K Chandrashekar S/O K Shambanagouda vs The State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 10648 Kant

Karnataka High Court

K Chandrashekar S/O K Shambanagouda vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 November, 2025

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                                    -1-
                                                               NC: 2025:KHC-D:16300
                                                             WP No. 104456 of 2025


                       HC-KAR




                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

                             DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
                                                  BEFORE
                                THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

                                WRIT PETITION NO. 104456 OF 2025 (S-REG)

                      BETWEEN:
                      K. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O. K. SHAMBANAGOUDA,
                      AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: DATA ENTRY OPERATOR (TYPIST),
                      R/O: C/O: S. MALLIKARJUNA, S/O. SHAMBANAGOUDA
                      S. N. PETH, 3RD CROSS, S. R. COMPOUND BALLARI-583101.
                                                                         ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI. CHETAN T. LIMBIKAI, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:
                      1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
                            DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
                            KARNATAKA SECRETARIAT, VIKASA SOUDHA,
                            TOWN PLANNING SERVICES, BENGALURU -01.
                      2.    THE COMMISSIONER ,
                            BALLARI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
                            BALLARI, BALLARI 583101.
Digitally signed by                                                    ...RESPONDENTS
RAKESH S
HARIHAR               (BY    SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
Location: High               SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad
                             THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
                      OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
                      CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED
                      06.02.2025 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT - STATE BEARING
                      NO.£À.C.E. 14. UÀÄ C ¥Áæ 2025 (E) VIDE ANNEXURE M IN THE INTEREST
                      OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND CONSEQUENTLY, ISSUE APPROPRIATE
                      DIRECTIONS   TO    THE    RESPONDENTS HEREIN    FOR   THE
                      REGULARIZATION OF THE PETITIONER FOR THE POST OF TYPIST
                      FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE PETITIONER COMPLETED 10 YEARS
                      OF CONTINUOUS SERVICE WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS, TO
                      MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
                                 -2-
                                             NC: 2025:KHC-D:16300
                                          WP No. 104456 of 2025


HC-KAR



      THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

                           ORAL ORDER

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

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the

following prayer:

"I. Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned Endorsement dated 06.02.2025 issued by 1st Respondent - State bearing No.£À.C.E. 14. UÀÄ C ¥Áæ 2025 (E) vide Annexure-M in the interest of justice and equity and Consequently, issue appropriate directions to the Respondents herein for the regularization of the Petitioner for the post of Typist from the date on which the Petitioner completed 10 years of continuous service with all consequential benefits, to meet the ends of justice.

II. Issue any other appropriate order/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in view of the above narrated facts and grounds to meet the end of justice."

2. Heard Shri Chetan T.Limibikai, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Girija S.Hiremath, learned

HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and Shri Y.Lakshmikant

Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. The petitioner is appointed as a daily wage employee

on 27.04.1995 describing him to be a literate assistant.

Subsequently was appointed as a typist in the vacant sanctioned

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16300

HC-KAR

post with effect from 01.02.1996. In the light of the judgment

rendered by the Apex Court in the case of SECRETARY, STATE

OF KARNATAKA VS. UMADEVI (3)1. the regularisation of

several employees take place. The averment in the petition is

that several of the employees were regularised by the State, who

were similarly placed. The petitioner though continued to work as

a typist right from 1996 did not find favour with the State for

regularisation of his services, had to knock at the doors of this

Court in Writ Petition No.106545 and 2024, which comes to be

disposed directing consideration of a representation of the

petitioner. The representation is met with the endorsement that

is impugned in the subject petition. The impugned endorsement

narrates that in terms of the cadre and recruitment rules, the

petitioner could not have been appointed at all and no formal

appointment order has been issued in favour of the petitioner,

nonetheless, he has worked for 30 years now as a typist. The

impugned endorsement reads as follows:

"ªÉÄð£À CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÉßAiÀÄ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀÄzÉÝ §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄÄ £ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è.

2. ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¸ÀÄvÉÆÛÃ¯É ¸ÀASÉå: £ÀCE 80 ¨ÉAgÀÆ¥Á 2006, ¢£ÁAPÀ:14.12.2006 gÀ£éÀAiÀÄ gÀa¸À¯ÁVgÀĪÀ f¯Áè ªÀÄlÖzÀ ¥Àj²Ã®£Á

(2006) 4 SCC 1

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16300

HC-KAR

¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è ²æà PÉ.ZÀAzÀæ±ÉÃRgï EªÀgÄÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:27.04.1995 jAzÀ CPÀëgÀ¸ÀÛ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÁV PÁAiÀÄ𠤪Àð»¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ. CªÀjUÉ O¥ÀZÁjPÀªÁV AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà DzÉñÀ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £ÉêÀÄPÀ ªÀiÁrzÀ ¢£À CPÀëgÀ¸ÀÜ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ ºÀÄzÉÝ EgÀ°®è.

¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀªÇÉ ÃðZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ »£À߯ÉAiÀÄ°è ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀĪÀ G¯ÉèÃR(3)gÀ ¸ÀÄvÉÆÛïÉAiÀÄ 3£Éà µÀgÀvÀÛ£ÀÄß ¥Á°¹zÀÝgÆ À PÀÆqÁ 2£Éà µÀgÀwÛ£À G®èAWÀ£É DUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¢£ÁAPÀ:27.04.1995 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ºÀÄzÉÝ E®è¢gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀÄvÉÆÛïÉAiÀÄ 1£Éà µÀgÀvÀÄÛ ¥ÀjUÀt¸À®Ä CªÀPÁ±À«®è JAzÀÄ G¯ÉèÃR(3)gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:07.06.2007 gÀAzÀÄ dgÀÄVzÀ f¯Áè ªÀÄlÖzÀ ¥Àj²Ã®£Á ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ £ÀqÀªÀ½AiÀÄ°è zÁR°¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

3. G¯ÉèÃR(11)gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ §¼Áîj £ÀUÀgÁ©üªÈÀ ¢Þ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ªÀÈAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C£ÀĸÀj¹ ²æà PÉ. ZÀAzÀæ±ÉÃRgï EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß §¼Áîj £ÀUÀgÁ©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ°è£À ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÄÀ ÑUÁgÀgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ £ÉêÀÄPÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÄÀ ÑUÁgÀgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ £ÉêÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ DzÉñÀ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.

PÀ£ÁðlPÀ GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ ¦ÃoÀzÀ jmï Cfð ¸ÀASÉå:106545/2024 gÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ:10.12.2024 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÀÅ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ¤zÉÃð±À£ÀzÀ »£À߯ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÉÄð£À J¯Áè CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß PÀÆ®PÀAµÀªÁV ¥Àj²Ã°¹gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ²æà PÉ.ZÀAzÀæ±ÉÃRgï, ªÀÄÆ®vÀ: ¢£ÀUÀÆ° DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É CPÀëgÀ¸ÀÜ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÄÀ ºÁ° ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÀÄÑUÁgÀgÀÄ, §¼Áîj £ÀUÀgÁ©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ DzÀ vÀªÄÀ ä ¸ÉêÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀæªÀiÁwUÉƽ¸À®Ä / SÁAiÀÄAUÉƽ¸À®Ä ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À°è CªÀPÁ±À«gÀĪÀÅ¢®è.

vÀªÀÄä £ÀA§ÄUÉAiÀÄ

(®vÁ.PÉ) ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢üãÀ PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð, (C©üªÀÈ¢Þ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ & £ÀAiÉÆøÉ) £ÀUÀgÁ©üªÀÈ¢Þ E¯ÁSÉ."

4. It is this that is called in question in the subject

petition. If the dates and events are necessary to be noticed. On

27.04.1995 the petitioner is appointed on daily wage basis as a

literary assistant and on 01.02.1996 as a typist. Even today in

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16300

HC-KAR

the year 2025 close to 30 years he works as a typist in

respondent No.2. Respondent No.2, owing to the fact that the

petitioner has been working for the last 30 years, has

recommended the case of the petitioner for regularisation.

Learned HCGP now comes up with the objections in support of

the impugned order that there was no formal order passed by

the petitioner and he was as on that day qualified or otherwise to

hold the post of typist. As the learned HCGP takes this court

through the impugned order which projects the method of

recruitment to the post of typist. Admittedly the petitioner did

not participate in any selection process for projection of a

method of recruitment in the impugned order. It may be that the

direct recruitment to the post of typist would necessitate the

procedure to be followed. But the petitioner has been working as

a typist for the last 30 years in respondent No.2. When this is

not in dispute, projection of a qualification that has come about

later, without even referring to the fact whether the petitioner

did perform or not for the last 30 years in cadre of typist. The

impugned endorsement does not hold water. Not holding water

would lead to its obliteration. It is further germane to notice the

subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of DHARAM

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16300

HC-KAR

SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER2,

wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:

"8. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad-hocism" thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If "constraint" is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running.

19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the material indicating vacancies and comparator regularisations, we issue the following directions:

i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than the

2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16300

HC-KAR

minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of regularization as given above.

ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of regularization/retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default until payment.

iii. Retired appellants: Any appellant who has already retired shall be granted regularization with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this Judgment.

iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who has died during pendency, his/her legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three months of this Judgment.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16300

HC-KAR

v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this Judgment.

20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling "reconsiderations," and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India"

5. In that light, the direction would ensue to the

respondents to consider the case of the petitioner to regularise

his services. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is allowed.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:16300

HC-KAR

(ii) The impugned endorsement dated 06.02.2025, issued by the first respondent - State vide Annexure-M stands quashed.

(iii) The case of the petitioner shall now merit consideration for regularising the services in the cadre of typist within an outer limit of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order.

(iv) It is needless to observe that the respondents would not necessarily drive the petitioner yet again to this Court on the same cause of action.

Sd/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE VNP / CT: ANB