The State Of Karnataka vs Smt. Lakshmi Devi
2026 Latest Caselaw 2134 Kant

Karnataka High Court

The State Of Karnataka vs Smt. Lakshmi Devi on 11 March, 2026

Author: S.G.Pandit

Bench: S.G.Pandit

                          1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                     PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT
                        AND
       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND


       WRIT PETITION NO.37850/2025 (S-KSAT)


BETWEEN:

  1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
     DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH
     EMPOWERMENT AND SPORTS
     M.S. BUILDING
     BANGALORE - 560 001.

  2. THE COMMISSIONER
     DIRECTORATE OF YOUTH
     EMPOWERMENT AND SPORTS
     STATE YOUTH CENTRE, YAVANIKA
     NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
     BENGALURU - 560001.
                               ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA)


AND:

SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI
W/O P NARAYANA
                               2



AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
WORKING AS ATTENDER CUM SWEEPER
GOVERNMENT SPORTS HIGH SCHOOL
VIDYA NAGAR,
BENGALURU NORTH-562157
R/AT GOVERNMENT QUARTERS
VIDYA NAGAR
BENGALURU NORTH-562157.
                                        ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI M.S. BHAGWATH, SENIOR ADV. FOR SRI K. SATISH, ADV.)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN APPLICATION NO.4741/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B) ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.06.2025 IN APPLICATION NO.4741/2024 PASSED BY THE KSAT, BENGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 04.02.2026 COMING ON THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND

CAV ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

The State Authorities in the Department of Youth

Empowerment and Sports are before this Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the

order dated 30.06.2025 in Application No.4741/2024

passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal

at Bengaluru (for short, 'the Tribunal') whereby the

respondent's application for a direction to the

petitioners to consider her case for regularization of

her service in the cadre of Attender-cum-Sweeper

with effect from the date she completed ten years of

service with consequential benefits is allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, it is the

case of the respondent that she was appointed on

consolidated/cumulative pay basis with the Sports

School at Vydyanagar, Bengaluru, as Attender-cum-

Sweeper. The applicant, along with similarly placed

persons approached the Tribunal in Application

Nos.1366-1371/1999 with a prayer for regularization

from the date of appointment. The Tribunal disposed

of the same by order dated 26.07.2007, directing the

respondent as well as similarly situated persons to

make individual representations to the authorities

concerned seeking regularization. Accordingly, it is

stated that the respondent is said to have submitted a

presentation and there was no action by the

petitioners on the said representation. In the

meanwhile, the respondent's consolidated pay was

enhanced by order dated 20.08.2011 (Annexure-A4).

It is stated that Annexure-A6 dated 28.06.2014,

details of the applicant were sought and the Director,

Youth Services and Sports Department, by letter

dated 21.02.2015, forwarded the details of the

respondent and recommended for consideration of

respondent's case under the Karnataka Daily Wages

Employees' Welfare Act, 2012 (for short, '2012 Act').

Even to that, there was no response and no order was

passed under 2012 Act.

3. It is stated that one Rajanna, Assistant

Teacher in the same department, approached this

Court in W.P.No.22179/2014 and this Court by order

dated 11.01.2016 directed consideration of his case

for regularization. Accordingly, vide order dated

30.06.20174 of the petitioners, services of the said

Rajanna was regularized. On the similar lines,

respondent requested for consideration of her case for

regularization by making representation dated

03.01.2024. As there was no action, the respondent

approached the Tribunal in the above stated

application seeking regularization of her services,

stating that she is working as Attender-cum-Sweeper

for more than 29 years and she would be entitled for

regularization.

4. The Tribunal on consideration of the case of

the respondent and on placing reliance on the latest

decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in JAGGO VS.

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS1 directed the

petitioners to consider the representation dated

03.01.2024 for regularization of services of the

respondent as Attender-cum-Sweeper effective from

the date of her completion of 10 years of service with

consequential benefits. Aggrieved by the said order,

the State Authorities are before this Court in this writ

petition.

5. Heard learned Additional Government

Advocate Sri.Vikas Rojipura for petitioners, learned

senior counsel Sri.M.S.Bhagawath for Sri.K.Sathish,

2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826

learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the entire

writ petition papers.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate

Sri.Vikas Rojipura, in addition to the grounds urged in

the memorandum of writ petition, submits that the

respondent would not be entitled for consideration of

her case for regularization since her appointment is

irregular/illegal. Further, learned Additional

Government Advocate would submit that the

respondent is not appointed through regular selection

process and the employees who have entered from

back door would not be entitled for regularization.

7. Learned Additional Government Advocate

would further submit that the respondent would not

fulfill the conditions laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of SECRETARY, STATE OF

KARNATAKA AND OTHERS Vs. UMADEVI (3) AND

OTHERS2. Particularly, learned Additional

Government Advocate would submit that the

respondent is not appointed to a sanctioned post nor

she would possess the qualification required for the

post of Attender-cum-Sweeper. Learned Additional

Government Advocate would place reliance on the

various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court contend

that including UMADEVI (supra) to contend that

irregularly and illegally appointed persons would not

be entitled for regularization and also to contend that

the daily wager appointed contrary to law would not

get right to seek regularization. Thus, he would pray

for allowing the writ petition by setting aside the order

passed by the Tribunal.

8. On the other hand, learned senior counsel

Sri.M.S.Bhagawath for respondent would contend that

the respondent has served more than 29 years in the

(2006) 4 SCC 1

petitioners' department and she would be entitled for

regularization. Learned senior counsel would submit

that the respondent was appointed to a sanctioned

post by the competent authority and as on the date of

her appointment, there was no qualification prescribed

for the post of Attender-cum-Sweeper. Therefore,

there is no merit in the contention of the learned

Additional Government Advocate and he prays for

rejection of the said contention that the respondent

would not fulfill the criteria prescribed under

UMADEVI (supra). Learned senior counsel in the

matter of regularization, places reliance on the latest

decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in JAGGO (supra)

and also DHARAM SINGH AND OTHERS vs. STATE

OF U.P. AND ANOTHER3. Thus, he would support the

order passed by the Tribunal and prays for dismissal

of the writ petition.

2025 SCC Online SC 1735

9. Having heard the learned counsel

appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire

writ petition papers, the point which falls for our

consideration is as to,

In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal warrants interference?

10. Answer to the above point would be in the

Negative for the following reasons:

The petitioners would not dispute the

appointment of the respondent as Attender-cum-

Sweeper on 06.07.1995 on the consolidated/

cumulative pay basis with the Sports School at

Vidyanagar, Bengaluru. The petitioners would also not

dispute the services rendered by the respondent for

more than 29 years and continuance of the

respondent as Attender-cum-Sweeper as on this date.

It is also a fact that the respondent as on the date of

making application before the Tribunal had completed

nearly 29 years and as on this date she has completed

nearly 30 years of service as Attender-cum-Sweeper.

11. The main contention of the learned

Additional Government Advocate for petitioners is that

the respondent was not appointed to a sanctioned

post and would not fulfill the criteria laid down by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in UMADEVI (supra). The post of

Attender-cum-Sweeper in sports school is one of the

essential post and as the respondent was continued

for this length of time i.e., more than 30 years, the

petitioners were in need of her service. Having taken

respondents service for these many years, at this

length of time, when the question of regularization

has cropped up, it is not open for the petitioners to

contend that respondent ahs no qualification, that too

a Group-'D' post of 'Attender-cum-Sweeper'.

12. The Tribunal taking note of the fact that

the respondent has completed more than 29 years

service and respondent has completed 10 years of

continuous service as on 06.07.2005 and taking note

of the continuance of the respondent's service,

directed regularization. We do not find any error in the

facts and circumstances of the case.

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in DHARM SINGH

AND OTHERS (supra) after noticing UMADEVI

(supra) and subsequent cases in the matter of

regularization at paragraph 13, 17 and 18, it observed

as follows:

"13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is inherently perennial. The Commission's further contention that the appellants are not "full- time" employees but continue only by virtue of

interim orders also does not advance their case. That interim protection was granted precisely because of the long history of engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State's refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements that may arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality of those refusals.

17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a

talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines.

18. 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."

14. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the

case of SRI THYAGARAJU VS. THE STATE OF

KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER4 considering identical

contention raised by the petitioners/State, at

paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 has held as follows:

"21. The contention of the State that the appointment of the petitioner is contrary to Article 14 and as the appointment of the petitioner is contrary to Constitutional Scheme, he would not be entitled for regularization is untenable and cannot be countenanced. It is too late in the day after having continued the petitioner on temporary/daily wage basis for more than 35 years, the contention that the appointment of the petitioner is contrary to Article 14 and Constitutional Scheme, is misplaced. It is not open at this length of time for the State to contend that the petitioner's appointment is illegal. It is for the State to think and take a decision before appointing a person on temporary basis. A person who is offered employment on daily wage or temporary basis would have no choice in the days of unemployment and he would be compelled to accept employment on temporary

W.P.No.3805/2023 DATED 14.07.2025

or daily wage basis due to pressing needs. The State, after appointing a person on daily wage or temporary basis, cannot be permitted at this length of service to contend that his appointment is contrary to Article 14 or Constitutional Scheme. The State has an obligation to comply Article 14 and Constitutional Scheme before making appointment. Having made appointments even to say contrary to Article 14 and Constitutional Scheme, it cannot blame the employee for accepting such employment, that too after 35 years.

22. Learned Additional Government Advocate places reliance on the decision in UPENDRA SINGH (supra) to contend that a daily wager who is appointed contrary to law is not entitled for regularization. The decision in UPENDRA SINGH (supra) places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in UMADEVI (3) (supra). Paragraph 53 of the UMADEVI (3) (supra) provides for regularization of a daily/temporary employee on certain circumstances, if he fulfills the conditions laid down therein. Since the

petitioner herein fulfills the criteria laid down for regularization in UMADEVI (3) (supra), the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in UPENDRA SINGH (supra) would not be an impediment to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization. Moreover, based on the facts, we have come to the conclusion that the petitioner was appointed to a vacant post of Hawaldar, as indicated in the order of appointment dated 27.12.1984 (Annexure-A8).

23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS VS. M.L.KESARI AND OTHERS5 explained its earlier decision in UMADEVI (3) (supra), at paragraphs 7, 8 and 11, which we reproduce as follows:

"7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against "regularisation"

enunciated in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1], if the following conditions are fulfilled:

(i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly

(2010) 9 SCC 247

sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years.

(ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular.

Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular.

8. Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] casts a duty upon the Government or instrumentality concerned, to take steps

to regularise the services of those irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a one- time measure. Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] directed that such one-time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 10-4-2006).

        11.The         object         behind       the    said
direction        in        para         53        of Umadevi

(3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] is twofold. 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 (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] was rendered, are considered for regularisation in view of their long service.

Second          is     to         ensure          that     the
departments/instrumentalities                      do      not
perpetuate           the    practice         of   employing
persons        on      daily-wage/ad              hoc/casual
basis     for        long         periods         and     then

periodically regularise them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10-4-2006 [the date of decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] ] without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularisation. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularisation within six months of the decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularisation in terms of the above directions in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] as a one-time measure."

24. In the case of JAGGO VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS6, the Hon'ble Apex Court was considering the regularization of part time/contractual employee and at paragraphs 10, 12, 13, 14, 21 and 26, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as follows:

"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.

12. Despite being labelled as "part- time workers," the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods,

2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826

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 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.

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.

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it 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."

25. In the case on hand also, the petitioner is continued on daily wage/temporary basis for nearly 35 years. After extracting regular work from the petitioner, the action of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner's request for regularization at this length of time is wholly

arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair and opposed to Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The above decision of the Co-ordinate Bench would

aptly apply to the facts of the present case also.

15. We do not find any merit in the writ

petition. Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected.

Sd/-

(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

Sd/-

(K.V.ARAVIND) JUDGE

NC CT: bms