinabove is
borne out by the service rules in some of
the States where the carry- over rule does
not extend beyond three years."
13. The official respondents ought to have
borne in mind the protective discrimination provided to
the "local candidates" of Hyderabad Karnataka Area like
the petitioners under the ORDERS issued in terms of
Article371J of the Constitution on 06.11.2013 and
12.07.2013 mentioned above, wherein paragraphs 13-C
(in both Orders) read as under:
"13 C: Regularization of Local
Candidates: Local Candidates who have
worked on daily or contract basis in
Government for more than ten years prior
to 1.1.2013 and fulfill conditions as
prescribed may be given certain concessions
in appointment and other benefits as
prescribed by the Government."
"13 C: Protection and
promotion of right of local candidates:
Local candidates who had been appointed by
the Government on local basis and who
have worked for more than 10 years prior to
01-01- 2013; or local candidates who have
worked on daily or contract basis in
Government for more than 10 years prior to
01-01-2013 and fulfill conditions as
prescribed may be given certain concessions
in appointment and other benefits as
prescribed by the Government."
Had the official respondents adverted to the
intent and content of the above paragraphs, they would
have favourably considered the case of the petitioners
as recommended by the management of the
respondent institution, since the petitioners answer the
definition of "local candidates" in the said Orders.
14. The contention of the counsel for the
petitioners that there is no qualitative and quantitative
difference between the duties discharged by the
temporary employees and the permanent employees
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1773
working as teachers and therefore there has to be parity
of pay scales in which petitioners would draw their
salaries is substantiated by the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Sabha Shanker Dube (supra).
Similarly in view of decisions of the Apex Court in the
case of Union of India & Ors. vs Central Administrative
Tribunal & Ors (supra) the ratio in the case of Umadevi
& Ors. (supra) does not come in the way of the official
respondents approving the appointment of the
petitioners. The reasons on which the respondents seek
to justify their impugned stand wither away because of
what is stated above.
15. In the above circumstances, these writ
petitions succeed in part; third respondent-Management
after regularizing the services of the petitioners shall
submit its proposal for approval of their appointment
and further for the extension of the Grant in Aid so that
the petitioners will have security of tenure and parity in
pay scales; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the official
respondents to consider the said proposal of the
respondent Institution; the official respondents shall
consider the said proposal keeping in view the
observations made hereinabove and in accordance with
law, within a period of three months.
It is open to the Official-respondents to solicit any
information or documents from the side of the
petitioners or the fourth respondent - Management as
may be required for due consideration of such proposal,
subject to the rider that, in the guise of such
solicitation, no delay shall be brooked."
4. This Coordinate Bench negativing every
contention of the State by the detail order, directed
consideration of the case of these petitioners for
regularization of their services and also directed approval
for their appointment to be done and extension of grant-
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1773
in-aid. Therefore, the State suffered an order, which
negatived all their contentions. The order has become
final. Pursuant to the order, comes the endorsement
impugned in the subject petition. The endorsement reads
as follows :
"PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ
PÁ¯ÉÃdÄ ²PÀët E¯Á
¸ÀASÉå:PÁ²E/²vÀ3/SÁºÀĨsÀ/2012-13/PÁPÁ«/9/£Éë-2 PÁ¯ÉÃdÄ ²PÀët DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀ PÀZÉÃj,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:31.07.2021,
»A§gÀºÀ
«µÀAiÀÄ. «ÃgÀ±ÉʪÀ «zÁåªÀzÀsðPÀ ¸ÀAWÀ, §¼Áîj EzÀgÀ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ°è §gÀĪÀ ²æà PÉÆlÆÖgÉñÀégÀ ²PÀëPÀgÀ
²PÀët ªÀĺÁ«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ°è DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½ ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁwUÉÆAqÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀå
¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ ²æà dUÀ¢Ã±ï §£Á¥ÀÅgÀ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÀgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C£ÀĪÉÆâ¸ÀĪÀ
§UÉÎ.
G¯ÉèÃR: (1) jmï Cfð ¸ÀASÉå: 110831-110838/2015PÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ,
¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:10.04.2019gÀ wÃ¥ÀÄð.
(2) PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÀÄ, «ÃgÀ±ÉʪÀ «zÁåªÀzÀsðPÀ ¸ÀAWÀ, §¼Áîj EªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ
¸ÀASÉå:««J¸ï/PÉÆ.².².ªÀÄ.£É C£ÀĪÉÃvÀ£À©qÀÄUÀqÉ/2019-20 ¢£ÁAPÀ:18.05.2019.
(3) dAn ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ ¥ÁæzÉòPÀ PÀbÉÃj PÀ®§ÄgÀV EªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå:
PÁ²E/¥ÁæPÀPÀ/55/£ÁåAiÀiÁ®ªÀÅ-1/2019-20, ¢£ÁAPÀ:21.05.2019.
(4) ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå.Er/64/AiÀÄÄDgï/2016, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 08.07.2020.
«ÃgÀ±ÉʪÀ «zÁåªÀzÀsðPÀ ¸ÀAWÀ, §¼Áîj EzÀgÀ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ°è §gÀĪÀ §¼ÁîjAiÀÄ ²æÃ
PÉÆlÆÖgÉñÀégÀ ²PÀëPÀgÀ ²PÀët ªÀĺÁ«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¤ªÀÈwÛ/gÁfãÁªÉÄ EvÁå¢ PÁgÀtUÀ½AzÁV
vÉgÀªÁVzÀÝ ¨ÉÆÃzsÀPÀgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ½UÉzÀÄgÁV DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ £ÉêÀÄPÀªÁVgÀĪÀ ²æÃ
dUÀ¢Ã±ï §¸Á¥ÀÅgÀ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:10.04.2019gÀ
wæð£À£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÉêÁ ¸ÀPÀæªÀiÁwUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀAvÉ PÉÆÃj DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄÄ G¯ÉèÃR (2)gÀ
¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è E¯ÁSÉUÉ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£É ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
²æÃ. dUÀ¢Ã±À §¸Á¥ÀÅgÀ DzÀ vÁªÀÅ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ²æà PÉÆlÆÖgÉñÀégÀ ²PÀëPÀgÀ
²PÀët ªÀĺÁ«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀÄAdÆgÁV SÁ° EgÀĪÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ½UÉzÀÄgÁV vÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß ¸ÉêÁ
¸ÀPÀæªÀiÁwUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀAvÉ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ½UÉ ¤zÉÃð±À£À ¤ÃqÀĪÀAvÉ PÉÆÃj gÁdå GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ.
zsÁgÀªÁqÀ E°è zÁR°¹gÀĪÀ jmï Cfð ¸ÀASÉå 10831-110838/2015 PÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ
ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:10.04.2019 gÀ wæð£À°è F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ
DzÉò¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1773
"In the above circumstances, these writ petitions succeed in part,
third respondent-Management after regularizing the services of
the petitioners shall submit its proposal for approval of their
appointment and further for the extension of the Grant in Aid so
that the petitioners will have security of tenure and party in pay
scales: a Writ of Mandamus issues to the official respondents to
consider the said proposal of the respondent Institutions. the
official respondents shall consider the said proposal keeping in
view observations made herein above and in accordance with law
JAzÀÄ DzÉò¹zÉ.
ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:10.04.2019gÀ wæð£À »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è vÀªÀÄä
¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÁUÀ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
F »AzÉ CAzÀgÉ gÁdå ²PÀët ¸ÀA±ÉÆÃzsÀ£É & vÀgÀ¨ÉÃw ¤zÉÃð±À£Á®AiÀĪÀÅ ©.Jqï.
PÁ¯ÉÃdÄUÀ¼À DqÀ½vÁvÀäPÀ PÉ®¸ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðzÀ°è ¢:04.04.2013gÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è
¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è ²æà PÉÆlÆÖgÉñÀégÀ ²PÀëPÀgÀ ²PÀët ªÀĺÁ«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ°è
««zsÀ PÁgÀtUÀ½AzÀ vÉgÀªÁVgÀĪÀ ¨ÉÆÃzsÀPÀgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ ¥ÀǪÁð£ÀĪÀÄw ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ
«ÄøÀ¯Áw ©AzÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C£ÀĸÀj¹ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¤AiÀĪÀÄzÀAvÉ ¥ÀwæPÁ
¥ÀæPÀluÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr £ÉêÀÄPÁwAiÀÄ PÁAiÀiÁðZÀgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀgÉ DqÀ½vÀ
ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄÄ F ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Á°¸ÀzÉÃ, DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½ ºÀAvÀzÀ°èAiÉÄà ²æà dUÀ¢Ã±ï
§¸Á¥ÀÅgÀ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ ¨Á»gÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
C£ÀÄzÁ¤vÀ ²PÀët ªÀĺÁ«zÁå®AiÀÄUÀ¼À°è ««zsÀ PÁgÀtUÀ½AzÀ vÉgÀªÁVgÀĪÀ C£ÀÄzÁ¤vÀ
¨ÉÆÃzsÀPÀgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨sÀwð ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ªÀÄÄ£Àß £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÁzÀ DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄÄ
¸ÀPÁðgÀ/E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ ¥ÀǪÁð£ÀĪÀÄw ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀ §UÉÎ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£É ¸À°è¸À¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀzÀj
SÁ° ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀ jÃw vÉgÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛªÉ JA§ÄzÀgÀ §UÉÎ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ºÁUÀÆ PÁ¯ÉÃf£À°ègÀĪÀ
«zÁåyðUÀ¼À ¸ÀASÉå, PÁAiÀÄð¨sÁgÀPÀÌ£ÀÄUÀÄtªÁV SÁ° EgÀĪÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À ¸ÀASÉå, SÁ° EgÀĪÀ
ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ½UÉ ¤UÀ¢ü ¥Àr¸À§ºÀÄzÁzÀ «ÄøÀ¯Áw ºÁUÀÆ E¤ßvÀgÉ CUÀvÀå ªÀiÁ»w/«ªÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
E¯ÁSÁ ºÀAvÀzÀ°è ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ DqÀ½vÀ
ªÀÄAqÀ½UÉ E¯ÁSÁ ºÀAvÀzÀ°è SÁ° ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨sÀwð ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä C£ÀĪÀÄw ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
D £ÀAvÀgÀ DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½ ¸ÀzÀj SÁ° ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨sÀwð ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¥ÀvÀæPÁ eÁ»gÁvÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀn¹
CºÀð C¨sÀåyðUÀ½AzÀ CfðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CºÁ餹. Cfð ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀ½UÉ DAiÉÄÌ ¸À«Äw
ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸ÀAzÀ±Àð£À £Àqɹ, DAiÉÄÌ ¸À«Äw ªÀÄÆ®PÀ DAiÉÄÌAiÀiÁzÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼À £ÉêÀÄPÁwUÉ DqÀ½vÀ
ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄÄ E¯ÁSÉ/¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀÅzÀÄ CªÀ±Àå«gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄ vÀªÀÄä
¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¥Á®£ÉAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è PÉÆîªÁ£À UÁæA «PÁ±ï PÉÃAzÀæ EªÀgÀÄ UÀÄdgÁvï
¸ÀPÁðgÀ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ zÁR°¸À¯ÁzÀ ¹«¯ï C¦üÃ®Ä ¸ÀASÉå:7595/2004(para 6)PÉÌ
¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ:20.10.2009gÀ°è ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ wæð£À®Æè ¸ÀºÀ
SÁ° ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨sÀwð ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä ¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ¥ÀǪÁð£ÀĪÀÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
¥ÀqÉAiÀĨÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JA§ÄzÁV DzÉò¹zÉ. F wÃ¥ÀÅð vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀæPÀgÀtPÉÌ ¸ÀA¥ÀÇtð
C£ÀéAiÀĪÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
«£ÉÆÃzï PÀĪÀiÁgï ¹AUï v/s GvÀÛgÀ ¥ÀæzÉñÀzÀ gÁdå ¸ÀPÁðgÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹¸ÀzÀAvÉ
C®ºÁ¨Á¢£À GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ Service Bench No.182/130 ¥ÀæPÀgÀtPÉÌ
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1773
¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ24.04.2017 gÀAzÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ wæð£À°è ¸ÀºÀ ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ ¸ÀªÉÇÃZÀÑ
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ wÃ¥ÀÅðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß G¯ÉèÃT¹ jmï CfðzÁgÀgÀ ¸ÀPÀæªÀiÁw PÉÆÃjPÉ wgÀ¸ÀÌj¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
EzÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀæPÀgÀtPÉÌ C£ÀéAiÀĪÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 10.04.2019gÀ wæð£À PÀArPÉ (10)gÀ°è DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄÄ
¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ DPÉëÃ¥ÀuÁ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è «ÄøÀ¯Áw ¤Ãw C£Àé¬Ä¸ÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÁV «ÄøÀ°qÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ
ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀªÁV EqÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹gÀĪÀ PÁgÀt «ÄøÀ¯Áw ¥ÀæªÀUÀðUÀ½UÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ
ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À £ÀµÀÖ DUÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉA§ ¤®ÄªÀ£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ ªÀåPÀÛ¥Àr¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ ºÁUÀÆ PÀArPÉ(1)gÀ°è
¸ÀPÁðj DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå:¹D¸ÀÄE/6/¸ÉûªÀÄ/2014, ¢£ÁAPÀ:05.02.2015, the relevant
paragraph whereof reads as under":
"C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼À PÉÆgÀvɬÄAzÁV «ÄøÀ¯Áw ªÀUÀðUÀ¼À jPÀÛ ¸ÁÜ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨sÀwð ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁUÀzÉà G½zÀÄ
ºÉÆÃzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ DAiÉÄÌUÀ¼À°è £ÀµÀÖªÀ£ÀÄß ¨sÀwð ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä PÉÆAqÉÆAiÀÄÄåªÀ ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
ªÀÄÄA¢£À 3 £ÉêÀÄPÁwUÀ¼ÀÄ CxÀªÁ UÀjµÀ× 5 PÁå¯ÉAqÀgï ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À ªÀgÉUÉ EzÀgÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÀÄ
ªÉÆzÀ¯ÉÆ C°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɸÀvÀPÀÌzÄÀ Ý. ªÀÄÆgÀ£Éà £ÉêÀÄPÁwAiÀÄ°è CxÀªÁ UÀjµÀ×
5£Éà PÁå¯ÉAqÀgï ªÀµÀðzÀ CAvÀåzÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà «ÄøÀ¯Áw jPÀÛ¸ÁÜ£ÀªÀÅ ºÉÆAzÁtÂPÉAiÀiÁUÀzÉÃ
G½zÀÄ PÉÆAqÀgÉÃ, CªÀÅ ªÀVÃðPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÀ¼ÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîvÀÛzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄÄA¢£À £ÉêÀÄPÁw (4£ÉÃ
£ÉêÀÄPÁw) CxÀªÁ ªÀÄÄA¢£À PÁå¯ÉAqÀgï ªÀµÀðzÀ°è (DgÀ£ÉAiÀÄ) CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉƸÀ jPÀÛ
¸ÁÜ£ÀUÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¹ gÉÆøÀÖgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɸÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ' JAzÀÄ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¦¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
DzÀgÉ, ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå:¹D¸ÀÄE/3/¸É»ªÀÄ/2015, ¢£ÁAPÀ:03.10.2015gÀ°è "EvÀgÉ
»AzÀĽzÀ ªÀUÀðUÀ½UÉ UÀÄwð¸À®àlÖ DzÀgÉ, DAiÀiÁ ¥ÀæªÀUÀðUÀ¼À CºÀð C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼À ®¨sÀåvÉAiÀÄ
PÉÆgÀvɬÄAzÁV ¨sÀwð ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁUÀzÀ jPÀÛ ¸ÁÜ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨ÁåPï¯ÁUï JAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¹ ªÀÄÄAzÀPÉÌ
PÉÆAqÉÆAiÀÄåvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ F jPÀÛ ¸ÁÜ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß «ÄøÀ¯Áw¬ÄAzÀ «ªÀÄÄQÛUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀAw®è JA§ÄzÁV
DzÉò¸À¯ÁVzÉ. C®èzÉ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðzÀ°è ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁw ºÁUÀÆ ¥Àj²µÀÖ ¥ÀAUÀqÀzÀ
«ÄøÀ¯ÁwUÉ ¤UÀ¢ü¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁw ºÁUÀÆ ¥Àj²µÀÖ ¥ÀAUÀqÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ
C¨sÀåyðUÀ½AzÀ¯Éà ¨sÀwð ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è «ÄøÀ¯ÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C£ÀĸÀj¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ
PÀqÁØAiÀĪÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:10.04.2019gÀ wæð£À PÀArPÉ (13-c)gÀ°è F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ
¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¦¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
"Regularization of Local Candidates: Local Candidates Who have
Worked on dialy or contract basis in Government for more than ten
years prior to 1.1.2013 and fulfil conditions as prescribed may be given
certain concessions in appointment and other benefits as prescribed by
the Government.
"Protection and Promotion of right of local candidates: Local candidates
who had been appointed by the Government on local basis and who
have worked for then 10 years prior to 01.01.2013; or local candidates
who have worked on daily or contract basis in Government for more
than 10 years prior to 01.01.2013 and fulfil conditions as prescribed
may be Given certain Concessions in appointment and other benefits as
prescribed by the Government" Had the official respondents adverted to
the intent and content of the above paragraphs, they would have
favourably considered the case of the petitioners as recommended by
the management of the respondent institution, Since the petitioners
answer the definition of "Local candidates" in the said Orders.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1773
vÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁwUÉÆArgÀĪÀ Dialy of Cantract
Basis £ËPÀgÀgÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. §¼ÁîjAiÀÄ ²æÃ. PÉÆlÆÖgÉñÀégÀ ²PÀëPÀgÀ ²PÀët ªÀĺÁ«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ°è
ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ SÁ° ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ½UÉzÀÄgÁV DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½ ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁwUÉÆArgÀĪÀ
£ËPÀgÀgÁVgÀÄwÛÃj. DzÀÝjAzÀ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¤AiÀĪÀĪÀÅ vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀæPÀgÀtPÉÌ C£ÀéAiÀĪÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
¸ÀPÁðj ¸ÉêÉAiÀÄ°è vÁvÁÌ°PÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÁV ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸À°è¹zÀAvÀºÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼À
¸ÉêÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀæªÀiÁwUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ GªÀiÁzÉë
¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JA.J¯ï.PÉøÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ DzÉò¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
1. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten
years of continuous service without the protection of any interim
orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in
Umadevi was rendered, are considered for regularization in view
of their long service.
2. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do
not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily-
wage/ad-hoc/casual for long periods and then periodically
regularize them on the ground that they have served for more
than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory
State of Karnataka & Ors vs M.L.Kesari & Ors on 3 August,
2010 provisions relating to recruitment and appointment.
3. ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ M.L PÉøÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è "The true effect of the
direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten
years as on 10.04.2006 (the date of decision in Umadevi)
without the protection of any interim order of any court of
tribunal, in vacant posys, prossessing the requisite qualification,
are entitled to be considered for regularization" JAzÀÄ ¤zÉÃð²¹zÉ.
, ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀÄ, The State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others Vs
District Board of Association, Bandipura gÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°èAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀºÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå
¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ GªÀiÁzÉë ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è£À wÃ¥Àð£ÀÄß JwÛ »rzÀÄ CzÀ£Éß C£ÀĸÀj¹zÉ.
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ wÃ¥ÀÅðUÀ¼À°è ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ¤zÉÃð±À£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀéAiÀÄ vÀªÀÄä
¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV, DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄÄ 2001-2006gÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀĪÀ
£ÉêÀÄPÁw DzÉñÀzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ vÁªÀÅ PÁ¯ÉÃf£À PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ ºÁdgÁVzÀÄÝ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:10.04.2006PÉÌ ¸ÀvÀvÀ
10 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À ¸ÉêÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÇgÉʸÀzÀ PÁgÀt GªÀiÁzÉë ºÁUÀÆ JªÀiï.J¯ï.PÉøÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À°è
¤ÃrgÀĪÀ wÃ¥ÀÅðUÀ¼ÀAvÉ vÁªÀÅ ¸ÉêÁ ¸ÀPÀæªÀiÁwUÉ CºÀðvÉ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
C®èzÉ GªÀiÁzÉë ºÁUÀÆ JA.J¯ï.PÉøÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À°è
States/instrumentalities MAzÀÄ ¨ÁjUÉ ¸ÉêÁ ¸ÀPÀæªÀiÁw PÀæªÀĪÀ£ÀÄß dgÀÄV¹zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ
E£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÉ EAvÀºÀ vÁvÁÌ°PÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀ¢gÀ®Ä ¸ÀºÀ DzÉñÀ«zÀÄÝ, C£ÀÄzÁ¤vÀ
²PÀët ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ CAUÀªÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¸À®Ä ¸ÁzsÀå«®èzÀ PÁgÀt ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀ
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1773
¸ÀA§AzsÀ PÉêÀ® DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¹§âA¢AiÀÄ £ÀqÀÄªÉ EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ
C£ÀÄzÁ¤vÀ ²PÀët ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ¼À°è ¹§âA¢UÀ¼À ¸ÉêÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀæªiÀ ÁwUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀ ¥Àæ±Éß
GzÀ㫸ÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ w½¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ J¯Áè PÁgÀtUÀ¼À »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è, ¸ÀPÁðgÀ/E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ ¥ÀǪÁð£ÀĪÀÄw ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉÃ
ºÁUÀÆ «ÄøÀ¯Áw ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Á°¸ÀzÉà DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ ºÀAvÀzÀ°èAiÉÄà 2001-2006gÀ
CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀ vÀªÀÄä £ÉêÀÄPÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ SÁ°
ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ½UÉzÀÄgÁV ¸ÀPÀæªÀiÁwUÉƽ¸À®Ä ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ CªÀPÁ±À«®èªÉAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ vÀªÀÄUÉ
w½¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
PÁ¯ÉÃdÄ ²PÀët DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ"
The endorsement is verbatim, similar to what
contentions were advanced before the Coordinate Bench,
all of which had been categorically negatived.
5. The endorsement has again driven these
petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. In the
teeth of the order and its observation became final and
merely because the Court had directed consideration of
their cases, it would not mean that the State without
challenging the order, would pass an order which is
directly contrary to the observations, made in the course
of the order.
6. The order of the Coordinate Bench had stopped
at the reference to the judgments, of the Apex Court
concerning regularization upto the year 2020. The Apex
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1773
Court in its latest judgment in the case of Jaggo vs. Union
of India and others1 has held as follows :
"7. They urged the High Court to recognize their long and
continuous service, the nature of their work, and the lack of
any backdoor or illegal entry. They highlighted that they
had functioned without any break, performed tasks
equivalent to regular employees, and had been assigned
duties essential to the regular upkeep, cleanliness, and
maintenance of the respondent's offices. The High Court,
after examining the Tribunal's decision and the submissions
advanced, concluded that the petitioners before it were
part-time workers who had not been appointed against
sanctioned posts, nor had they performed a sufficient
duration of full-time service to satisfy the criteria for
regularization. It relied on the principle laid down in
Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi3 holding that
the petitioners could not claim a vested right to be
absorbed or regularized without fulfilling the requisite
conditions. The High Court further observed that the
petitioners did not possess the minimum educational
qualifications ordinarily required for regular appointments,
and additionally noted that the employer had subsequently
outsourced the relevant housekeeping and maintenance
activities. Concluding that there was no legal basis to grant
the reliefs sought, the High Court dismissed the writ
petition. Aggrieved by this rejection, the appellants have
approached this Court by way of these appeals.
8. On the other hand, the following primary
arguments have been advanced before us on behalf
of the Respondents:
i). Continuous and Substantive Engagement: The
appellants emphasize their long, uninterrupted
service spanning well over a decade-and in some
instances, exceeding two decades. They argue that
their duties were neither sporadic nor project-based
but permanent and integral to the daily functioning of
the respondent's offices.
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1773
(ii). Nature of Duties: Their responsibilities- such as
cleaning, dusting, gardening, and other maintenance
tasks-were not casual or peripheral. Instead, they
were central to ensuring a clean, orderly, and
functional work environment, effectively aligning
with roles typically associated with regular posts.
(iii). Absence of Performance Issues: Throughout
their tenure, the appellants were never issued any
warning or adverse remarks. They highlight that their
work was consistently satisfactory, and there was no
indication from the respondents that their
performance was not satisfactory or required
improvement.
(iv). Compliance with 'Uma Devi' Guidelines: The appellants
assert that their appointments were not "illegal" but at
most "irregular." Drawing on the principles laid down in
Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi4, they submit
that long-serving employees in irregular appointments-who
fulfil essential, sanctioned functions-are entitled to
consideration for regularization.
(v). Discrimination in Regularization: The appellants point
out that individuals with fewer years of service or similar
engagements have been regularized. They contend that
denying them the same benefit, despite their longer service
and crucial role, constitutes arbitrary and discriminatory
treatment.
(vi). Irrelevance of Educational Qualifications: The
appellants reject the respondents' reliance on formal
educational requirements, noting that such criteria were
never enforced earlier and that the nature of their work
does not inherently demand formal schooling. They argue
that retrospectively imposing such qualifications is
unjustified given their proven capability over many years.
(vii). Equity and Fairness: Ultimately, the appellants submit
that the High Court erred by focusing too rigidly on their
initial terms of engagement and ignoring the substantive
reality of their long, integral service. They maintain that
fairness, equity, and established judicial principles call for
their regularization rather than abrupt termination
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1773
9. On the other hand, the following primary arguments
have been advanced before us on behalf of the
Respondents:
(i). Nature of Engagement: The respondents maintain that
the appellants were engaged purely on a part-time,
contractual basis, limited to a few hours a day, and that
their work was never intended to be permanent or full-time.
(ii). Absence of Sanctioned Posts: They assert that the
appellants were not appointed against any sanctioned
posts. According to the respondents, without sanctioned
vacancies, there can be no question of regularization or
absorption into the permanent workforce.
(iii). Non-Compliance with 'Uma Devi' Criteria: Relying
heavily on Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi
(supra), the respondents argue that the appellants do not
meet the conditions necessary for regularization. They
emphasize that merely serving a long period on a part-time
or ad-hoc basis does not create a right to be regularized.
(iv). Educational Qualifications: The respondents contend
that even if the appellants were to be considered for regular
appointments, they do not possess the minimum
educational qualifications mandated for regular recruitment.
This, in their view, disqualifies the appellants from being
absorbed into regular service.
(v). Outsourcing as a Legitimate Policy Decision: The
respondents point out that they have chosen to outsource
the relevant housekeeping and maintenance work to a
private agency. This, they argue, is a legitimate
administrative policy decision aimed at improving efficiency
and cannot be interfered with by the courts.
(vi). No Fundamental Right to Regularization: Finally, the
respondents underscore that no employee, merely by virtue
of long-standing temporary or parttime engagement,
acquires a vested right to be regularized. They maintain
that the appellants' claims are devoid of any legal
entitlement and that the High Court was correct in
dismissing their petition.
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1773
10. Having given careful consideration to the
submissions advanced and the material on record, we
find that the appellants' long and uninterrupted
service, for periods extending well beyond ten years,
cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their
initial appointments as part-time or contractual. The
essence of their employment must be considered in
the light of their sustained contribution, the integral
nature of their work, and the fact that no evidence
suggests their entry was through any illegal or
surreptitious route.
11. The appellants, throughout their tenure, were
engaged in performing essential duties that were
indispensable to the day-to-day functioning of the
offices of the Central Water Commission (CWC).
Applicant Nos. 1, 2, and 3, as Safaiwalis, were
responsible for maintaining hygiene, cleanliness, and
a conducive working environment within the office
premises. Their duties involved sweeping, dusting,
and cleaning of floors, workstations, and common
areas-a set of responsibilities that directly
contributed to the basic operational functionality of
the CWC. Applicant No. 5, in the role of a Khallasi
(with additional functions akin to those of a Mali),
was entrusted with critical maintenance tasks,
including gardening, upkeep of outdoor premises, and
ensuring orderly surroundings.
12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workers,"
the appellants performed these essential tasks on a
daily and continuous basis over extensive periods,
ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades.
Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in
nature; instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to
the responsibilities typically associated with
sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not
engage any other personnel for these tasks during
the appellants' tenure, underscoring the
indispensable nature of their work.
13. The claim by the respondents that these were not
regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work
performed by the appellants was perennial and
fundamental to the functioning of the offices. The
recurring nature of these duties necessitates their
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1773
classification as regular posts, irrespective of how
their initial engagements were labelled. It is also
noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these
same tasks to private agencies after the appellants'
termination demonstrates the inherent need for these
services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively
replaced one set of workers with another, further
underscores that the work in question was neither
temporary nor occasional.
14. The abrupt termination of the appellants'
services, following dismissal of their Original
Application before the Tribunal, was arbitrary and
devoid of any justification. The termination letters,
issued without prior notice or explanation, violated
fundamental principles of natural justice. It is a
settled principle of law that even contractual
employees are entitled to a fair hearing before any
adverse action is taken against them, particularly
when their service records are unblemished. In this
case, the appellants were given no opportunity to be
heard, nor were they provided any reasons for their
dismissal, which followed nearly two decades of
dedicated service.
15. Furthermore, the respondents' conduct in issuing
tenders for outsourcing the same tasks during the pendency
of judicial proceedings, despite a stay order from the
Tribunal directing maintenance of status quo, reveals lack
of bona fide intentions. Such actions not only contravened
judicial directives but also underscored the respondents'
unwillingness to acknowledge the appellants' rightful claims
to regularization.
16. The appellants' consistent performance over their long
tenures further solidifies their claim for regularization. At no
point during their engagement did the respondents raise
any issues regarding their competence or performance. On
the contrary, their services were extended repeatedly over
the years, and their remuneration, though minimal, was
incrementally increased which was an implicit
acknowledgment of their satisfactory performance. The
respondents' belated plea of alleged unsatisfactory service
appears to be an afterthought and lacks credibility.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1773
17. As for the argument relating to educational
qualifications, we find it untenable in the present context.
The nature of duties the appellants performed-cleaning,
sweeping, dusting, and gardening-does not inherently
mandate formal educational prerequisites. It would be
unjust to rely on educational criteria that were never
central to their engagement or the performance of their
duties for decades. Moreover, the respondents themselves
have, by their conduct, shown that such criteria were not
strictly enforced in other cases of regularization. The
appellants' long-standing satisfactory performance itself
attests to their capability to discharge these functions,
making rigid insistence on formal educational requirements
an unreasonable hurdle.
18. The appellants have also established that
individuals with lesser tenure or comparable roles
were regularized by the respondents. The counsel for
the appellants had submitted a seniority list for
employees working as the Multi- Tasking Staff
published by the Respondent Department on
04.03.2024 wherein the following employees were a
part of the staff without the required educational
qualification:
Date of Temporary or
Sl. Educational
Name Continuous Permanent Category
No. Qualification
CWC Service posts
Krishna s/o Lt.
1. Illiterate 26.07.1988 Permanent SC
Khajan Singh
Naresh Devi w/o
2. Ld. Surendra Illiterate 29.10.1991 Permanent Gen
Kumar
Shiv Kumar s/o
3. Illiterate 08.09.1994 Permanent SC
Lt. Pratap Singh
Radhe Shyam
4. s/o Lt. Sadhu Illiterate 30.05.2012 Permanent OBC
Ram Maurya
Raju s/o Shri
5. Illiterate 12.07.1994 Permanent SC
Banshi Lal
Shahjad Ali s/o
6. Illiterate 01.07.2010 Permanent Gen
Naushad Ali
Punam w/o Lt.
7. Illiterate 21.09.2015 Permanent SC
Raj Kumar
8. Nirmala w/o Lt. Illiterate 02.02.2022 Temporary SC
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1773
Raju
A bare perusal of the aforementioned list shows the
preferential treatment accorded to these individuals,
despite their shorter service durations and no educational
qualification. This exemplifies discriminatory behaviour and
lack of uniformity in the respondent department's approach.
Such disparity violates the principles of equality enshrined
in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and cannot
be sustained in law.
19. It is evident from the foregoing that the appellants'
roles were not only essential but also indistinguishable from
those of regular employees. Their sustained contributions
over extended periods, coupled with absence of any
adverse record, warrant equitable treatment and
regularization of their services. Denial of this benefit,
followed by their arbitrary termination, amounts to manifest
injustice and must be rectified.
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 judgement of this Court in
Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors.5,
it was held that 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
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1773
employee. The relevant paras of this judgement 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 judgement 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."
21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial
label of the appellants' engagements and the outsourcing
decision taken after their dismissal. Courts must look
beyond the surface labels and consider the realities of
employment: continuous, long-term service, indispensable
duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their
appointments. In that light, refusing regularization simply
because their original terms did not explicitly state so, or
because an outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced,
would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity.
22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment
contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader
systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and
job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig
economy has led to an increase in precarious employment
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1773
arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job
security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been
criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour
standards. Government institutions, entrusted with
upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an
even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative
employment practices. When public sector entities engage
in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the
detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also
sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in
governmental operations.
23. The International Labour Organization (ILO), of which
India is a founding member, has consistently advocated for
employment stability and the fair treatment of workers. The
ILO's Multinational Enterprises Declaration6 encourages
companies to provide stable employment and to observe
obligations concerning employment stability and social
security. It emphasizes that enterprises should assume a
leading role in promoting employment security, particularly
in contexts where job discontinuation could exacerbate
long-term unemployment.
24. The landmark judgement of the United State in the case
of Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation7 serves as a pertinent
example from the private sector, illustrating the
consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent
providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain
workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them
employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact,
common-law employees and were entitled to the same
benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large
Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of
hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as
a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby
increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the
principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than
the label assigned to the worker, should determine
employment status and the corresponding rights and
benefits. It highlights the judiciary's role in rectifying such
misclassifications and ensuring that workers receive fair
treatment.
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees,
particularly in government institutions, often face
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1773
multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational
purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address
short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly
become a mechanism to evade longterm obligations owed
to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees
engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and
integral to the functioning of an institution are often
labeled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when
their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such
misclassification deprives workers of the dignity,
security, and benefits that regular employees are
entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are
frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen
in the present case. This practice undermines the
principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a
state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality
or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees
often find themselves excluded from opportunities for
skill development, promotions, or incremental pay
raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a
systemic disparity between them and their regular
counterparts, despite their contributions being
equally significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions
increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by
temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of
exploited workers with another. This practice not only
perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a
deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer
regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary
employees are often denied fundamental benefits
such as pension, provident fund, health insurance,
and paid leave, even when their tenure spans
decades. This lack of social security subjects them
and their families to undue hardship, especially in
cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen
circumstances.
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought
to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure
appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1773
is regrettable that its principles are often
misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate
claims of long-serving employees. This judgment
aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular"
appointments. It categorically held that employees in
irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly
sanctioned posts and had served continuously for
more than ten years, should be considered for
regularization as a one-time measure. However, the
laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted
when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately
reject the claims of employees, even in cases where
their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack
adherence to procedural formalities. Government
departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi
(supra) to argue that no vested right to
regularization exists for temporary employees,
overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment
of cases where regularization is appropriate. This
selective application distorts the judgment's spirit
and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against
employees who have rendered indispensable services
over decades.
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".
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1773
7. The Apex Court considers the entire spectrum
of the law with regard to regularization and holds that
making an employee work for long years and leaving them
in the lurch, would be exploitation of human labour. The
case at hand is one such illustration of exploitation of
human labour. In the case at hand, are Teachers.
8. As observed, in the order passed by the
Coordinate Bench, interviews were conducted by the
grant-in-aid Institutions, at the time of appointment of
these petitioners. The interview committee constituted had
a member of the State i.e., the Deputy Director of Public
Instruction. Therefore, the interview had the stamp of the
State, being a party to it. This happens in the year 2001.
We are in the year 2025. Therefore, for the last 24 years,
the petitioners have toiled in the Institution and are
awaiting their regularization as their fate today hangs in
limbo, due to the deliberate act of the State in passing an
order that is completely contrary to what this Court had
observed.
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1773
9. The impugned endorsement refers to the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of
Karnataka vs. Uma Devi and others2 and in the case of
State of Karnataka and others vs. M. L. Kesari and
others.3 Both of which stood considered by the Coordinate
Bench and contentions negatived. Even otherwise the
judgments in the case of Uma Devi and M L Kesari are
considered in the case of Jaggoo (supra) and the Apex
Court has distinguished, it to become applicable only in
certain cases.
The case at hand is not the one, where the State
could decline regularization of these petitioners, for having
made them work for the last 24 years.
10. Before parting with the order, it becomes
necessary to notice the action of the State. A perusal at
the order passed by the Coordinate Bench, and
endorsement passed subsequent to the order of the
(2006) 4 SCC 1
(2010) 9 SCC 247
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1773
Coordinate Bench, would on the face of it amount to
contempt of the order passed by this Court, as the State
does not challenge the order, but passes an order as
observed, contrary to the order. This act fringes on the
borders of contempt, as deliberate wrong order is passed
to get away with the order passed by the Coordinate
Bench.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following :
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The endorsement dated 31.07.2021 bearing
No.KaShiE/ShiTa3/KhahuBha/2012-13/Ka.Ka.Vi/9/
NeVi-2 vide Annexure-Z and resolution dated
11.09.2022 bearing No.AAS:KaKaSa/SaBhe/
18/2022-23/721 vide Annexure-AA stand quashed.
(iii) The cases of the petitioners shall be considered for
regularization of their services, and all necessary
documentation, between the parties be completed
within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the
copy of the order.
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1773
(iv) Petitioners shall be entitled for all consequential
benefits like approval of the appointments or the
admission, to grant-in-aid, as the case would be,
that would flow from the order of regularization.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
NAA
