Karnataka High Court

Komala M vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 February, 2022

Author:
M. Nagaprasanna

Bench:
M. Nagaprasanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022 R
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION No.9310 OF 2016 (S-REG)
C/W
WRIT PETITION No.36565 OF 2013 (S-REG)
WRIT PETITION No.22964 OF 2015 (S-REG)
WRIT PETITION No.16373 OF 2016 (S-REG)
WRIT PETITION No.62411 OF 2016 (S-REG)
WRIT PETITION No.12439 OF 2021 (S-REG)

IN WRIT PETITION No.9310 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

1. SRI HANUMANTHARAYAPPA V.,
S/O A.VEERAIAH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/A NO.95, MARIYAPPANAPALYA
JNANABHARATHI POST
BENGALURU - 56.

2. K.S.RUDRAMURTHY
S/O K.SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
KADABAGERE VILLAGE AND POST
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
DASANAPURA HOBLI
BENGALURU - 30.

3. S.D.SUNDRESH
S/O DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/A NO.71/3,
OPP: RAJADHANI PUBLIC SCHOOL
MARIYAPPANAPALYA
BENGALURU - 56.

4. H.V.ARUNACHALAPATHY
S/O VENKATACHALAPATHY
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/A: SY NO.207/1A, NO.40
BANDEMATA EXTENSION
2ND CROSS,
KOMMAGHATTA MAIN ROAD
KENGERI SATLITE TOWN
BENGALURU - 60.

5. CHAKKANNA
S/O MARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
NO.1133, 7TH BLOCK
VISHSWERAIAH LAYOUT
MUDDINAPALYA
SUNKADAKATTE
BENGALURU - 91.

6. NAGARAJU S.P.,
S/O LATE PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/A NO.1002, 2ND CROSS
JNANABHARATHI, II BLOCK
BENGALURU - 56.

7. H.B.RAMASWAMY
S/O BYRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
B-6 QUARTERS
HEALTH CENTRA BLOCK
BENGALURU UNIVERSITY
JNANABHARATHI
BENGALURU-56.
8. M.N.NARASIMHAMURTHY
S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
MALLATHALLI VILLAGE AND POST
BENGALURU-56.

9. CHANNAKESHAVA K.T.,
S/O THAMMEGOWDA
R/A NO.395/9, MARUTHINAGAR
SONNENAHALLI, JNANABHARATHI POST
BENGALURU-56.

10. ALGESH KUMAR A.,
S/O N. ALAGARSWAMY
NO.267, 8TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN
BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, 1ST STAGE
JNANABHARATHI POST
BENGALURU-56.

11. N.B.RAMAKRISHNA
S/O BHADREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
NO.138, 12TH CROSS
ULLAL MAIN ROAD
JNANAGANGA NAGARA
JNANABHARATHI POST
BENGALURU-56.

12. GANGABORAIAH
S/O NINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
SUPPLIER, P. G. STUDENTS HOSTEL 2
BENGALURU UNIVERSITY
JNANABHARATHI, BENGALURU
R/A 35 SONNENAHALLI
MARUTHINAGAR
JNANABHARATHI POST
BENGALURU-56.
13. RAJANI S.,
D/O LATE SIDDARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
NO.13, 1ST MAIN ROAD
PALACE GUTTAHALLI
BENGALURU-03.

14. KRISHNAMURTHY J.H.,
S/O LATE SANJEEV SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
NO.48, 2ND CROSS
ANUBHAVNAGAR
MUDDANAPALYA
BENGALURU-72.

15. KADRAIAH
S/O NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/A 25, 1ST CROSS
W C ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU-10.

16. MUNIRATHNA
S/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
NO.38, 6TH MAIN
JNANABHARATHI
BENGALURU-56.

17. RAMESHA B.G.,
S/O LATE B. M. GURUSWAMY
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
NO.290, MATHRUSHREE NILAYA
4TH CROSS, SRI RAMA LAYOUT
MANGANAHALLI
BENGALURU-60.

18. CHANNAKESHAVAIAH
S/O C. MARAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
ANDANAPPA LAYOUT
KUVEMPU NAGAR, THAVAREKERE
BENGALURU-562 130.

19. RAVIKUMAR K.S.,
S/O LATE K.S.SHAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
NO.141, KODIGEHALLI
SAHAKARANAGAR POST
BENGALURU-92.

20. ARUNKUMAR V.,
S/O VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/A NO.77, 1ST MAIN
III CROSS, BANGARAPPA NAGAR
RAJA RAJESHWARI NAGAR
BENGALURU-98.
... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR D.R., SENIOR ADVOCATE
(VIDEO CONFERENCING))

AND

1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
M S BUILDINGS
BENGALURU-560 001.

2. THE BENGALURU UNIVERSITY
JNANABHARATHI
BENGALURU-560 056
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. M.C.NAGASHREE, AGA FOR R1 (PHYSICAL HEARING)
SRI D. ASHWATHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2
(VIDEO CONFERENCING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226
AND
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
R-2 TO ISSUE FORMAL ORDER OF REGULARIZATION PURSUANT
TO ANNX-D & F, THE ORDERS OF STATE GOVERNMENT
DT.25.11.2015 & 01.01.2016 AND ETC.,

IN WRIT PETITION No.36565 OF 2013

BETWEEN

1. SMT. ANURADHA R.,
W/O NAGARAJU U.,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING DIVISION
UNIVERSITY VISVESWARAYA COLLEGE OF
ENGINEERING, K.R.CIRCLE
BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. SRI S.NAGABHUSHANA, M.A (PH.D.,)
S/O SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
HOSTEL MANAGER,
LADIES HOSTEL
GNANA BHARATHI CAMPUS,
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
BENGALURU 560 056.
... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI V. LAKSHMINARAYAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE
(PHYSICAL HEARING)

AND

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
M. S. BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU 560 001.
2. BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
GNANA BHARATHI
BENGALURU 560 056
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI D. ASHWATHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2
(VIDEO CONFERENCING)
R1 IS DELETED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 03.03.2014)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226
AND
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R2
TO REGULARIZE THE SERVICES OF THE PETITIONERS ON PAR
WITH THAT OF OTHERS IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY
THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NOs.9959-9960/2011 AND
WA NOs.5577 & 1603/2013 VIDE ANNEX-C & E.

IN WRIT PETITION No.22964 OF 2015

BETWEEN

KOMALA M.,
W/O LATE MANJUNATH SWAMY C.,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
NO.136, ARPITHA
BEHIND GANGOTHRI PUBLIC SCHOOL,
NEAR WATER TANK, KALLUBALA ROAD
JIGINI VILLAGE AND POST
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 105.
... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SURESH DESAI, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))

AND

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
THE CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU 560 001.

2. BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
REPRESENTED BY
ITS CHANCELLOR
NO.1, JNANA BHARATHI CAMPUS
BENGALURU - 560 056.

3. THE VICE CHANCELLOR
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
JNANA BHARATHI CAMPUS
BENGALURU - 560 056.

4. THE REGISTRAR
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
JNANA BHARATHI CAMPUS
BENGALURU - 560 056.
... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. M.C.NAGASHREE, AGA FOR R1, (PHYSICAL HEARING)
SRI D. ASHWATHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2
(VIDEO CONFERENCING))

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER
ARTICLE 226

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS AND GRANT THEM
THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS;

DECLARE THAT THE ACTION OF THE RESPONDENTS IN NOT
REGULARIZING THE SERVICES OF THE PETITIONER AND NOT
GRANTING HER PARITY IN THE MATTER OF PAY AND ALLOWANCES
ON PAR WITH PERSONS WHO WERE APPOINTED ALONG WITH
THEM AND WHOSE SERVICES HAVE BEEN REGULARIZED BY
ORDER DTD.11.4.2008 VIDE ANNEX-E IS ARBITRARY,
DISCRIMINATORY AND ILLEGAL ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.16373 OF 2016

BETWEEN

1. SRI ANJALAPPA N.,
S/O NARAYANAPPA
46 YEARS, FDA, BANGALORE UNIVERSITY,
P G MEN'S HOSTEL, KOLAR PG CENTRE
KOLAR, R/A NEELATAR VILLAGE,
HEGALAGERI POST,
SRINIVASAPUR TALUK, KOLAR.

2. SRI V. MANJUNATH
S/O VENKATESHAPPA,
35 YEARS, PEON, BANGALORE UNIVERSITY,
KOLAR P. G. CENTRE, KOLAR
R/AT KOTIGANAHALLI, HARATHI POST
KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT.

3. SRI SHANKAREGOWDA
S/O NARAYANA GOWDA,
47 YEARS, SDC COMPUTER SECTION,
P.G.CENTRE, BANGALORE UNIVERSITY, KOLAR
R/AT GANDALAHALLI POST,
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR.

4. SRI H.KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O HANUMAPPA, 33 YEARS,
ASSISTANT COOK,
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY,
P.G.MEN'S HOSTEL, KOLAR P.G.CENTRE,
KOLAR, R/A KUMBARA BEEDI MAIN ROAD,
UPPARPET, KOLAR - 563101.

5. SRI T.SRINIVAS
S/O THIMMAPPA, 50 YEARS
HEAD COOK, BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
P.G.MEN'S HOSTEL, P.G.CENTRE,
R/A UDAYAGIRI LAYOUT,
HAROHALLI, KOLAR.
6. SMT. M. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O MUNISONNAPPA
45 YEARS, PEON,
KANNADA DEPARTMENT,
P.G.CENTRE, KOLAR,
R/A KADLIPUR, KOLAR.

7. SRI K.S.SRINIVASA RAO
S/O K.SUBBA RAO, 45 YEARS,
FDA, P.G.CENTRE, KOLAR
R/A ADDAYAL VILLAGE AND POST
SRINIVASAPUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT.

8. SMT. GOWRAMMA
W/O THIPPANNA, 49 YEARS,
ATTENDER, P.G.CENTRE, KOLAR.

9. SRI VARADARAJU
S/O RAMAPPA, 34 YEARS,
GROUP D EMPLOYEE, P.G.CENTER,
BANGALORE UNIVESITY, KOLAR,
R /A. J.J.CHAMANAHALLI ,
KOLAR.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI K.S.NARESH SANTHOSH, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M S BUILDINGS,
BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. THE BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
JNANABHARATHI
BENGALURU - 560 056
REPRESENTED
BY ITS REGISTRAR.
... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. M.C.NAGASHREE, AGA FOR R1, (PHYSICAL HEARING)
SRI D. ASHWATHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2
(VIDEO CONFERENCING))

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226
AND
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-2 TO
ISSUE FORMAL ORDER OF REGULARISATION PURSUANT TO
ANNEX-D & F THE ORDERS OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT DATED
25.11.2015 AND 01.01.2016 AND ETC.,

IN WRIT PETITION No.62411 OF 2016

BETWEEN

1. SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR B.M.,
S/O LATE MAHADEV,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT,
EXAMINATION BRANCH,
JNANA BHARATI CAMPUS,
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY,
BENGALURU-560 056.
RESIDING AT NO.1323, 5TH CROSS,
1st STAGE, II PHASE,
CHANDRA LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560 040.

2. SRI. LINGEGOWDA M.B.,
S/O. LATE BETTATHIMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT,
EXAMINATION BRANCH,
JNANA BHARATI CAMPUS,
BENGALURU UNIVERSITY,
BENGALURU-560 056.
RESIDING AT NO.226, 1ST MAIN,
2ND CROSS, S.G. NAGAR,
MALLATHAHALLI POST,
BENGALURU.

3. SRI. PRASHANTH
S/O. B.RAMANNA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
WORKING AS LABORATORY TECHNICIAN,
HEALTH CENTRE,
JNANA BHARATI CAMPUS,
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY,
BENGALURU-560 056.
RESIDING AT 3RD CROSS ROAD,
JANATA EXTENSION,
JNANA BHARATHI POST,
BENGALURU.

4. SRI. CHANNAKESHAVA
S/O. SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
WORKING AS LABORATORY ATTENDER,
HEALTH CENTRE,
JNANA BHARATI CAMPUS,
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY,
BENGALURU-560 056,
RESIDING AT NO.17,
HOSAHALLI, TULASI NAGAR,
BENGALURU NORTH, MAGADI TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 091.

5. SMT. MANJULA G.,
W/O. BABU N.,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
WORKING AS DATA ENTRY OPERATOR,
CANARA BANK SCHOOL OF
MANAGEMENT STUDIES,
CENTRAL COLLEGE CAMPUS,
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY,
BENGALURU-560 001,
RESIDING AT NO.1025/D, 17TH "E" CROSS,
LBS NAGAR, INDIRANAGAR II STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 038.

6. SRI. INDERESH KUMAR M. P.,
S/O. PARAMASHIVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT,
ENGINEERING DIVISION,
JNANA BHARATHI CAMPUS,
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY,
BENGALURU-560 056,
RESIDING AT NO.983, I MAIN ROAD,
4TH CROSS, JNANAJYOTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU.

7. SRI. RAMAKRISHNA
S/O. DEVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
WORKING AS PLUMBER,
JNANA BHARATI CAMPUS,
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY,
BENGALURU-560 056,
RESIDING AT UNIVERSITY QUARTERS,
JNANA BHARATHI CAMPUS,
BENGALURU-560 056.

8. SRI. KAMBESH T.,
S/O. THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
WORKING AS SUPPLIER,
UCPE STUDENTS HOSTEL,
JNANA BHARATHI CAMPUS,
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY,
BENGALURU-560 056,
RESIDING AT AALEMARADA DODDI,
ANJANAPURA POST,
KAILANCHA HOBLI,
RAMANAGARAM TALUK AND DISTRICT.
9. SRI.J. THAMMAIAH
S/O. JAVARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
WORKING AS GARDENER,
JNANA BHARATI CAMPUS,
BENGALURU UNIVERSITY,
BENGALURU-560 056,
RESIDING AT NO.110,
MARAPPA TEMPLE ROAD,
NAGADEVANAHALLI,
BENGALURU.

10. SRI. PARASHIVAMURTHY
S/O. THAMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
WORKING AS ATTENDER,
GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT,
JNANA BHARATI CAMPUS,
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY,
BENGALURU-560 056,
RESIDING AT 8/2,
BEHIND BHOOTAPA TEMPLE,
NAGADEVANAHALLI,
BENGALURU.

11. SRI. GIRISH
S/O. GIRIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
WORKING AS GROUP "D" EMPLOYEE,
NSS BHAVAN, JNANA BHARATHI CAMPUS,
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY,
BENGALURU-560 056,
RESIDING AT AALEMARADA DODDI,
ANJANAPURA POST,
KAILANCHA HOBLI,
RAMANAGARAM TALUK
AND DISTRICT.

12. SMT.D.RATHNAMMA
W/O. KEMPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
WORKING AS GROUP "D" EMPLOYEE,
DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY,
CENTRAL COLLEGE CAMPUS,
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY,
BENGALURU-560 001,
RESIDING AT NO.93, 6TH CROSS,
THYAGARAJANAGAR,
NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE,
BENGALURU-560 028.

13. SRI. N. CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O. NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
WORKING AS ATTENDER,
DEPARTMENT OF STATISTICS,
JNANA BHARATHI CAMPUS,
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY,
BENGALURU-560 056,
RESIDING AT NO.983, 4TH MAIN,
JNANAJYOTHI NAGAR,
BENGALURU.

14. SRI. K.S. MANJUNATH
S/O. LATE SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
WORKING AS SUPPLIER,
LADIES STUDENTS HOSTEL,
JNANA BHARATI CAMPUS,
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY,
BENGALURU-560 056,
RESIDING AT NO.407,
JANATHA COLONY,
REVENUE EXTENSION,
KALKUNTE, MALLATHAHALLI,
BENGALURU.
... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI M.S.BHAGWAT, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))
AND

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER
EDUCATION (UNIVERSITIES),
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

2. BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS
VICE CHANCELLOR,
JNANABHARATHI CAMPUS,
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY,
BENGALURU-560 056.

3. BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
JNANABHARATHI CAMPUS,
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY,
BENGALURU-560 056.
... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. M.C.NAGASHREE, AGA. FOR RI (PHYSICAL HEARING)
SRI D. ASHWATHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3
(VIDEO CONFERENCING))

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER
ARTICLE 226
OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD: 01.02.2016 PASSED
BY R-1; DECLARE THAT THE ACTION OF THE RESPONDENTS IN
NOT REGULARISING THE SERVICE OF PETITIONERS AND NOT
GRANTING THEM THE PAY SCALE AND OTHER ALLOWANCES ON
PAR WITH THE REGULAR EMPLOYEES IS ARBITRARY,
DISCRIMINATORY, AND ILLEGAL AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.12439 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

1. SRI RANGASWAMY
S/O. LATE GUDDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
WORKING AS COOK
PG-3 HOSTEL
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
JNANABHARATHI CAMPUS
BENGALURU-560 056.

2. SRI BASAVAIAH
S/O LATE MALLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
WORKING AS COOK
PG-3 HOSTEL
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
JNANABHARATHI CAMPUS
BENGALURU-560 056.

3. SMT. M. JAYAMMA
W/O JAYAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
WORKING AS CLEANER
IN THE CADRE OF GROUP-D
B. P. ED. HOSTEL
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
JNANABHARATHI CAMPUS
BENGALURU-560 056.

4. SRI RAJASHEKAR P.,
S/O PUTTAVEERAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
WORKING AS LAB ATTENDER
DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
JNANABHARATHI CAMPUS
BENGALURU-560 056.
5. SMT. R. NETHRAVATHI
W/O H.K.GANGADHARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
WORKING AS JUNIOR ASSISTANT
IN THE CADRE OF
SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
JNANABHARATHI CAMPUS
BENGALURU-560 056.
... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI PRITHVEESH M.K., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER
EDUCATION (UNIVERSITIES)
M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

2. THE BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS
VICE CHANCELLOR
JNANABHARATHI CAMPUS
BENGALURU-560 056.

3. THE REGISTRAR
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY
JNANABHARATHI CAMPUS
BENGALURU-560 056.
... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. M.C.NAGASHREE, AGA FOR R1 (PHYSICAL HEARING))

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER
ARTICLE 226
OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM
THE RESPONDENTS; QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
01.02.2016 PASSED BY THE R1 VIDE ANNEXURE-V INSOFAR AS
THESE PETITIONERS IS CONCERNED AND CONSEQUENTLY
DIRECT THE R2 AND 3 TO REGULARISE THE SERVICES OF THE
PETITIONERS IN THESE RESPECTIVE POSTS, WITH EFFECT FROM
DUE DATE WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS, INCLUDING BUT
NOT LIMITED TO EXTENSION OF PAY AND ARREARS OF PAY AND
ALL OTHER ALLOWANCES ON PAR WITH THE REGULAR
EMPLOYEES WORKING IN THE R2 UNIVERSITY.

THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

The petitioners in the cluster of these petitions call in

question an order dated 01-02-2016 which denies the benefit of

regularization to the petitioners and have consequentially sought

a direction for consideration of their claims for regularization.

Since all the employees are working in different Departments of

the Bangalore University ('the University' for short) and the

challenge and direction sought being common, these petitions

are taken up together and considered in this common order.

2. Adumbrated in brief, the factual background as

projected by the petitioners are as follows:
Writ Petition No.9310 of 2016:

(a) The petitioners 20 in number were all appointed

between 28-12-1996 and 09-06-2000 in a Group-D cadre. The

qualifications that the petitioners possess range from 6th

standard to Graduation. These petitioners were appointed in the

University Library, Finance department, Hostels run by the

University, Estate Section, Students Welfare Department,

Garden Section and in several other places. One Sri

H.B.Ramaswamy - petitioner No.7 discontinued and petitioner

No.17 - Ramesha is dead. Barring these two petitioners, all the

other petitioners are working in the University without any

break from the dates of their initial engagement.

Writ Petition No.36565 of 2013:

(b) This petition consists of two employees who were

engaged on 2-07-1998 and 1-01-1999 respectively as Group-D

employees and are working in the services of the University right

from their initial engagement without any break and continued

to work in different departments even as on date.
Writ Petition No.22964 of 2015:

(c) This petition concerns with one employee. The

petitioner in this writ petition was appointed on 13-01-1998 as a

Group-D employee. The petitioner does possess a post-graduate

qualification in Master of Arts. It is the claim of the University

that the petitioner worked from 13-01-1998 and his services are

discontinued from 29-05-2019 after about 22 years of service.

Writ Petition No.16373 of 2016:

(d) This petition concerns 9 employees who were all

appointed between 15-11-1996 and 1-08-1999. Two of the

petitioners possess the qualification of M.Phil and post-

graduation in Master of Arts and others are 4th, 5th, 7th or 10th

standard. All these petitioners except one Sri Shankare

Gowda.K.N. whom the University claims to have discharged are

working from the dates of their initial engagement and continued

to work even as on date.
Writ Petition No.62411 of 2016:

(e) This petition concerns 14 employees who are all

engaged between the dates 17-02-1997 and 2-11-1999 as

Group-D employees. All the petitioners in this petition are

working without any break from the dates of their initial

engagement and continued to work even as on date in different

Departments of the University and are all qualified to work in

Group-D cadre.

Writ Petition No.12439 of 2021:

(f) This petition concerns 5 employees engaged between the

dates 02-10-1996 and 08-02-2000 in a Group-D cadre.

Petitioner No.5 possesses a post-graduation in Master of Arts.

The petitioners are working in the University without any break

from the dates of their initial engagement and continued to work

even as on date in different Departments of the University.

3. All the petitioners thus, in terms of what is narrated

hereinabove, have completed service in the University ranging

from 20 to 25 years and are all aged between 43 and 57 years.
During subsistence of engagement of their services, all the

petitioners, most of whom had completed 10 years of service,

The Apex Court rendered its judgment in the case of

SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS v.

UMADEVI(3) & OTHERS1 on 10-04-2006. The entire spectrum

of nuances of engagement to posts - irregular, illegal or back

door were all considered by the Apex Court and certain

parameters for the purpose of regularization of such employees

were laid down. Certain proceedings also took place in the

respondent/University pursuant to the judgment of the Apex

Court in the case of UMADEVI. The process of regularization

was sought to be initiated by the University of several daily-wage

and monthly rated employees working in the University. The

University made a proposal for release of block grant from the

hands of the Government towards regularization of 85 employees

who had completed 10 years of service as on 10-04-2006. The

communication was made on 06-08-2007. On receipt of the

said letter, the State Government again directed furnishing of
(2006) 4 SCC 1
complete details regarding expenditure that would be incurred

by the University for the proposed regularization. In reply the

University by its communication dated 14-11-2007 replied

stating that the expenditure for such regularization would be

made out of regular grants received from Government. While

doing so the University added 46 employees who were working

on daily wages wherein the names of some of the petitioners in

these petitions also figure. By a communication dated

15.03.2008 the Government accorded its approval for

regularization of 85 persons who had completed 10 years of

service and not the remaining 46 persons who were included in

the later communication.

4. The aforesaid action resulted in another communication

dated 08-04-2008 being sent to Government seeking approval of

regularization of 46 employees with 12 more who had completed

10 years of service by then. Pursuant to the approval accorded

by resolution of the Syndicate dated 05-04-2008, 44 daily wage

employees were regularized by order dated 11-04-2008. On
06-03-2010 the University again addressed a letter drawing the

attention of Government that there were several sanctioned

posts in the University which needed to be filled up on

immediate basis and sought approval for regularization of 91

personnel working in the University who had by that time

completed requisite number of years of service for such

regularization. The number was 91 which included the

petitioners in all these petitions. Representations from all these

petitioners were being submitted on regular basis seeking

regularization from the hands of the University. The University,

on receipt of such representations, communicated on several

occasions seeking approval for regularization of the services of

the petitioners in the light of the fact that they had by then

completed close to 15 years of service.

5. The State Government did not reply to those

communications sent by the University but went on seeking

clarifications with regard to availability of posts and financial

burden. On 23-12-2011 the University brought to the notice of
Government that about 197 posts of Group-D employees were

lying vacant which needed to be filled up in the light of increase

of courses in the University. When no action was taken upon

correspondences between Government and the University, the

petitioners along with other similarly situated employees

approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos.35145-35210/2013

seeking a direction to the hands of the University to regularize

their services. By then, two other writ petitions were filed for

similar reliefs. All the petitions were disposed of by an order

dated 28-04-2015 directing consideration of cases of the

petitioners therein along with other similarly situated employees

in terms of the recommendation made by the University on

08.04.2008.

6. This decision led to certain correspondences between

the University and the Government. What was projected by the

Government was financial burden of close to rupees one crore

that would come about for regularization of employees which

included all the petitioners and the same should be borne out by
the University itself and no funds would be allotted by the State

Government for regularization. This communication led the

University doing a volte-face. Recommendations for

regularization, communications for approval of regularization

which were earlier sent by the University were all given a go-bye

and a direction was issued to the University to take action to

consider cases of the petitioners under the provisions of the

Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012
and all

other circulars prevailing at the relevant point of time. It is after

this communication, the University withdrew the earlier

resolution of the Syndicate which had resolved to regularize the

services of the petitioners on 27.02.2016. It is the aforesaid

action that is called in question in all these writ petitions.

Submissions of the petitioners:

7. Heard the learned Senior Counsel

Sri V.Lakshminarayana appearing for the petitioners in

W.P.No.36565 of 2013; learned counsel Sri D.R.Ravishankar

appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.9310 of 2016; learned
counsel Sri M.S.Bhagwat appearing for petitioners in

W.P.No.62411 of 2016; learned counsel Sri Prithveesh M.K.

appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.12439 of 2021; learned

counsel Sri D. Ashwathappa representing the University in all

these cases and the learned Additional Government Advocate

Smt.M.C.Nagashree appearing for the State.

8. The learned senior counsel Sri V. Lakshminarayana and

all the aforementioned counsel would in unison contend that the

petitioners are entitled to be considered for regularization of

their services as the University has not once but close to eight

times communicated to the State Government with regard to the

need of the petitioners and necessity for regularization of the

services of the petitioners. The learned senior counsel would

further submit that identically placed employees who were

appointed as Computer Operators and Computer Programmers

on daily wages have been granted the benefit of regularization

pursuant to an order passed by this Court in Writ Petition

No.9959/2011 and on parity seeks that the petitioners also
ought to have been regularized, more so, in the light of the fact

that the order in Writ Petition No.9959/2011 has been affirmed

by the Division Bench and has attained finality.

9. The other respective learned counsel representing the

petitioners in all the other petitions would submit that the

University having utilized the services of the petitioners for close

to 20 to 24 years cannot now turn its blind eye towards the

claim of the petitioners for regularization. They would

emphasize on the fact that it is not the University that wants to

deny the benefit of regularization but the direction of the State

Government that the University has to bear financial burden

which has led to the denial of such claim of the petitioners.

10. All of them, in unison, would again contend that

financial burden can hardly be a circumstance that can deny the

petitioners benefit of regularization of their services that too on

the direction of the State Government which has no jurisdiction

to interfere with the affairs of the University, as the University is
an autonomous body which has to take its own decisions in

administrative matters.

Submissions of the University:

11. The learned counsel representing the University Sri D.

Ashwathappa would vehemently refute all these submissions

and would strenuously contend that the petitioners are all back-

door entrants and they are all illegal appointees. Merely because

they have served the University for over 20 to 24 years, that will

not give them any benefit of claim for regularization, unless they

are appointed against sanctioned vacant posts at the outset. He

would submit that the petitioners at best could be considered

under the
Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012

and on coming into force of the said Act the claim of the

petitioners for regularization would cease to operate, but would

admit that the University needs their services and had

accordingly communicated to the Government on several

occasions seeking regularization of services of the petitioners.
12. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners would

contend that the case of the petitioners for regularization by the

University is not effaced even as on date, as in the year 2019 the

University has again communicated to the Government seeking

regularization of services of the petitioners. In this regard a

communication is also sent on 12-09-2019 during the pendency

of these petitions. Therefore, the submission of the University

that the petitioners are not entitled to claim regularization is

contrary to records.

Submissions of the State:

13. The learned Additional Government Advocate would

toe the lines of the learned counsel for the University and would

add that the petitioners have no right to seek regularization once

the
Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012
has

been brought into force. The case of the petitioners can only be

considered under the
Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare

Act, 2012
, that too if they fulfill the conditions stipulated under

the provisions of the Act. Both the learned Counsel would refer
to the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
UNION

OF INDIA & OTHERS v. ILMODEVI AND ANOTHER
.

14. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the learned senior counsel and the other

respective learned counsel for the parties and have perused the

material on record. In furtherance whereof, the issue that

requires consideration is, whether in the facts of the case on

hand the petitioners would be entitled to claim

consideration of their cases for regularisation?

Consideration:

15. The afore-quoted facts, dates of engagement of the

services of the petitioners, communications and

correspondences exchanged between the University and the

State Government are not in dispute and are, therefore, not

reiterated. The issue that needs to be considered in the cases at

hand is, whether petitioners are entitled to seek regularization

of their services in the teeth of judgments rendered by the

Apex Court in the case of UMADEVI (supra) and
later judgments. The dates of engagement of the petitioners

begin close to 24 years ago. The Apex Court rendered its

judgment in the case of UMADEVI (supra) on 10-04-2006. It is

germane to notice paragraph 53 of the said judgment and it

reads as follows:

"53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be
cases where irregular appointments (not illegal
appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa [(1967) 1
SCR 128 : AIR 1967 SC 1071] , R.N. Nanjundappa [(1972)
1 SCC 409 : (1972) 2 SCR 799] and B.N. Nagarajan [(1979)
4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 4 : (1979) 3 SCR 937] and
referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in
duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and
the employees have continued to work for ten years or
more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or
of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services
of such employees may have to be considered on merits in
the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases
above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that
context, the Union of India, the State Governments
and their instrumentalities should take steps to
regularise as a one-time measure, the services of
such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten
years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under
cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and
should further ensure that regular recruitments are
undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that
require to be filled up, in cases where temporary
employees or daily wagers are being now employed.
The process must be set in motion within six months
from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if
any already made, but not sub judice, need not be
reopened based on this judgment, but there should be
no further by passing of the constitutional
requirement and regularising or making permanent,
those not duly appointed as per the constitutional
scheme."

(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgment devised

illegal and irregular appointments and directed that illegal

appointments cannot be regularised while irregular

appointments can be regularised. Four conditions that can be

discerned from paragraph 53 (supra) are that employment of the

petitioners should be against a vacant post. The employees

should possess the requisite qualification and should have

completed 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006 and

continuation of the petitioners in employment should not be

litigious. The communications of the University begins after the

judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of UMADEVI.

Those communications are germane to be noticed. The

University on 06-08-2007 communicates to the Government

with regard to employees working in various Departments of the

University and their entitlement for regularization and seeks

release of block grant for consideration of cases of such
employees for regularization. The communication dated

06.08.2007 reads as follows:

UÉ,

¥ÀæzsÁ£À PÀAiÀÄðPÀ²ðAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ
²PÀët E¯ÁSÉ (G£ÀßvÀ ²PÀët)
§ºÀÄªÀÄºÀr PÀlÖqÀ,
qÁ.CA¨ÉÃqÀÌgï «Ã¢
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ - 560 001.

ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ,

«µÀAiÀÄ: «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ°è ºÀvÀÄÛ ªÀµÀð ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° /
UÀÄwÛUÉ DzsÁjvÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉÆ½¸ÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ.

G¯ÉèÃR: 1. vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæ PÀæªÀiÁAPÀ: Er 54 AiÀÄÄJE 2006 ¢£ÁAPÀ
12.06.2006.

2. 54£ÉÃ ¹ArPÉÃmï ¤tðAiÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 02.09.2006.

3. ¹ArPÉÃmï G¥À ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 22.02.2007.

4. 60£ÉÃ ¹ArPÉÃmï ¤tðAiÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 03.03.2007

---

¢£ÁAPÀ: 12.06.2006gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀæzÁs £À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ
¥ÀvÀæ §gÉzÀÄ F »AzÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 25.05.2006gÀ°è ¸ÀPÁðgÀ ºÉÆgÀr¹zÀÝ
¸ÀÄvÉÆÛÃ¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¹ ¢£ÁAPÀ:01.07.1984gÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ°è
vÉÆqÀ¢¸À¯ÁzÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉÆ½¸ÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÒ
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ¸ÀA«zsÁ£À ¦ÃoÀªÀÅ ¤ÃrzÀ wÃ¦ðUÉ C£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀªÁV
¸ÀÄvÉÆÛÃ¯ÉAiÀÄ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ PÀæ PÉÊUÉÆ¼Àî¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ
w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

F »AzÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå r¦JDgï 2 J¸ï.L.¹ 90,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 06.08.1990gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° / ¤UÀ¢vÀªÉÃvÀ£ÀzÀ°è
01.07.1984gÀ »A¢¤AzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 01.07.1984gÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ 10 ªÀµÀð ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
¥ÀÆtðUÉÆ½¹zÀ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 296 £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ««zsÀ ºÀAvÀzÀ°è 1994 gÀ°è
¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉÆ½¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
DzÀgÀÆ E£ÀÆß PÉ®ªÀÅ £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉÆ¼ÀîzÉ EzÀÄÝ, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
«±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ F ªÀgÉUÉ£ÉÃgÀ £ÉÃªÀÄPÁw DUÀzÉ
EgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ 1994gÀ £ÀAvÀgÀªÀÇ ¢£ÀUÀÆ°/¤UÀ¢vÀªÉÃvÀ£ÀzÀ°è £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß
£ÉÃªÀÄPÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼Àî¯ÁVzÉ. F £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ
JzÀÄjUÉ ºÁUÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ªÉÃvÀ£À ±ÉæÃtÂAiÀÄ°è £ÉÃªÀÄPÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è.
EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À°è PÉ®ªÀgÀ£ÀÄß 6 wAUÀ¼À CªÀ¢UÉ £ÉÃªÀÄPÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼Àî¯ÁVvÀÄÛ £ÀAvÀgÀ
CzÉÃ jÃw ¥ÀÄ£À: ¥ÀÄ£À: 6 wAUÀ½UÉ ªÀÄzsÉå 1 ¢£À ©qÀÄªÀÅ ¤Ãr £ÉÃªÀÄPÀ
ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. ªÀÄvÉÛ PÉ®ªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄA¢£À DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ ªÀgÉUÉ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ £ÉÃªÀÄPÀ
ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼Àî¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À°è PÉ®ªÀjUÉ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉ¸Àj¹ ( ºÁ¸ÀÖ¯ï
¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ, ªÀiÁå£ÉÃdgï, PÁ¥ÉðAlgï, ªÉÊgïªÉÄ£ï, ¯Áå¨ï ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ
ªÀÄÄAvÁzÀ) vÁvÁÌ°PÀªÁV DzÉÃ±À ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁUÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ. AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÆÃ MAzÀÄ
CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è F ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄºÁQ £ÉÃgÀªÁV ¥ÀzÀ£ÁªÀiÁAQvÀ
E®èzÉ £ÉÃªÀÄPÁw DzÉÃ±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁUÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ. F J®è £ÀÆå£ÀvÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
UÀªÀÄ¤¹ J®ègÀ£ÀÆß MAzÉÃ CªÀ¢üUÉ UÀÆæ¥ï - r ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¹ 199
d£ÀgÀ£ÀÄß 06.04.2005 jAzÀ 1 ªÀµÀðzÀªÀ¢üUÉ UÀÄwÛUÉ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É
£ÉÃªÀÄPÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¹ArPÉÃmï C£ÀÄªÉÆÃzÀ£ÉAiÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ F
£ÉÃªÀÄPÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÀvÀðªÀå¤gÀvÀ 3 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À ©qÀÄªÀÅ ¤Ãr ¢£ÁAPÀ 10.04.2006 jAzÀ
MAzÀÄ ªÀµÀðzÀ CªÀ¢üUÉ ¥ÀÄ£À: £À«ÃPÀj¹zÉ. ºÁUÀÆ ¢£ÁAPÀ 13.04.2007
jAzÀ C£Àé¬Ä¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ DgÀÄ wAUÀ¼À CªÀ¢üUÉ CxÀªÁ ªÀÄÄA¢£À DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ ªÀgÉUÉ
AiÀiÁªÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄÄAavÀªÁV PÉÆ£ÉUÉÆ¼ÀÄîvÀÛzÉÆ C°èAiÀÄªÀgÉUÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ £ÉÃªÀÄPÀ
ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¸ÀÄvÉÆÛÃ¯ÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ°è 10
ªÀµÀðUÀ½UÀÆ ªÉÄÃ®àlÄÖ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ°/UÀÄwÛUÉ £ËPÀgÀgÀ
¸ÀPÀæªÀiÁwUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀAvÉ PÀæªÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼Àî®Ä £ÉÃªÀÄPÁw ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÁzÀ
¹ArPÉÃmï ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 03.03.2007gÀ°è ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «ªÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
¥ÀjUÀt£ÉUÉ ªÀÄAr¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. F «µÀAiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ªÀgÀ¢ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä
PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀ ¸À«wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß gÀa¸À®Ä ¹AqÀPÉÃmï ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ ¤tð¬Ä¹vÀÄ:

1) ²æÃ PÉ.£ÀgÀºÀgÀ, ¹ArPÉÃmï ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ CzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ

2) qÁ:PÉ.«.PÉÆÃzÀAqÀgÁªÀÄAiÀÄå ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ
¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, PÁ¯ÉÃdÄ ²PÀët E¯ÁSÉ

3) «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ PÁ£ÀÆgÀÄ ²PÀët E¯ÁSÉ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ

4) ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÀÄ®¸ÀaªÀgÀÄ, ¹§âA¢ «¨sÁUÀ-1 ¸ÀAZÁ®PÀgÀÄ

F ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 22.02.2007 gÀAzÀÄ
«±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ°è vÁvÁÌ°PÀªÁV ºÀvÀÄÛ ªÀµÀð ¸ÉÃªÉÃ ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° /
UÀÄwÛUÉ DzsÁjvÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉÆ½¸ÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ vÀ£Àß ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ,
F «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§AzÀ¥ÀlÖ ¥ÀgÁªÀµÀðPÀ n¥ÀàtÂ ºÁUÀÆ ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ
¥ÀæwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀjUÀuÉ£ÉUÉ ®UÀwÛ¸À¯ÁVzÉ - C£ÀÄ§AzsÀ-1).

¸À«ÄwAiÀÄÄ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¹ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ £ÉÃªÀÄPÁw
¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÁzÀ ¹ArPÉÃmï ¢£ÁAPÀ 03.03.2007 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀqÉzÀ 60£ÉÃ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è
F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ ¤tð¬Ä¹vÀÄ:

"Shri K.Narahari, Syndicate Member and also the
Chairman of the Sub-Committee which has submitted a
report in this regard, explained that the Sub-Committee
had recommended that 87 persons who are employed
on daily wages could be regularized by creating
supernumerary posts. Before doing so, once again the
Registrar (academic) will have to get the certificates
from all concerned Heads of Departments in respect of
each of these 87 daily wagers who have put in 10 years
of continuous service.

After detailed discussion, the Syndicate directed
that individual files of each of the 87 persons should be
operated by the Establishment Section, which contains
the order of initial appointment, renewal of temporary
terms ever year, acquittance rolls for payments made to
them through bank and or through cash registers in the
hostels etc., These have to be verified individually to see
that they have put in 10 years of continuous service
subject to certification by the concerned HOD about the
fact of having completed 10 years satisfactory service
for this purpose. When the individual files get
completed candidate-wise, it can be put up by the
Establishment Section for approval by the
Registrar/Vice-Chancellor and orders will be placed for
those candidates who complete the criteria, before the
next Syndicate meeting.

Further, with regard to the Sub-Committee's
inference that in respect of the daily wagers who have
put in less than 10 years of service, their services will
have to be terminated as per the 'Supreme Court's
decision etc., The Syndicate resolved that decision will
be taken only after finalization of these 87 cases."

¢£ÁAPÀ 03.03.2007gÀ ¹ArPÉÃmï ¤tðAiÀÄzÀAvÉ, PÀÄ®¸ÀaªÀgÀÄ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄ, EªÀgÀ CzsÀåPÀëvÉAiÀÄ°è «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ
«vÁÛ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, C©üªÀÈ¢Þ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ºÁUÀÆ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, ¦.JA.E.©
¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄUÀ¼À ¸ÀªÀÄÄäRzÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ 10.04.2006PÉÌ ºÀvÀÄÛ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À ¤gÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÉÃªÉ
¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀªÀgÀ ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀ ¸ÀAzÀ±Àð£À £ÀqÉ¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ, 87 d£ÀgÀ ¥ÉÊQ 85 d£ÀgÀÄ
¸À°è¸À¯ÁVzÀÝ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß, eÉgÁPïì ¥ÀæwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ªÀiÁZïð 1996
jAzÀ 10£ÉÃ K¦æ¯ï 2006 CªÀ¢üAiÀÄªÀgÉUÉ ºÀvÀÄÛ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À ¤gÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸À°è¹
¸ÀA§¼À ¥ÀqÉzÀ §UÉÎ ¸ÀA§¼À ¥ÁªÀw zÁR¯É, zÉÊ£ÀA¢£À ºÁdgÁw ¥ÀnÖ, ºÀÄnÖzÀ
¢£ÁAPÀzÀ zsÀÈrÃPÀgÀtPÁÌV «zÁåºÀðvÉAiÀÄ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ¥ÀvÀæ ((n¹ / ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀgÀ
aÃn ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C£Àé¬Ä¸ÀÄªÀ EvÀgÉ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄÛ.

ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À ¥ÀgÁªÀÄ±ÉðAiÀÄAvÉ 85 d£ÀgÀ §UÉÎ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ
¸À«ªÀgÀ ¥ÀnÖUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸À¨ÉsAiÀÄÄ ¸À°è¹zÉ. F ¥ÀnÖUÀ¼À ¥ÀæwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ
¥ÀjUÀuÉ£ÉUÉ ®UÀwÛ¸À¯ÁVzÉ - C£ÀÄ§AzsÀ - 2).

199 d£ÀgÀ vÁvÁÌ°PÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° / ªÀiÁ¹PÀ ªÉÃvÀ£À £ËPÀgÀgÀ MAzÀÄ
ªÀµÀðzÀ CªÀ¢ü ¢£ÁAPÀ 09.04.2007 gÀAzÀÄ CAvÀåUÉÆArvÀÄÛ. EªÀgÀ°è
¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉÆ½¸À®Ä ²¥ÁgÀ¸ÀÄìUÉÆAqÀ ºÀvÀÄÛ ªÀµÀð ¸ÉÃªÉÃ ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ 87 ¢£ÀUÀÆ° /
UÀÄwÛUÉ DzsÁjvÀ, £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÉÃjzÉ. ¹ArPÉÃmï ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ
09.06.2007 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀqÉzÀ 62£ÉÃ ¸À¨ÉsAiÀÄ°è F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ ¤tð¬Ä¹vÀÄÛ.

"The Syndicate was informed that the particulars
of 87 Monthly Rated employees, who have completed

10 years of service as on the cut-off date as per the
Supreme Court Orders, are being verified by a
Committee headed by the Registrar with Finance
Officer, Director, PMEB, Development Officer and the
report would be placed before the next meeting of the
Syndicate After detailed discussion, the Syndicate
resolved to continue the services of all the Monthly
Rated employees including the above 87 employees
whose term has expired on 09.04.2007, with three days
break for a period of six months or until further orders,
whichever is earlier, on the existing terms and
conditions. The Syndicate also resolved to write the
State Government about the action to be taken in
respect of the remaining MREs."

¢£ÁAPÀ 01.07.1984gÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ vÉÆqÀV¸À¯ÁzÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß
¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉÆ½¸ÀÄªÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ, ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ¸ÀA«zsÁ£À ¦ÃoÀªÀÅ vÀ£Àß
wÃ¥Àð£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ 10.04.2006 gÀAzÀÄ ¤ÃrzÉ. F wÃ¦ð£À°è

"2 The Supreme Court was pleased to direct that
the cases of irregular appointment (not illegal
appointment) of duly qualified persons in duly
sanctioned vacant posts and who have continued to
work for 10 years or more but without the intervention
of orders of Courts or of Tribunals shall be considered
on merits and the State Government and their
instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a
one time measure, the services of such irregularly
appointed persons who have worked for ten years or
more in duly sanctioned posts but not under the cover of
orders of courts or of tribunals and should further
ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill
up these vacant sanctioned posts that require to be
filled up in cases where temporary employees or daily
wages are being now employed. It is also directed that
such process must be set in motion within six months
from the date of judgment."

F »£Àß¯ÉAiÀÄ°è, ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÀgÀÄªÀÅzÉÃ£ÉÃAzÀgÉ ¹ArPÉÃmï
G¥À¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ°è ²¥ÁgÀ¸ÀÄì ªÀiÁqÀ®àlÖ 87 AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ
JzÀÄgÁzÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ºÁUÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ªÉÃvÀ£À ±ÉæÃtÂAiÀÄ°è £ÉÃªÀÄPÀªÁVgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è.
DzÀÝjAzÀ CªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÑ £ÁAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ wÃ¦ð£À°è w½¹gÀÄªÀ
¤§AzÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÆgÉÊ¹gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è.

¸ÀªÉÇðZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ wÃ¦ð£À »£Éß¯ÉAiÀÄ°è ¹ArPÉÃmï
G¥À¸À«wAiÀÄÄ vÀ£Àß ¢£ÁAPÀ 22.02.2007 ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ
²¥ÁgÀ¸Àì£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹zÉ.

"2. as regards various other posts sanctioned
from time to time and the vacancies remaining unfilled
so far, the University should take most expeditious
action to fill them up by following the prescribed rules of
recruitment strictly in accordance with directions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

3. In case the University administration were to
find it difficult to create those many supernumerary
posts to regularize the 87 persons who have reported
have completed 10 years of service, the Committee
suggests that the matter be left to the Syndicate to
decide, if necessary with the previous approval of the
Government.

4. the Committee is given to understand that
there are a number of other daily wagers who have put
in less than 10 years of service. Their number is also
quite substantial. However, since as per the judgment
of the Supreme Court only such of those persons who
have put in 10 years of continuous service as daily
wagers is to be considered for regularization, the
Committee infers that their services will have to be
terminated, OR in the laternative, such cases may be
referred to the Government for seeking further directions
from the Government as to what decision is to b taken
to regularize their services or to terminate their services.
However, when Direct Recruitments are made for the
vacant posts which are intended to be recruited by due
process of law, such persons who have got the
necessary qualification and experience among these
daily wages who have put in less than 10 years of
experience may be given a chance o complete with
relaxation o age in appointment while they apply
against notified vacancies. These details will have to
be worked out by the administrative wing of the
University."

¸ÀªÉÇðZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ wÃ¦ð£À ¢£ÁAPÀ 10.04.2006gÀ, ¹ArPÉÃmï
G¥À¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 22.02.2007gÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀ ²¥sÁgÀ¸ÀÄì ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
¹ArPÉÃmï ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 03.03.2007 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 09.06.2007gÀ ¤tðAiÀÄzÀAvÉ
¢£ÁAPÀ 10.04.2006PÉÌ 10 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À ¤gÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÉÃªÉ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ vÁvÁÌ°PÀªÁV
¢£ÀUÀÆ° / ªÀiÁ¹PÀªÉÃvÀ£À £ËPÀgÀgÀ ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉÆ½¸ÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ
¸Àà¶ÖÃPÀgÀt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C£ÀÄªÉÆÃzÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ®Ä PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVzÉ ºÁUÀÆ G½zÀ
112 d£ÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 10.04.2006PÉÌ 10 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À ¤gÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÉÃªÉVAvÀ PÀrªÉÄ
EzÀÄÝ, EªÀgÀ §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀ jÃw wÃªÀiÁð£À PÉÊUÉÆ¼Àî§ºÀÄzÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ
¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀ£ÀÄß F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

F PÁgÀtªÁV 10 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À ¤gÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÉÃªÉ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ vÁvÁÌ°PÀªÁV
UÀÄwÛUÉ DzsÁgÀzÀªÉÄÃ¯É PÁAiÀiÁð ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ 87 d£ÀgÀ ¥ÉÊQ 85 d£ÀgÀ
¸ÉÃªÉ ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉÆ½¸ÀÄªÀ ¤nÖ£À°è ªÉÃvÀ£À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ ¨sÀvÉåUÀ¼À ªÉZÀÑªÀ£ÀÄß ¨sÀj¸À®Ä
«±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ MmÁÖgÉ C£ÀÄzÁ£ÀzÀs (Block grants) ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ ¨sÀj¸ÀÄªÀ
§UÉÎ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ F ªÉZÀÑzÀ ¨Á©Û£À ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ©qÀÄUÀqÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÀºÀ
PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVzÉ."

Pursuant to the communication a list of 85 employees plus a

further list of 46 employees was furnished to the Government

including financial burden that would come about for

regularization of these employees. The University was permitted

to go ahead with the regularization of 85 employees, pursuant to

which, the University passed an order of regularization

regularising both 85 employees and 46 daily wage employees.

By separate orders regularisation of these employees came

about.

16. On 06-03-2010 the University again communicates

that another 91 employees have completed 10 years of service

and there were 188 vacant sanctioned posts of Group-D
employees in the University and sought approval for

regularization of 91 employees after the Syndicate took a

decision to regularize their services on 24-12-2009. This

communication contained the names of the petitioners. The

contents of the communication read as follows:

"UÉ,
¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀæzsÁ£À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ
²PÀët E¯ÁS (G£ÀßvÀ ²PÀët)
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ
§ºÀÄªÀÄºÀr PÀlÖqÀ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ - 560 001.

ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ,

«µÀAiÀÄ: ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ°è ««zsÀ PÀbÉÃj / «¨sÁUÀUÀ¼À°è
PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¹wÛgÀÄªÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° / ªÀiÁ¹PÀ ªÉÃvÀ£ÀzÀ
vÁvÁÌ°PÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ ºÀvÀÄÛ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À ¤gÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÉÃªÉ
¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß UÀÆæ¥ï 'r' ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ £ÉÃªÀÄPÀ ªÀiÁr
¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉÆ½¸ÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ.

G¯ÉèÃR: 1. £ÀÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå: ¹§âA¢-1/¹1/vÁ.UÀÄ.£ÉÃ/2007-08(11),
¢£ÁAPÀ:08-04-2008;

2. £ÀÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå: ¹§âA¢-1/¹1/vÁ.UÀÄ.£ÉÃ/2007-08(11),
¢£ÁAPÀ:28-07-2008;

3. £ÀÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå: ¹§âA¢-1/¹1/vÁ.UÀÄ.£ÉÃ/2007-08(11),
¢£ÁAPÀ:13-08-2008.

----

ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ°è
¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 10 ªÀµÀðPÀÆÌ «ÄV¯ÁV ¢£ÀUÀÆ° / ªÀiÁ¹PÀ ªÉÃvÀ£À DzsÁgÀzÀ°è ¸ÉÃªÉ
¸À°è¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß SÁAiÀÄAUÉÆ½¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ ªÀÄ£À« ¸À°è¹zÀÝgÀÄ.
F ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ ªÀÄ£À«UÀ¼À£ÀÄß G¯ÉèÃTvÀ ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À°è ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀjUÀt£ÉUÉ
¸À°è¸À¯ÁVgÀÄªÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä CªÀUÁºÀ£ÉUÉ vÀgÀ¯ÁVzÉ.
¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ 2000 E¸À«AiÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄªÀÅ
£ÉÃgÀ£ÉÃªÀÄPÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. 2000 E¸À«¬ÄAzÀ E°èAiÀÄªÀgÉUÉ ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ
¸ÀASÉåAiÀÄ°è £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ ¤ªÀÈwÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄgÀt ºÉÆA¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ 188 £Á®Ì£ÉÃ zÀeÉð
ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼ÀÄ SÁ° DVzÀÄÝ, PÁ®PÁ®PÉÌ ¥ÀzÀ£ÉÆßÃw ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ, ºÁUÀÆ
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ°è ºÉZÀÄÑªÀj ºÉÆ¸À ¸ÁßvÀPÉÆÃvÀÛgÀ PÉÆÃ¸ïð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
PÁ¯ÉÃdÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ C£ÀÄªÀÄw¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ MlÄÖ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 700 PÁ¯ÉÃdÄ
ºÁUÀÆ 60,000 «zÁåyðUÀ¼À ¥ÀæªÉÃ±À C£ÀÄªÉÆÃzÀ£É, ¥ÀjÃPÉë, CAPÀ¥ÀnÖ vÀAiÀiÁjPÉ,
¹§éA¢UÉ ¸ÀA¨sÀA¢¹zÀ E¤ßvÀgÀ zÉÊ£ÀA¢£À PÉ®¸ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß 1964gÀ°è ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ
«±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄ GzÀAiÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À¯Éè ¤ªÀð»¹PÉÆAqÀÄ
§gÀ¯ÁUÀÄwÛzÉ. ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ¹§âA¢AiÀÄ PÉÆgÀvÉ¬ÄAzÀ FV£À ¥Àj¹ÜwAiÀÄ°è zÉÊ£ÀA¢£À
PÉ®¸À PÁAiÀÄðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀÄUÀÄªÀÄªÁV £ÀqÉ¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ PÀµÀÖªÁVgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ F
«µÀAiÀÄªÁV ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ ¨Áj ºÉZÀÄÑªÀj ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¤ÃqÀ®Ä WÀ£À
¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C£ÀÄªÉÆÃzÀ£ÉUÁV ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£É ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß E°è ¸Àäj¸À§ºÀÄzÀÄ.

F ªÀÄzsÉå ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÉÃªÉ SÁAiÀÄA ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀAvÉ ¥ÀÄ£À:

ªÀÄ£À« ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. EªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ 24.12.2009gÀ°è £ÀqÉ¢gÀÄªÀ
¹ArPÉÃmï ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ¥ÀjUÀt£ÉUÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ªÀÄAr¸À¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. ¹ArPÉÃmï ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ
¸ÀzÀj ¢£ÁAPÀzÀAzÀÄ £ÀqÉzÀ ¸À¨ÉsAiÀÄ°è F «µÀAiÀÄzÀ §UÉÎ PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ
¤tð¬Ä¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

"The Syndicate resolved to agree, in principle,
to regularize the service of 90 persons who have
completed 10 years of service and write to the
Government for information and approval."

F »AzÉAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀºÀ WÀ£À ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 15.03.2008gÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è F
jÃw 10 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À ¸ÉÃªÉ ¥ÀÆgÉå¹gÀÄªÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÀPÀÆÌ ºÉaÑ£À CªÀ¢üUÉ
PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ 85 ¢£ÀUÀÆ° / UÀÄwÛUÉ £ËPÀgÀgÀ ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
«±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ°è ºÁ° SÁ° EgÀÄªÀ UÀÆæ¥ï - 'r' ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À°è «°Ã£ÀUÉÆ½¸À®Ä
ºÁUÀÆ EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À £ÉÃªÀÄPÁwAiÀÄ ªÉZÀÑªÀ£ÀÄß «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ DAvÀjPÀ
¸ÀA¥À£ÀÆä®¢AzÀ ¨sÀj¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ C£ÀÄªÀÄw ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä
CªÀUÁºÀ£ÉUÉ vÀgÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

F »£Àß¯ÉAiÀÄ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ: 24.12.2009gÀ ¹ArPÉÃmï ¸À¨ÉsAiÀÄ ¤tðAiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß
C£ÀÄµÁ×£ÀUÉÆ½¸À®Ä C£ÀÄªÁUÀÄªÀAvÉ 10 ªÀµÀð vÁvÁÌ°PÀ ¸ÉÃªÉ ¥ÀÆgÉÊ¹zÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀ
¸ÉÃªÁ «ªÀgÀUÀ¼À ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄÄ F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAwzÉ."
Again correspondences between the University and the

Government went on. The University on 23-12-2011

communicated the need and the claim for regularization of 91

employees as submitted earlier. The contents of the

communication read as follows:

"UÉ,
¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀæzsÁ£À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ
²PÀët E¯ÁSÉ (G£ÀßvÀ ²PÀët)
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ
§ºÀÄªÀÄºÀr PÀlÖqÀ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ - 560 001.

ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ,
«µÀAiÀÄ: ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ°è PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¹wÛgÀÄªÀ
¢£ÀUÀÆ°/ªÀiÁ¹PÀ ªÉÃvÀ£ÀzÀ vÁvÁÌ°PÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß
¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉÆ½¸ÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ.

G¯ÉèÃR: ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀæzÁs £À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð, G£ÀßvÀ ²PÀët E¯ÁSÉ,
§ºÀÄªÀÄºÀr PÀlÖqÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, EªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå: Er 355
AiÀÄÄ©« 2011 ¢£ÁAPÀ:12-10-2011.

---

ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, G¯ÉèÃTvÀ ¸ÀPÁðj ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è PÉÃ½gÀÄªÀ
CA±ÀUÀ½UÉ F PÉ¼ÀV£ÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß MzÀV¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

1. ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ°è SÁ° EgÀÄªÀ UÀÆæ¥ï r ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À ¸ÀASÉå 197.

¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ ªÀÄAdÆgÁVgÀÄªÀ ºÁ° ¸ÀzÀj ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼ÀÄ PÁ®PÁ®PÉÌ ¤ªÀÈwÛAiÀiÁzÀ
SÁ° EgÀÄªÀ r UÀÆæ¥ï ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼ÀÄ £Á®Ì£ÉÃ zÀeÉð £ËgÀjAzÀ SÁ° EgÀÄvÀÛªÉ.
JµÀÄÖ? AiÀiÁªÀ AiÀiÁªÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ
¸ÀzÀj ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼ÀÄ SÁ° EgÀÄvÀÛªÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
CªÀÅUÀ¼À «ªÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß MzÀV¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ.

2. F ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ F ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ
ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼ÉÃ? gÉÆÃ¸ÀÖgï ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼ÁVzÀÄÝ, ZÁ°ÛAiÀÄ°ègÀÄªÀ gÉÆÃ¸ÀÖgï
¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C£Àé¬Ä¸À¯ÁVzÉAiÉÄÃ? ¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß ¥Á°¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

3. ¸ÀzÀj ¢£ÀUÀÆ° / ªÀiÁ¹PÀ ªÉÃvÀ£À F ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ
¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄªÀ vÁvÁÌ°PÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ°è SÁAiÀÄAUÉÆ½¹zÀÝ°è CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À
SÁAiÀÄAUÉÆ½¹zÀÝ°è CªÀgÀ ªÉÃvÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÃvÀ£À ¨sÀvÉåUÀ¼À£ÀÄß «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ DAvÀjPÀ
«±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ DAvÀjPÀ ¸ÀA¥À£ÀÆä®UÀ½AzÀ ¨sÀj¸À¯ÁUÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ.
¸ÀA¥À£ÀÆä®¢AzÀ ¨sÀj¸À¯ÁUÀÄªÀÅzÉÃ?

4. UÀÆæ¥ï r ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À°è ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¢£ÀUÀÆ°
PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ ¹§âA¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ËPÀgÀjUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ¥ÀzÀ£ÁªÀÄ
ªÀiÁvÀæ ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ°è «°Ã£ÀUÉÆ½¸À®Ä (Designation) ¸ÀÆa¸ÀzÉ ¸ÉÃªÉ
¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£É ¸À°è¹gÀÄwÛÃj? UÀÆæ¥ï ¹ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ¯ÁUÀÄwÛzÉ. UÀÆæ¥ï ¹ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è ¢£ÀUÀÆ° / ªÀiÁ¹PÀ ¥ÀzÀ£ÉÆßÃwÛ E®èªÉÃ £ÉÃgÀ £ÉÃªÀÄPÁw ªÀÄÆ®PÀ
ªÉÃvÀ£ÀzÀ°è AiÀiÁgÀÆ vÀÄA§¯ÁUÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ.
PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛ®èªÉ?

5. F »AzÉ 85 ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 15.03.2008 gÀAzÀÄ
¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉÆ½¹ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉÆ½¸À®Ä
ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ; 15.03.2008 C£ÀÄªÀÄw ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
gÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ¥Àæw EzÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ®UÀwÛ¹zÉ.
MzÀV¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ.

¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ°è SÁ°¬ÄgÀÄªÀ ¨ÉÆÃzsÀPÉÃvÀgÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀ
£ÉÃªÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä DyðPÀ «ÄvÀªÀåAiÀÄ eÁjAiÀÄ°ègÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¢ÃWÀð
PÁ¯ÁªÀ¢ü¬ÄAzÀ SÁ° ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÉÃgÀ£ÉÃªÀÄPÁw¬ÄAzÀ vÀÄA§®Ä ¸ÁzÀåªÁUÀzÉ
«±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ zÉÊ£ÀA¢£À PÉ®¸ÀUÀ½UÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉAiÀiÁVzÉ. F »£Éß¯ÉAiÀÄ°è
¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¦¹gÀÄªÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÀPÀæªÀiÁw ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ
«±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ zÉÊ£ÀA¢£À PÉ®¸ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀÄUÀÄªÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ wÃªÀæªÁV ¤ªÀð»¸À®Ä
¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀªÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ 10 ªÀµÀðUÀ½VAvÀ ºÉZÀÄÑ PÁ®
¢£ÀUÀÆ° ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ°è PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¹zÀÄÝ, ¸ÀPÀæªÀiÁwUÉ ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹gÀÄªÀ J¯Áè
µÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀÆgÉÊ¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß «±ÉÃµÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¹ F 99 d£À
¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ°è SÁ° EgÀÄªÀ UÀÆæ¥ï r ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ½UÉzÀÄgÁV
£ÉÃ«Ä¸À®Ä C£ÀÄªÀÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀÄªÀAvÉ PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVzÉ."

The figure sought in this communication was increased from 91

to 99. This communication was in the light of 197 posts of

Group-D employees remaining vacant in the University. No

orders of regularization were passed in their cases. This led to
writ petitions being filed before this Court. All the employees

who claim to be working as Computer Operators and Computer

Programmers approached this Court in Writ Petition Nos.9959-

9960 of 2011. This Court by its order dated 24-05-2012 allowed

the writ petitions and directed the University to regularize the

services of the petitioners therein. The order passed by this

Court reads as follows:

"11. In identical circumstances, in respect of two
employees by name Govindappa and Nagaraju in the
respondent University, this court in W.P.No.8300/2002
vide order dated 15.9.2006 held that when an
employee worked in a particular category and if he
possess the requisite qualification and experience then
he is to be regularised in that category. In
implementation of the order of this court in
W.P.No.8300/2002, the respondent University
regularised the services of two employees in Group - C.
Then there is no justification for the respondent
University to deny the identical benefit to the petitioners
herein. Even on this ground the petitioners are entitled
for regularisation in the cadre of Group - C.

12. The contention of learned counsel for the
petitioners that they are entitled for regularisation with
effect from their initial entry into service in the year
1994 is not acceptable to me. Though the petitioners
entered services as temporary employees in the year
1994, their services came to be regularised on
11.04.2008 as per Annexure - F. The subsequent
correspondence between the petitioners and the
respondent University was only with regard to the
regularisation in Group - C cadre. Petitioners have not
agitated the grievance relating to retrospective
regularisation. At this length of time, it will be too harsh
on the respondent University to give effect to ther
retrospective regularisation. Therefore I decline to
extend the benefit of retrospective regularisation to the
petitioners.

For the reasons stated above, the following:

ORDER

i. Writ petitions are hereby allowed.

ii. The impugned endorsements dated
3/8.2.2011, Annexures - T and U issued
by the first respondents are hereby
quashed.

iii. It is declared that petitioners are entitled
to be regularised in Group - C cadre as
computer operator and computer
programmer w.e.f.11.04.2008 and to
extend the consequential benefits to them
as expeditiously as possible and in any
event not later than three months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.

iv. Ordered accordingly."

The said decision was called in question by the University before

the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.5577/2012 & connected

case which also came to be dismissed by order of the Division

Bench dated 01-04-2013. The Division Bench observes as

follows while declining to entertain the writ appeal:
"4. Firstly, in identical circumstances, other
employees who were similarly situated were granted the
relief of regularisation in Group-C category. Reference was
made to the order passed in W.P.No.8300/2002, wherein
the respondent-University has regularised the services of
the other employees in Group-C category and on the
ground of parity, the petitioners would be entitled for the
same relief. However, in the statement of objections filed
by the respondents, they have specifically stated that
regularizing the services of all the temporary employees
was from the date of their initial appointment. However, so
far as the respondents 1 and 2 are concerned, the
regularization was from the date of regularization of their
services as Group-D employees.

5. Under these circumstances, we are of the
considered view that there is no error committed by the
learned single Judge which calls for interference.
Respondents 1 and 2 have been working in the same
category ever since the date of appointment without any
break. It is not in dispute that the computer operator and
computer programmer would not come under Group-D
category. They would come under Group-C category.
Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 are entitled for
regularization in Group-C category.

6. In this view of the matter, there is no ground to
entertain the appeals. Consequently, the appeals being
devoid of merit, are dismissed."

The services of the petitioners therein were regularised. Another

set of writ petitions were filed by few of the petitioners in these

petitions in W.P.Nos.35145-35210/2013 which came to be
disposed of by an order of this Court dated 28-04-2015 by the

following order:

"The case of the petitioner is that they have been
working as Group C and D employees in the cadre of First
Division Assistants, Second Division Assistants, Managers
and Supervisors in Hostels, Library Assistants, Drivers,
Cooks, Attendants and Peons in the Bangalore University
and have put in not more than ten years of service.13 It is
specifically contended that all the petitioners have been
given appointment or had been engaged against
sanctioned posts.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that after the decision of the Apex Court in the case of

State of Karnataka & Ors Vs Umadevi
- (2006) 4 SCC
1, their cases for regularization were considered by the
University in terms of paragraph 53 of
the said judgment
.
As the petitioners were all found to be duly qualified and
working against duly sanctioned posts, the University after
considering the cases of the petitioners along with other
similarly situated employees, on 4.8.2008, forwarded a list
of 112 employees (including all the 66 petitioners) who all
had put in at least 10 years of service to the State
Government seeking approval for regularization. When no
orders were passed on the said recommendation made by
the University to the State Government, the petitioners
have filed these writ petitions with a prayer for
regularization in service of the respondent University.

Despite time having been granted to the learned
counsel for the State on several occasions, he states that
he has not received instructions even though
communication has been sent to respondent No.1. Learned
counsel for respondents 2 to 4 supports the case of the
petitioners to the extent that the University had made
recommendation for regularization of the petitioners.
In my view, no useful purpose will be served by
keeping these writ petitions pending any further as the
State Government has yet to take a decision on the
recommendation made by the University on 8.4.2008 with
regard to regularization of the petitioners along with other
similarly situate employees.

In such view of the matter, without going into the
merits of the claim of the petitioners, I dispose of these writ
petitions, with a direction that the cases of the petitioners
for regularization be considered and decided by the State
Government on the basis of the recommendation made by
the University on 8.4.2008, in accordance with law, by a
reasoned and speaking order, as expeditiously as possible,
but not later than three months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order along with the copy of the copy
of the communication dated 8.4.2008 made by the
University to the State Government. Learned counsel for
the petitioners states that the case of the petitioners would
be covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Malathi Das (Retd.) now
P B Mahishy & Ors Vs Suresh
& Ors
- Civil Appeal 3338/2014 decided on 7.3.2014
as well as the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
C
G Jagadeesh Vs State of Karnataka - WP

54284/2013 decided on 23.4.2014. While deciding the
cases of the petitioners, the Officer of the State
Government shall consider these decisions, copies of which
shall also be provided by the petitioners.

With the aforesaid observations and direction, these
petitions stand disposed of."

This Court while disposing of the aforesaid writ petitions

directed the respondents to consider recommendations dated

08.04.2008 which contained the names of the petitioners in

these writ petitions. Again correspondences between the
University and the Government continued after disposal of the

writ petitions as aforesaid. The Syndicate of the University met

to consider cases of the petitioners. This was in the wake of

telephonic instructions given by the State Government to

consider cases of the petitioners under the
Karnataka Daily

Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012
. This resolution of the

Syndicate dated 28-04-2015 reads as follows:

"Item No.: To consider Order dated 28.04.2015
of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ
Petition No.35210/2013 (S-Res), filed by 66
Consolidated Wages -regarding.

AGENDA NOTE:

The above matter was placed before the Syndicate in
its meeting held on 29th December, 2015. The Syndicate
resolved to approve the regularization of 66 daily wage
employees in Group - D posts. However, before
implementing the resolution of the Syndicate, the
Additional Chief Secretary to Govt., Higher Education
Department has telephoned the Vice Chancellor on the
evening of 30th December 2015 saying that while
implementing the Government's letter dated 25/11/2015,
the University should not use the word 'regularization' or
'permanent' and the University should issue orders in
terms of
The Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare
Act, 2012
(
Karnataka Act
No.19 of 2013).
This Act

contemplates, inter- alia, that "...the daily wage employees
in the establishments whose names are notified by the
Government under this Act, shall be continued on daily
wage basis till they complete the age of sixty years. ...The
pay of a daily wage employee shall be the minimum of the
time scale of pay of the posts in which he is continued in
service. He shall also be paid admissible Dearness
Allowance and House Rent Allowance as may be
determined by the Government by order, from time to time.
A daily wage employee shall be entitled for all General
Holidays, Casual Leave of fifteen days and Earned Leave
of thirty days per year. A daily wage employee may be
given an increase in his pay at such interval of time as
may be determined by the Government, by order. ... The
Daily Wage Employee shall be entitled for such terminal
benefits or ex-gratia, on his discontinuous after attaining
the age of Sixty years, as may be determined and notified
by the Government from time to time."

Sensing this, the daily wage employees resorted to
strike, sat Dharana in the Vice Chancellor's room on 31st
December 2015 and protested against the move of the
University to follow the instructions of the Addl. Chief
Secretary and demanded regularization of the services of
these employees in terms of the Hon'ble High Court order
dated 28th April 2015.

In the light of this, Vice-Chancellor has addressed a
letter on 31.12.2015 seeking specific clarification from the
State Government in this matter.

Copies of the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees
Welfare Act, 2012
and the letter of the Vice-Chancellor
addressed to the Addl. Chief Secretary to Government,
Higher Education Department, are attached this note for
perusal of the Syndicate.

The matter is placed before the Syndicate for kind
consideration.

Sd/- Sd/-
Registrar Vice-Chancellor"
This led to a communication from the Government to the

University, which reads as follows:

"EAzÀ
¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¥ÀgÀ ªÀÄÄRå PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÀÄ,
G£ÀßvÀ ²PÀët E¯ÁSÉ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ - 560 001.

EªÀjUÉ
PÀÄ®¥ÀwUÀ¼ÀÄ
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄ
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.

ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ,
«µÀAiÀÄ: ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° / ªÀiÁ¹PÀ ªÉÃvÀ£À
¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛgÀÄªÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀ §UÉÎ.

G¯ÉèÃR: 1) ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄ ¸ÀASÉåAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ¢: 25.11.2015.

2) vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå: PÀÄ¥ÁPÁ:¢£Ë¸À/2015, ¢: 31.12.2015

---

ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, G¯ÉèÃR (1) gÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ PÀqÉUÉ
vÀªÀÄä UÀªÀÄ£À ¸É¼ÉAiÀÄ®VzÉ G¯ÉèÃR (2)gÀ vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è£À ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
¥Àj²Ã°¹ F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ ¤AiÀÄªÀÄ§zÀÞªÁV PÀæªÀÄªÀ»¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ w½¸À®Ä £Á£ÀÄ
¤zÉÃð²vÀ£ÁVzÉÃ£É.

1) ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÈAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉÃªÀÄPÁw
¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀéAiÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ PÀæªÀÄªÀ»¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ.

2) ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄwUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ
PÁ®PÁ®PÉÌ ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀÄªÀ DzÉÃ±À / ¸ÀÄvÉÆÛÃ¯ÉUÀ®£ÀéAiÀÄ CAzÀgÉ
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ PÉëÃªÀiÁ©üªÀÈ¢Þ C¢ü¤AiÀÄªÀÄ 2012,
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ PÉëÃªÀiÁ©üªÀÈ¢Þ C¢ü¤AiÀÄªÀÄ 2013
ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå:¹D¸ÀÄE 24 ¸ÉÃ¸ÀÜ2014,
¢:19.09.2014gÀ°è ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀ ªÀiÁUÀð¸ÀÆaUÀ¼À£ÀéAiÀÄ
¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ vÀªÀÄä ºÀAvÀzÀ°èAiÉÄÃ
PÀæªÀÄªÀ»¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ.

3) ¥ÀÆªÀð ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¦vÀ ¹D¸ÀÄE/DyðPÀ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ DzÉÃ±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ
ªÀiÁUÀð¸ÀÆaUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀjUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄUÀ¼À wÃ¥ÀÄðUÀ¼ÀrAiÀÄ°è ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ vÀªÀÄä
ºÀAvÀzÀ°èAiÉÄÃ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ PÀæªÀÄªÀ»¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ."

Finally, the Government by its order dated 01-02-2016 rejected

the claim of the petitioners in the following order:

"¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå:Er 207 AiÀÄÄ©« 2015, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ,
¢£ÁAPÀ 1£ÉÃ ¥sÉ§æªÀj 2016

ªÉÄÃ°£À ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è «±ÀzÀ¥Àr¸À¯ÁVgÀÄªÀ ¸À¤ßªÉÃ±ÀUÀ¼À »£Éß¯ÉAiÀÄ°è
ªÀiÁ£Àå PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀÄªÀÅ jmï Cfð ¸ÀASÉå: 35145-
35210/2013UÀ¼À°è ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀ wÃ¦ð£À£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ°è
PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ MlÄÖ 66 ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉÆ½¸ÀÄªÀ
¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ¸ÀA«zsÁ£À ¦ÃoÀªÀÅ
¢:10.04.2006gÀAzÀÄ ¹«¯ï C¦Ã¯ï ¸ÀASÉå:3595-3612/1999 - PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÀgÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÞ GªÀiÁzÉÃ« ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÀgÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¤ÃrzÀ wÃ¦ð£À°è
¥Àæw¥Á¢¸À¯ÁVgÀÄªÀ vÀvÁéA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀæZÀÄgÀ ¥Àr¸À¯ÁVgÀÄªÀ PÁ£ÀÆ¤£ÀéAiÀÄ
µÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀÆgÉÊ¸À¢gÀÄªÀ »£Éß¯ÉAiÀÄ°è ºÁUÀÆ EAvÀºÀÄzÉÃ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À°è ªÀiÁ£Àå
¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄªÀÅ ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀ wÃ¥ÀÄðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¹, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ
«±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ°è PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ MlÄÖ 66 ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉÆ½¸ÀÄªÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ wgÀ¸ÀÌj¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå¥Á®gÀ DzÉÃ±À£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è

¸À»/-

(PÉ.J¯ï.¸ÀÄ§æªÀÄtå)
¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢üÃ£À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð
G£ÀßvÀ ²PÀët E¯ÁSÉ («±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ-2)"

It is this order that drives the petitioners in all these cases to

this Court. The University after the aforesaid communications

also noticing the need and entitlement of the petitioners for
regularization has communicated to the Government by its

communication dated 12-09-2019, which reads as follows:

"ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ,

«µÀAiÀÄ: ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ°è ««zsÀ PÀbÉÃj / «¨sÁUÀUÀ¼À°è
PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° / ªÀiÁ¹PÀ ªÉÃvÀ£ÀzÀ vÁvÁÌ°PÀ
£ËPÀgÀgÀÄ ºÀvÀÄÛ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À ¤gÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀªÀgÀ
¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉÆ½¸ÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ.

G¯ÉèÃR: 1. ¹ArPÉÃmï C£ÀÄªÉÆÃzÀ£É ¢£ÁAPÀ: 29.05.2019.

2. PÀÄ®¥ÀwAiÀÄªÀgÀ C£ÀÄªÉÆÃzÀ£É ¢£ÁAPÀ: 09.08.2019.

***
ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖAvÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ ««zsÀ
PÀbÉÃj / «¨sÁUÀUÀ¼À°è ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 10 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ CzÀPÀÆÌ ºÉZÁÑV ¢£ÀUÀÆ°
/ ªÀiÁ¹PÀ ªÉÃvÀ£ÀzÀ DzsÁjvÀ vÁvÁÌ°PÀ £ËPÀgÀgÁV ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸À°è¹gÀÄwÛgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ 2000 E¸À«AiÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄªÀÅ
£ÉÃgÀ£ÉÃªÀÄPÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. 2000 E¸À«¬ÄAzÀ E°èAiÀÄªÀgÉUÉ
¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ ¸ÀASÉåAiÀÄ°è £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ ¤ªÀÈwÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄgÀt ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
«zÁåyðUÀ¼À ¥ÀæªÉÃ±À C£ÀÄªÉÆÃzÀ£É, ¥ÀjÃPÉë, CAPÀ¥ÀnÖ vÀAiÀiÁjPÉ, ¹§âªÀÄ¢UÉ
¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ E¤ßvÀgÀ zÉÊ£ÀA¢£À PÉ®¸ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß 1964gÀ°è ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ
«±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄ GzÀAiÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À¯ÉèÃ
¤ªÀð»¸À¯ÁUÀÄwÛzÉ. ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ MlÄÖ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À ¥ÉÊQ ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ 750 ¹§âA¢AiÀÄ
ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼ÀÄ SÁ° G½¢zÀÄÝ, £ËPÀgÀgÀÄUÀ¼À PÉÆgÀvÉ¬ÄAzÁV ºÁUÀÆ FV£À
¥Àj¹ÜwAiÀÄ zÉÊ£ÀA¢£À PÉ®¸À PÁAiÀÄðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀÄUÀªÀÄªÁV PÁAiÀÄð
¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÁzsÀåªÁUÀzÀ PÁgÀt, SÁ° G½¢gÀÄªÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À°è ¢£ÀUÀÆ°
£ËPÀgÀgÀ ¸ÉÃªÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ¯ÁUÀÄwÛzÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ, ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ
«±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÁV PÁAiÀÄð ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀ §UÉÎ
¢£ÁAPÀ 29.05.2019 gÀAzÀÄ dgÀÄVzÀ ¹ArPÉÃmï ¸À¨ÉsAiÀÄ°è F «µÀAiÀÄzÀ §UÉÎ
PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ ¤tð¬Ä¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

"¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÁV
PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ 83+10+06 d£À £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ
¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ°è SÁAiÀÄAUÉÆ½¸À®Ä C£ÀÄªÀÄw PÉÆÃj ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ PÀÆqÀ¯ÉÃ ¥ÀvÀæ
§gÉAiÀÄ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ¹ArPÉÃmï ¤tð¬Ä¹vÀÄ". ¸ÀzÀj ¹ArPÉÃmï ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ
¤tðAiÀÄzÀ ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CªÀUÁºÀ£ÉUÉ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹ PÉÆqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.
F »AzÉ ¸ÀºÀ WÀ£À ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ:15.03.2008gÀ°è ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ
«±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¢£ÁPÀ:10.04.2006PÉÌ 10 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À ¸ÉÃªÉ ¥ÀÆgÉÊ¹gÀÄªÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
CzÀPÀÆÌ ºÉaÑ£À CªÀ¢üUÉ PÀAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¹zÀ 85 ¢£ÀUÀÆ° / UÀÄwÛUÉ £ËPÀgÀgÀ
¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ°è SÁ°¬ÄzÀÝ UÀÆæ¥ï 'r' ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À°è
«°Ã£ÀUÉÆ½¸À®Ä MAzÀÄ ¨sÁj CªÀPÁ±ÀªÉA§AvÉ ºÁUÀÆ EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À £ÉÃªÀÄPÁwAiÀÄ
ªÉZÀÑªÀ£ÀÄß «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ DAvÀjPÀ ¸ÀA¥À£ÀÆä®¢AzÀ ¨sÀj¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ F §UÉÎ
¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ºÉZÀÄÑªÀj ªÉÆvÀÛzÀ ¨ÉÃrPÉ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸ÀPÀÆqÀzÉAzÀÄ ¤zÉÃ²vÀÄ.
CzÀgÀAvÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:10.04.2006PÉÌ 10 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À ¸ÉÃªÉ ¥ÀÆtðUÉÆAqÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß
2008 gÀ°è UÀÆæ¥ï r ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉÆ½¸À¯ÁVgÀÄªÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä CªÀUÁºÀ£ÉUÉ
vÀgÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

CzÀgÀAvÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ ««zsÀ PÀbÉÃj / «¨sÁUÀUÀ¼À°è
¢£ÀUÀÆ° / ªÀiÁ¹PÀ PÀÆærPÀÈvÀ ªÉÃvÀ£ÀzÀrAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 15jAzÀ 20
ªÀgÀÄµÀUÀ½AzÀ PÁAiÀÄð ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ 83 £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ FUÁUÀ¯ÉÃ F »AzÉ
SÁAiÀÄAUÉÆ½¹gÀÄªÀ 85 £ËPÀgÀgÀ ¸ÉÃªÁªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. F 83
d£À ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀjUÉ ªÀiÁ¹PÀ ªÉÃvÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß UÀÆæ¥ï - r ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ PÁ°PÀ ªÉÃvÀ£À
²æÃtÂAiÀÄ PÀ¤µÀÖ ªÀiÁ¹PÀ ªÉÃvÀ£À gÀÆ.17,000/- ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁUÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ. F 83 d£À
¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

ªÀiÁ¹PÀ PÀÆærPÀÈvÀ ªÉÃvÀ£ÀzÀrAiÀÄ°è PÁAiÀÄð ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ 10 d£À
PÀA¥ÀÆålgï ¯Áå¨ï E£ï¸ÀÖPÀÖgï £ËPÀgÀjUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 01.06.2019 jAzÀ
C£ÀéAiÀÄªÁUÀÄªÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ¹PÀ ªÉÃvÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¯Áå¨ï E£ï¸ÀÖPÀÖgï ºÀÄzÉAiÀÄ PÁ°PÀ
ªÉÃvÀ£À ±ÉæÃtÂAiÀÄ PÀ¤µÀÖ ªÀiÁ¹PÀ ªÉÃvÀ£À gÀÆ.33,450/- ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁUÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, F 10
d£À PÀA¥ÀÆålgï ¯Áå¨ï E£ï¸ÀÖçPÀÖgïgÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ AiÀÄÄ.«.¹E.AiÀÄ PÀA¥ÀÆålgï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
ªÀiÁ»w «eÁÐ£À EAf¤AiÀÄjAUï «¨sÁUÀzÀ°è ªÀiÁ¹PÀ PÀÆærPÀÈvÀ
ªÉÃvÀ£ÀzÀrAiÀÄ°è PÁAiÀÄð ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ DgÀÄ d£À £ËPÀgÀjUÉ
¢£ÁAPÀ:01.06.2019 jAzÀ eÁjUÉ §gÀÄªÀAvÉ ªÀÄ¹PÀ ªÉÃvÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¹gÀÄªÀ
¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°è CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ºÉ¸Àj£À ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¸ÀÆa¹gÀÄªÀ ªÉÃvÀ£À ±ÉæÃtÂAiÀÄ PÀ¤µÀÖ
ªÉÃvÀ£À ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁUÀÄwÛzÉ.

ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ ¹§âA¢UÀ½UÉ, gÁdå ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀjUÉ PÁ®PÁ®PÉÌ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁUÀÄªÀ
vÀÄnÖ ¨sÀvÉåAiÀÄ ±ÉÃ.75% gÀµÀÄÖ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DAiÀiÁ ¥ÀæzÉÃ±ÀPÉÌ C£Àé¬Ä¸ÀÄªÀ ªÀÄ£É ¨ÁrUÉ
¨sÀvÉåAiÀÄ ±ÉÃ.75% gÀµÀÄÖ ¤ÃqÀÄvÁÛ EzÀÄÝ, EªÀgÀ ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉ¸ÀÄvÁÛ
§gÀ¯ÁVzÉ. FUÁUÀ¯ÉÃ J¯Áè ¸Ë®¨sÀåUÀ¼À£ÀÄß EªÀgÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁUÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ
EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ DAvÀjPÀ ¸ÀA¥À£ÀÆä®zÀ°è ¨ÁQ
ªÉÃvÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¨sÀj¹ SÁAiÀÄAUÉÆ½¸À®Ä «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ C¨sÀåAvÀgÀ«gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è.
DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ, ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «ªÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä CªÀUÁºÀ£ÉUÉ ¸À°è¸ÀÄvÁÛ,
¢£ÁAPÀ: 15.03.2008gÀ ¸ÀPÁðj ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è 85 ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ ¸ÉÃªÁ
¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉÆ½¸À®Ä C£ÀÄªÉÆÃ¢¹gÀÄªÀAvÉ, ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ29.05.2019gÀ CAvÀåPÉÌ 10
ªÀµÀð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÀPÀÆÌ ºÉaÑ£À ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÆgÉÊ¹zÀ 83 d£À ¢£ÀUÀÆ° /
ªÀiÁ¹PÀ ªÉÃvÀ£ÀzÀ vÁvÁÌ°PÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀ ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ°è SÁ°¬ÄgÀÄªÀ
UÀÆæ¥ï 'r' ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉÆ½¸À®Ä, 10 d£À PÀA¥ÀÆålgï ¯Áå¨ï E£ïìlæPÀÖgÀÎ¼ÀÄ
ºÀUÀÆ AiÀÄÄ.«.¹.E.AiÀÄ PÀA¥ÀÆålgï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ»w «eÁÐ£À EAf¤AiÀÄjAUï
«¨sÁUÀzÀ°è 06 £ËPÀgÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉÆ½¸À®Ä CªÀPÁ±À ¤Ãr C£ÀÄªÀÄw
¤ÃqÀ®Ä PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVzÉ."

(Emphasis added)

Therefore, what would unmistakably emerge from the afore-

quoted communications and the recommendations upto 2019

and particularly of 2019 is that the University recognizes their

services rendered for close to 2 decades on the basis of need in

the University and also acknowledges their claim for

regularization. It is the financial burden that becomes the bone

of contention with the State Government. The University who

had time and again communicated that it would bear financial

burden out of the grants given by the State Government also

does a volte-face. Therefore, the entitlement of the petitioners in

the teeth of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court is

required to be considered. The afore-narrated communications

being facts, and the facts being stubborn, only the law is

required to be noticed.
UMADEVI and its aftermath:

17. As observed hereinabove, the Apex Court rendered its

judgment in the case of UMADEVI on 10-04-2006. Relevant

paragraphs are already quoted hereinabove. Subsequent to the

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of UMADEVI, considering

the case of UMADEVI the Apex Court in several judgments held

and affirmed the right of several employees for regularization

under several circumstances. The Apex Court in the case of

NARENDRA KUMAR TIWARI v. STATE OF JHARKHAND2
,

holds as follows:

"7. The purpose and intent of the decision
in
Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4
SCC 1: 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] was therefore twofold,
namely, to prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the
future and secondly, to confer a benefit on those who had
been irregularly appointed in the past.

The fact that the
State of Jharkhand continued with the irregular
appointments for almost a decade after the decision
in
Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4
SCC 1: 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] is a clear indication that it
believes that it was all right to continue with irregular
appointments, and whenever required, terminate the
services of the irregularly appointed employees on the
ground that they were irregularly appointed. This is
nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not
giving them the benefits of regularisation and by placing
(2018) 8 SCC 238
the sword of Damocles over their head.

This is precisely
what
Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3),
(2006) 4 SCC 1: 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] and Kesari [State of
Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247: (2010) 2 SCC
(L&S) 826] sought to avoid.

8. If a strict and literal interpretation, forgetting the
spirit of the decision of the Constitution Bench in
Umadevi
(3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1:

2006 SCC (L&S) 753], is to be taken into consideration then
no irregularly appointed employee of the State of
Jharkhand could ever be regularised since that State came
into existence only on 15-11-2000 and the cut-off date was
fixed as 10-4-2006. In other words, in this manner the
pernicious practice of indefinitely continuing
irregularly appointed employees would be
perpetuated contrary to the intent of the
Constitution Bench.

9. The High Court as well as the State of
Jharkhand ought to have considered the entire issue
in a contextual perspective and not only from the
point of view of the interest of the State, financial or
otherwise - the interest of the employees is also
required to be kept in mind. What has eventually
been achieved by the State of Jharkhand is to short
circuit the process of regular appointments and
instead make appointments on an irregular basis.
This is hardly good governance.

10. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that
the Regularisation Rules must be given a pragmatic
interpretation and the appellants, if they have completed
10 years of service on the date of promulgation of the
Regularisation Rules, ought to be given the benefit of the
service rendered by them. If they have completed 10
years of service they should be regularised unless
there is some valid objection to their regularisation
like misconduct, etc.
11. The impugned judgment and order [
Anil Kumar
Sinha v. State of Jharkhand
, 2016 SCC OnLineJhar 2904]
passed by the High Court is set aside in view of our
conclusions. The State should take a decision within four
months from today on regularisation of the status of the
appellants. The appeals are accordingly disposed of."

(Emphasis supplied)

Later, the Apex Court in the case of
SHEO NARAIN NAGAR v.

STATE OF U.P.3
, holds as follows:

"6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent has relied upon para 44 of the decision
in
Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4
SCC 1: 2006 SCC (L&S) 753], so as to contend that it was
not the case of irregular appointment but of illegal
appointment; there was no post available on which the
services of the appellants could have been regularised and
appointment were in contravention of the reservation policy
also; thus, termination order was rightly issued and, in no
case, the appellants were entitled for regularisation of their
services.

7. When we consider the prevailing scenario, it is
painful to note that the decision in
Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1: 2006 SCC
(L&S) 753] has not been properly understood and rather
wrongly applied by various State Governments. We have
called for the data in the instant case to ensure as to how
many employees were working on contract basis or ad hoc
basis or daily-wage basis in different State departments.
We can take judicial notice that widely aforesaid practice
is being continued. Though this Court has emphasised that
incumbents should be appointed on regular basis as per
rules but new devise of making appointment on contract
basis has been adopted, employment is offered on daily-
(2018) 13 SCC 432
wage basis, etc. in exploitative forms. This situation was
not envisaged by
Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1: 2006 SCC
(L&S) 753]. The prime intendment of the decision was that
the employment process should be by fair means and not
by back door entry and in the available pay scale.

That
spirit of the
Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3),
(2006) 4 SCC 1: 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] has been ignored
and conveniently overlooked by various State
Governments/authorities.

We regretfully make the
observation that
Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1: 2006 SCC
(L&S) 753] has not been implemented in its true spirit and
has not been followed in its pith and substance. It is
being used only as a tool for not regularising the
services of incumbents.
They are being continued in
service without payment of due salary for which they
are entitled on the basis of
Articles 14
, 16
read with

Article 34(1)(d)
of the Constitution of India as if they
have no constitutional protection as envisaged
in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India [D.S.
Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983
SCC (L&S) 145 : AIR 1983 SC 130] , from cradle to
grave. In heydays of life they are serving on
exploitative terms with no guarantee of livelihood to
be continued and in old age they are going to be
destituted, there being no provision for pension,
retiral benefits, etc. There is clear contravention of
constitutional provisions and aspiration of
downtrodden class. They do have equal rights and to
make them equals they require protection and
cannot be dealt with arbitrarily. The kind of
treatment meted out is not only bad but equally
unconstitutional and is denial of rights.
We have to
strike a balance to really implement the ideology
of
Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3),
(2006) 4 SCC 1: 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] .

Thus, the time
has come to stop the situation where
Umadevi
(3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC
1: 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] can be permitted to be
flouted, whereas, this Court has interdicted such
employment way back in the year 2006.

The
employment cannot be on exploitative terms,
whereas
Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3),
(2006) 4 SCC 1: 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] laid down that there
should not be back door entry and every post should be
filled by regular employment, but a new device has been
adopted for making appointment on payment of paltry
system on contract/ad hoc basis or otherwise.

This kind of
action is not permissible when we consider the pith and
substance of true spirit in
Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1: 2006 SCC
(L&S) 753].

8. Coming to the facts of the instant case, there was
a direction issued way back in the year 1999, to consider
the regularisation of the appellants. However,
regularisation was not done. The respondents chose to give
minimum of the pay scale, which was available to the
regular employees, way back in the year 2000 and by
passing an order, the appellants were also conferred
temporary status in the year 2006, with retrospective effect
on 2-10-2002. As the respondents have themselves chosen
to confer a temporary status to the employees, as such
there was requirement at work and posts were also
available at the particular point of time when order was
passed. Thus, the submission raised by the learned
counsel for the respondent that posts were not available, is
belied by their own action. Obviously, the order was
passed considering the long period of services rendered by
the appellants, which were taken on exploitative terms.

9. The High Court dismissed the writ application
relying on the decision in
Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1: 2006 SCC
(L&S) 753]. But the appellants were employed
basically in the year 1993; they had rendered service
for three years, when they were offered the service
on contract basis; it was not the case of back door
entry; and there were no Rules in place for offering
such kind of appointment. Thus, the appointment
could not be said to be illegal and in contravention
of Rules, as there were no such Rules available at the
relevant point of time, when their temporary status
was conferred w.e.f. 2-10-2002.

The appellants were
required to be appointed on regular basis as a one-
time measure, as
laid down in
para 53 of
Umadevi
(3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC
1: 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] . Since the appellants had
completed 10 years of service and temporary status
had been given by the respondents with retrospective
effect from 2-10-2002, we direct that the services of
the appellants be regularised from the said date i.e.
2.10.2002, consequential benefits and the arrears of
pay also to be paid to the appellants within a period
of three months from today."

(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court in the case of
CHANDER MOHAN NEGI v.

STATE OF H.P.4
, holds as follows:

"11. At the outset, it is to be noted that the schemes
in question were notified in the years 2001 and 2003
under which appointments were made with regard to
Primary Assistant Teachers and Teachers in other
categories. At the relevant point of time, nobody has
questioned either the schemes or the appointments. It is
the specific case of the respondent State that such
appointments have not affected the writ petitioners and the
Department was not in a position to leave the schools,
Teachers deficient for long since it would have affected the
studies of the students very badly. Therefore, it was the
case of the State that Teachers had been appointed under
various schemes at that point of time and such
appointments have been made up to the year 2007 and
(2020)5 SCC 732
have no impact on the appellants since they have
completed their two-year JBT training in the year 2011. As
is evident from the order [
Pankaj Kumar v. State of H.P.
,
2014 SCC OnLine HP 5944] under appeal passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court, the appellant-writ
petitioners have not even chosen to file rejoinder and the
stand taken by the State thus has remained
uncontroverted. Further, it is also to be noted that when
such appointments were made during the years 2001 and
2003 the writ petitions came to be filed in the years 2012
and 2013.

As the writ petitioners have claimed interest for
their appointment, the Division Bench of the High Court has
rightly held [
Pankaj Kumar v. State of H.P.
, 2014 SCC
OnLine HP 5944] that such petitions cannot be considered
as the public interest litigation. Such a writ petition which
was filed by the petitioners who came to be qualified only
in the year 2011 are not entitled for any relief on the
ground of unexplained laches and inordinate delay of
about more than 10 years in approaching the court for
questioning the appointments. Though relief was sought
against the State to deny the benefit of regularisation to the
appointed Teachers, they were not even impleaded as
party respondents. An association was impleaded as third
respondent but without furnishing any material to show
that at least majority of appointees are members of such
association.

So far as Primary Assistant Teachers Scheme
of 2003, which was the subject-matter of letters patent
appeal arising out of CWP No. 3303 of 2012-A filed by
Chander Mohan Negi and others, is concerned, the
appellants in Civil Appeal No. 2813 of 2017 except
Appellants 1, 2 and 4 have withdrawn [
Chander Mohan
Negi v. State of H.P.
, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 459] the appeal
and Appellants 1 and 4 are already appointed as JBTs.

Insofar as the only appellant viz. Appellant 2, Rajiv
Chauhan is concerned, it is stated that he is qualified and
there are vacant posts and he can be considered if he
applies to any of the existing vacancies. So far as the
Primary Assistant Teacher Scheme is concerned, same was
notified as early as on 27-8-2003. As is evident from the
Scheme itself, the object of the Scheme appears to be to
compulsorily enrol children in schools for elementary and
primary education in the remote areas to achieve the goals
as set by the Government while enacting the Himachal
Pradesh Compulsory Primary Education Act, 1997 with a
view to achieve the target of 100% enrolment to children.
As per the Scheme, the eligibility was 10+2 from a
recognised Board/University and the candidates with
higher qualifications were also eligible and candidates
with professional qualifications were to be preferred. As
per the regular Recruitment Rules the requisite qualification
for the post of JBT Teacher during the relevant time was
10+2 with 50% marks and JBT certificate. As submitted by
the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State that
initially though 3500 odd Teachers were appointed, as of
now there are only a total of 3294 Teachers working in this
category and out of this about 1866 had the qualification of
10+2 with more than 50% marks at the relevant point of
engagement. Out of the balance, 1015 had 10+2 with less
than 50% marks, but they had higher qualification such as
BA/MA/MSc or BEd, etc. Further, it is also brought to our
notice that out of all the candidates, 3294 candidates who
are presently working have acquired the professional
qualification of diploma in elementary education or have
undergone Professional Development Programme for
Elementary Teachers. In that view of the matter, we are of
the view that when the appointees appointed under the
scheme have completed more than almost 15 years of
service now and also have acquired the professional
qualifications, they cannot be denied regularisation at this
point of time. As the appointments were made as per the
schemes notified by the Government such appointments
cannot be treated as illegal, if at all they can be considered
irregular. When it is the plea of the State that in view of the
hard topography/tribal areas in the State, large number of
vacancies were there even in single teacher schools and to
achieve the object of the Himachal Pradesh Primary
Education Act, 1997 such steps were taken, there is no
reason to disbelieve the same, more so, in absence of any
affidavit by way of rejoinder by the writ petitioners before
the High Court controverting the allegations in the reply
filed on behalf of the State.

12. Even with regard to the Para Teachers Policy
under which various category of Teachers were appointed
in the year 2003 pursuant to policy notified on 17-9-2003 it
is clear from the record placed before this Court that all the
persons who were recruited as Para Teachers were fully
qualified as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules i.e.
the Himachal Pradesh Education Department Class III
(School and Inspection Cadre) Service Rules, 1973. In view
of the stand of the State that such policy was necessitated
due to large number of vacant posts which have arisen
year after year and which could not be filled since the
State Selection Subordinate Board, Hamirpur, which was
responsible for the selection of Teachers had come under a
cloud and the selection process had come to a halt, such
appointments cannot be rendered as illegal. Such aspect is
also evident from the policy itself. Even in other category of
the Grant-in-Aid to Parent Teacher Association Rules, all
Teachers appointed under the Scheme fulfil the educational
qualifications prescribed in the Rules. For such kind of
Teachers, the Cabinet has taken decision to take over the
Teachers on contract basis after completion of eight years
of service which period was later reduced to seven years. It
is also brought to our notice during the course of arguments
that out of the total 6799 Teachers, 5017 Teachers were
already taken over on contract basis by the State
Government and only 1782 could not be taken over in view
of the interim orders passed by this Court.

13. It is true that in the initial schemes
notified by the Government, there was a condition
that such appointees should not seek
regularisation/absorption but at the same time for no
fault of them, they cannot be denied
regularisation/absorption. It is in view of the
requirement of the State, their services were
extended from time to time and now all the
appointees have completed more than 15 years of
service. For majority of the appointed Teachers
under the various schemes, benefit was already
extended and some left over candidates were denied
on account of interim orders passed by this Court.
With regard to Primary Assistant Teachers, it is
stated that all the candidates have completed
Special Teacher Training Qualifying Condensed
Course and also had obtained special JBT certificate
after 5 years' continuous service in terms of the
Himachal Pradesh Education Code, 1985. The
judgments relied on by learned counsel Shri
Prashant Bhushan also would not render any
assistance to the case of the appellants herein for
the reason that there was unexplained and
inordinate delay on the part of the appellants in
approaching the High Court and further having
regard to explanation offered by the State about the
need of framing such policies to meet the immediate
requirement to fill up single teacher schools which
were vacant for a very long time, having regard to
topographical conditions, which is not even
controverted by way of any rejoinder before the High
Court. In such view of the matter, taking the totality
of peculiar circumstances of these cases, we are of
the view that the view expressed by this Court in the
judgments relied on cannot be applied to the facts of
the case on hand. All the appointed candidates are
working for the meagre salaries pursuant to schemes
notified by the Government. Except the vague
submission that such schemes were framed only to
make backdoor entries, there is no material placed
on record to buttress such submission. Further it is
also to be noted that though such schemes were
notified as early as in 2003, nobody has questioned
such policies and appointments up to 2012 and
2013.
The writ petition i.e. CWP No. 3303 of 2012-A
was filed in the year 2012 without even impleading
the appointees as party respondents. In the writ
petition, there was no rejoinder filed by the writ
petitioners disputing the averments of the State as
stated in the reply-affidavit. Having regard to the
nature of such appointments, appointments made as
per policies cannot be termed as illegal. Having
regard to material placed before this Court and
having regard to reasons recorded in the impugned
order [
Pankaj Kumar v. State of H.P.
, 2014 SCC
OnLine HP 5944] by the High Court, we are of the
view that no case is made out to interfere with the
impugned judgment [
Pankaj Kumar v. State of H.P.
,
2014 SCC OnLine HP 5944] of the High Court."

(Emphasis supplied)

Earlier to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the afore-

quoted judgment, the Apex Court in the case of
AMARENDRA

KUMAR MOHAPATRA v. STATE OF ORISSA5
, had held as

follows:

"42. The decision in Umadevi (3) case [
State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1: 2006 SCC (L&S)
753] , as noticed earlier, permitted regularisation of regular
appointments and not illegal appointments.

Question,
however, is whether the appointments in the instant case
could be described as illegal and if they were not, whether
the State could be directed to regularise the services of the
degree-holder Junior Engineers who have worked as ad hoc
Assistant Engineers for such a long period, not only on the
analogy of the legislative enactment for regularisation but
also on the principle underlying para 53 of the decision
in Umadevi (3) case [
State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3),
(2006) 4 SCC 1: 2006 SCC (L&S) 753].
(2014) 4 SCC 583
43. As to what would constitute an irregular
appointment is no longer res integra. The decision of
this Court in
State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari
[(2010)
9 SCC 247: (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826], has examined
that question and explained the principle regarding
regularisation as enunciated in Umadevi (3)
case [
State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC
1: 2006 SCC (L&S) 753]. The decision
in that case

summed up the following three essentials for
regularisation: (1) the employees have worked for ten
years or more, (2) that they have so worked in a duly
sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of
the interim order of any court or tribunal, and (3) they
should have possessed the minimum qualification
stipulated for the appointment. Subject to these three
requirements being satisfied, even if the appointment
process did not involve open competitive selection, the
appointment would be treated irregular and not
illegal and thereby qualify for regularisation.
Para 7
in this regard is apposite and may be extracted at this
stage: (M.L. Kesari case [(2010) 9 SCC 247: (2010) 2
SCC (L&S) 826], SCC p. 250)

"7.
It is evident from the above that there is
an exception to the general principles against
'regularisation' enunciated in
Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1: 2006
SCC (L&S) 753], if the following conditions are
fulfilled:

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

44. It is nobody's case that the degree-holder
Junior Engineers were not qualified for appointment
as Assistant Engineers as even they possess degrees
from recognised institutions. It is also nobody's case
that they were not appointed against the sanctioned
post. There was some debate as to the actual number
of vacancies available from time to time but we have
no hesitation in holding that the appointments made
were at all relevant points of time against sanctioned
posts. The information provided by Mr Nageswara Rao,
learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for
the State of Orissa, in fact, suggests that the number
of vacancies was at all points of time more than the
number of appointments made on ad hoc basis. It is
also clear that each one of the degree-holders has
worked for more than 10 years ever since his
appointment as ad hoc Assistant Engineer. It is in
that view difficult to describe these appointments of
the Stipendiary Engineers on ad hoc basis to be illegal
so as to fall beyond the purview of the scheme
envisaged in Umadevi (3) case [
State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1: 2006 SCC
(L&S) 753].

45. The upshot of the above discussion is that not only
because in Umadevi (3) case [
State of Karnataka v. Umadevi

(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1: 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] this Court did not
disturb the appointments already made or regularisation
granted, but also because the decision itself permitted
regularisation in case of irregular appointments, the
legislative enactment granting such regularisation does not
call for interference at this late stage when those appointed
or regularised have already started retiring having served
their respective departments, in some cases for as long as
22 years."

(Emphasis supplied)

A three Judge Bench of the Apex Court considering the case of

UMADEVI and subsequent judgments in the case of
PREM

SINGH v. STATE OF U.P.6
, holds as follows:

"36. There are some of the employees who have not
been regularised in spite of having rendered the services for
30-40 or more years whereas they have been
superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged
establishment, not against any particular project, their
services ought to have been regularised under the
Government instructions and even as per the decision of this
Court in
State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(
3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1: 2006 SCC (L&S)
753]. This Court in
the said decision
has laid down
that in case services have been rendered for more than
ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as
one-time measure, the services be regularised of such
employees. In the facts of the case, those employees
who have worked for ten years or more should have
been regularised. It would not be proper to regulate
them for consideration of regularisation as others
have been regularised, we direct that their services be
treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear
that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of
(2019) 10 SCC 516
difference in wages had they been continued in service
regularly before attaining the age of superannuation.

They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they
have retired from the regular establishment and the
services rendered by them right from the day they
entered the work-charged establishment shall be
counted as qualifying service for purpose of pension.

37. In view of reading down Rule 3(8) of the U.P.
Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961, we hold that services
rendered in the work-charged establishment shall be treated
as qualifying service under the aforesaid rule for grant of
pension. The arrears of pension shall be confined to three
years only before the date of the order. Let the admissible
benefits be paid accordingly within three months.
Resultantly, the appeals filed by the employees are allowed
and filed by the State are dismissed."

(Emphasis supplied)

On a coalesce of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in

the afore-extracted cases which were in the aftermath of the

judgment in the case of UMADEVI would in unmistakable terms

indicate that regularization of employees is not a concept that is

obliterated, but could be considered on several parameters
laid

down in
the said judgments. One unmistakable stream that

runs through judicial thinking of judgments of the Apex Court is

that regularization of employees engaged to work for the State

for long years should be considered, failing which it would

amount to violation of
Article 14
of the Constitution of India.
18. In my considered view, if the claim of the petitioners for

regularization is not considered, it would be leaving such

employees in the lurch after having extracted work from them

for close to 24 years. The services of these petitioners have been

utilized in their energetic youth, have travelled this far and are

at this age, if they are not now considered for regularization, it

would amount to exploitation of such labour from the hands of

the University, a State under
Article 12
of the Constitution of

India. Such action would not behove the status of a State under

the Constitution of India. It is not the University that is now

wanting to deny the benefit of regularization, but it is the State

Government which is declining to accept their claim on an

irrelevant plea of financial burden of rupees one crore thirty six

lakhs.

Parity:

19. It is trite law that there is no concept of negative

equality, so to say, that if a mistake is committed by regularizing

illegal appointments, the same cannot be directed to be done at
the hands of this Court. It is the case of neither that it is a

mistake, several employees of the very University have been

correctly regularised. They were all appointees like that of the

petitioners. They were all regularised following the judgment of

the Apex Court in the case of UMADEVI. The same treatment is

not meted to the petitioners. Parity in such regularization is also

a concept that is considered by the Apex Court in several cases.

To quote a few, are in the cases of
DHANANJOY KARMAKAR v.

STATE OF W.B.7
, wherein the Apex Court holds as follows:

"7. We are told by the learned counsel appearing for
the State of West Bengal that in terms of the order dated
12-3-2002 what is important is that the name of the
appellant did not appear in the report of DLIT, therefore,
his services could not be regularised. As noted by the
learned Single Judge and we have also been shown a
photocopy of the report of DLIT, the name of the appellant
does appear in the report of DLIT. As far as the appellant
not being an organising teacher is concerned, it is
explained by the learned counsel for the State that an
organising teacher ought to have been a teacher when the
School was established. The report of DLIT indicates
that all the persons whose services have been
regularised, as mentioned above, were appointed
after the School was established. Therefore, there is
no reason for keeping the appellant out of the scope
of regularisation when similarly placed teachers
were regularised by the State.
(2015) 17 SCC 504
8. We find no substance in any of the reasons
brought out for denying regularisation to the
appellant. Under the circumstances, we set aside the
impugned judgment [State of W.B. v. DhananjoyKarmakar,
FMA No. 276 of 2008, order dated 4-3-2008 (Cal)] passed
by the High Court and uphold the order of the learned
Single Judge. The civil appeal is accordingly allowed with
no order as to costs."

(Emphasis supplied)

Later, the Apex Court in the case of
JIVANLAL v. PRAVIN

KRISHNA8
, has held as follows:

"2. The learned counsel for the respondents has
vehemently contended that all the regularisation orders
passed in the case of those pointed out by the appellants
are illegal since the State, in principle, had decided to
discontinue the appointment to the post of Sweepers by
order dated 10-12-1997. However, the fact remains
that after the said order also, many similarly
situated persons have been granted regularisation
with effect from the date of completion of 10 years of
service.

3. In that view of the matter, we do not find
any justification in discriminating against the
appellants herein. The policy had been violated in
many cases. There cannot be any pick and choose
policy; it would certainly lead to corruption. Hence, the
appeals are allowed with a direction to the respondents to
grant similar treatment to the appellants herein as well
and grant regularisation to them with effect from the date
of completion of 10 years of service."

(Emphasis supplied)
(2016) 15 SCC 747
Declining to accept the plea of the State that it can choose its

employees for regularization, the Apex Court in the case of

UNION OF INDIA v. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL9
,

has held as follows:

"20. The judgment of this Court in
Umadevi (3) [State
of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC
(L&S) 753] does not preclude the claims of employees who
seek regularisation after the exercise has been undertaken
with respect to some employees, provided that the said
employees have completed the years of service as
mandated by
Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi

(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] .

The ruling
casts an obligation on the State and its
instrumentalities to grant a fair opportunity of
regularisation to all such employees which are
entitled according to the mandate under
Umadevi
(3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 :

2006 SCC (L&S) 753] and ensure that the benefit is not
conferred on a limited few. The subsequent regularisation
of employees who have completed the requisite period of
service is to be considered as a continuation of the one-time
exercise.

21. The decisions of this Court in
Umadevi (3) [State
of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC
(L&S) 753] and M.L. Kesari [State of Karnataka v. M.L.
Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826] were
considered by a two-Judge Bench of this Court in
Narendra
Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand [Narendra Kumar
Tiwari
v. State of Jharkhand, (2018) 8 SCC 238 : (2018) 2
SCC (L&S) 472] .

Madan Lokur, J., construed the decision
in
Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4
SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] in the following terms:

[Umadevi (3) case [
State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3),
(2019) 4 SCC 290
(2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , SCC p. 241, para
7]
"7.

The purpose and intent of the decision
in
Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi

(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] was
therefore twofold, namely, to prevent irregular
or illegal appointments in the future and
secondly, to confer a benefit on those
irregularly appointed in the past."

22. The Court noted in the above judgment that if a
strict and literal interpretation was given to the decision
in
Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4
SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , no employee from the State
of Jharkhand appointed on an irregular basis could ever be
regularised as the State was formed on 15-11-2000 and
the cut-off date had been fixed as 10-4-2006.

The intent of
the Court was to grant similarly-placed employees who
had put the requisite years of service as mandated
by
Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006)
4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 753] , the benefit of
regularisation. The Court thus held that the Jharkhand
Sarkar ke Adhinasth Aniyamit Rup se Niyukt Ewam
Karyarat Karmiko ki Sewa Niyamitikaran Niyamawali,
2015 ("the Regularsation Rules") must be interpreted in a
pragmatic manner and employees of the State who had
completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation
of the rules, ought to be regularised. In doing so, the Court
ensured that employees in the State of Jharkhand who
had completed the same years of service as employees
from other States, are granted parity in terms of
regularisation.

The spirit of non-discrimination and equity
runs through the decisions in
Umadevi (3) [State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 : 2006 SCC
(L&S) 753] , M.L. Kesari [State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari,
(2010) 9 SCC 247 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826] and Narendra
Kumar Tiwari [Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of
Jharkhand, (2018) 8 SCC 238 : (2018) 2 SCC (L&S) 472] .
23. In this background, the issue which now arises
before this Court is in regard to the effective direction
which would govern the present case. The High Court has
directed the Union of India to absorb the casual workmen,
if it is not possible at the Institute in question, then in any
other establishment. The latter part of the direction, as we
have already noted, cannot be sustained. Equally, in our
opinion, the authorities cannot be heard to throw
their hands in despair by submitting that there are
no vacancies and that it had already regularised
such of the persons in the seniority list, who
reported for work. The Tribunal has entered a finding of
fact that this defence is clearly not borne out of the record.
Accordingly, we are of the view that having decided to
implement the decision of the Tribunal, which was affirmed
by the High Court, the Union of India must follow a rational
principle and abide strictly by the seniority list in
proceeding to regularise the workmen concerned.

24. Accordingly, we direct that the case for
regularisation shall be considered strictly in accordance
with the seniority list in pursuance of the directions which
were issued by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High
Court and such of the persons, who are available for
regularisation on the basis of vacancies existing at present,
shall be considered in accordance with law. The Tribunal
has denied back wages but has ordered a notional fixation
of pay and allowances. While affirming that direction,
we also direct that persons who have crossed the age
of superannuation will be entitled to the
computation and payment of their retiral dues on
that basis. This exercise shall be carried out within
a period of three months from the receipt of a copy of
the judgment. If it becomes necessary to grant age
relaxation to the workmen concerned, the appellants
shall do so."

(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court in the afore-extracted judgments has deprecated

the action of the State adopting such policy that denies

regularization. The Apex Court in the case of CENTRAL

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL holds that employees who had

completed 10 years of service on the date of promulgation of

such Rules had to be regularised on the ground of parity.

Therefore, the concept of parity is also recognized by the Apex

Court in the cases of regularization of employees as quoted

hereinabove. In the facts of the cases as narrated hereinabove

and the judgments referred to (supra), the petitioners are

entitled to claim the benefit of regularization and the University

is obliged to consider the same in accordance with law.

20. The learned counsel representing the University has

referred to certain judgments of the Apex Court which have

denied the benefit of regularization in the cases of
STATE OF

RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS v. DAYA LAL & OTHERS
- (
2011)

2 SCC 429, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPTT., CHENNAI v. R.

GOVINDASWAMY
- (
2014) 4 SCC 769, UNION OF INDIA v. ALL
INDIA TRADE UNION CONGRESS
- (2019) 5 SCC 773, SATYA

PRAKASH V. STATE OF BIHAR - (2010) 4 SCC 179 and above

all, to the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS v. ILMODEVI AND ANOTHER10
.

The judgment in the case of ILMODEVI considers all the other

judgments that the learned counsel for the University has placed

reliance on. The judgment in the case of ILMODEVI is

distinguishable on the facts obtaining in the case at hand

without much ado. The employees in the said case were working

as part-time sweepers having been appointed on such

contingencies and had completed 20 years of contractual

service, as part-time daily wagers. The Central Administrative

Tribunal had allowed the applications of those Safaiwalas who

were working for less than 5 hours in a day and directed

consideration of their cases for regularization which was

affirmed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which led the

Union of India to knock the doors of the Apex Court. It is on

those facts the Apex Court holds as follows:
Civil Appeal Nos.5689-5690/2021 disposed on 07.10.2021
"8. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the
respondents-original applicants were working as
contingent paid part-time sweepers (Safai Karamcharies
working for less than five hours a day) in a Post Office at
Chandigarh. It is not in dispute and cannot be disputed
that there are no sanctioned posts of Safaiwalas in the
Post Office in which the respondents were working. There
is no documentary evidence on record to establish and
prove that the respondents were working
continuously. Even otherwise as observed
hereinabove, they were working as contingent paid part-

time sweepers. Even it is not the case on behalf of the
respondents that their appointment was done after
following due procedure of selection and to that extent, it
cannot be said that their appointments were irregular. As
such in the absence of any sanctioned posts in the Post
Office in which the respondents were working, there was
no question of appointing the respondents after following
due procedure. In light of the above, the directions issued
by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order are
required to be considered.

8.1. In the present case, pursuant to the order
passed by the learned Tribunal and the order passed
in the contempt proceedings, the appellants came out
with a regularization policy dated 30.06.2014. In the said
regularization policy, it has been provided as under: -

"(i) Regularization of all the Casual
Labourers, who have been irregularly

appointed, but are duly qualified persons in
terms of statutory requirement rules for the post
and was engaged against a sanctioned post,
shall be done if they have worked for 10 years or
more but not under the covers of orders of courts
or tribunals as on the date of Hon'ble Apex
Court's ibid judgment, i.e.,10.04.2006.
(ii) A temporary contractual, casual or
daily wageworker shall not have a legal right to
be made permanent unless he/she fulfills the
above criteria.

(iii) A Casual Labourer engaged without
following the due process or the rules relating to
appointment and does not meet the above
criteria shall not be considered for their
absorption, regularization, permanency in the
Department.

(iv) If a Casual Labourer was engaged in
infraction of the rules or if his engagement is in
violation of the provisions of the Constitution,
the said illegal engagement shall not be
regularized."

The afore-quoted paragraphs are the facts and at paragraphs

8.7, 8.8 and 8.9 the Apex Court accepts the claim of Union of

India and sets aside orders rendered by the Tribunal and the

High Court. The said paragraphs read as follows:

"8.7 Thus, as per the law
laid down by
this
Court in the aforesaid decisions part-time employees
are not entitled to seek regularization as they are
not working against any sanctioned post and there
cannot be any permanent continuance of part-time
temporary employees as held. Part-time temporary
employees in a Government run institution cannot
claim parity in salary with regular employees of the
Government on the principle of equal pay for equal
work.

8.8 Applying the law
laid down by
this court in the
aforesaid decisions, the directions issued by the High
Court in the impugned judgment and order, more
particularly, directions in paragraphs 22 and 23 are
unsustainable and beyond the power of the judicial review
of the High Court in exercise of the power under
Article 226

of the Constitution.

Even otherwise, it is required to be
noted that in the present case, the Union of
India/Department subsequently came out with a
regularization policy dated 30.06.2014, which is absolutely
in consonance with the law
laid down by
this Court in the
case of
Umadevi
(supra), which does not apply to the part-
time workers who do not work on the sanctioned post. As
per the settled preposition of law, the regularization can be
only as per the regularization policy declared by the
State/Government and nobody can claim the regularization
as a matter of right dehors the regularization policy.
Therefore, in absence of any sanctioned post and
considering the fact that the respondents were serving as a
contingent paid part-time Safai Karamcharies, even
otherwise, they were not entitled for the benefit of
regularization under the regularization policy dated
30.06.2014.

8.9 Though, we are of the opinion that even the
direction contained in paragraph 23 for granting minimum
basic pay of Group 'D' posts from a particular date to
those, who have completed 20 years of part-time daily
wage service also is unsustainable as the part-time
wagers, who are working for four to five hours a day
and cannot claim the parity with other Group 'D'
posts. However, in view of the order passed by this Court
dated 22.07.2016 while issuing notice in the present
appeals, we are not quashing and setting aside the
directions contained in paragraph 23 in the impugned
judgment and order so far as the respondents' employees
are concerned."

(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court holds that regularization can only be as per the

regularization policy declared by the State/Government and
nobody can claim regularization dehors the regularization policy.

The Apex Court also holds that the employees were not entitled

to minimum basic pay even from a particular date. These are

not the facts in the case at hand.

21. It is not in dispute that the University right from 2008

upto 2019, has been communicating to the State Government

seeking approval for regularization of services of the employees

as one time measure, which is akin to a policy as is observed by

the Apex Court in the afore-quoted paragraphs of ILMODEVI.

Therefore, it is not a case where the Apex Court denies

regularization of the employees of the State but leaves it to the

entities to formulate a policy in the event they want to regularise

any of the services of its respective employees.

22. Scores and scores of employees who were appointed on

daily wage basis have been regularised by the State even in the

post UMADEVI era. Merely because the State Government has

notified the
Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012
,

the claim of the petitioners in these cases, for regularization,
cannot vanish into thin air, as by the time the Act was

promulgated all the petitioners herein had completed 14 to 16

years of service. The contention of the State Government or the

University that with the
Karnataka Daily Wage Employees

Welfare Act, 2012
coming into force, no employee can claim

regularization falls foul of the interpretation of the Apex Court in

the case of
STATE OF KARNATAKA v. REVANNA.S11
wherein

the Apex Court holds as follows:

"The Appellants rejected the request of the
Respondent for regularization on the ground that he did not
complete 10 years of continued service without the aid of
the interim order passed by the High Court.

The Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act,
(Act of 2012) was notified on 15.02.2013. Certain
benefits pertaining to the continuance of daily wage
employees on completion of 10 years and the payment of
minimum time scale along with other benefits were
provided in the said Act. The above Act does not
contemplate regularization of daily wagers.

Aggrieved by the rejection of his request for
regularization, the Respondent filed application Nos.5168-
5169 of 2013 which was allowed by the Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal. A direction was issued to the
Appellants to consider the regularization of the service of
the Respondent. Dissatisfied with the direction to consider
his case for regularization, the Respondent filed a Writ
Petition in the High Court of Karnataka. On a consideration
Civil Appeal No.5292 of 2019 disposed of on 09-07-2019
of the history of the case, the High Court issued a positive
mandamus to the Appellants to regularize the service of the
Respondent.

Mr. Basava Prabhu Patil, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Appellants submitted that the
Respondent does not have a right for regularization,
especially after the Act of 2012 was brought into existence.
According to him, the Respondent is entitled to be
considered only for the benefits flowing from the Act.

In its judgment dated 09.03.2012, the Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal held that the Respondent worked
for more than 10 years in a duly sanctioned post without
the benefit or protection of an interim order passed by any
Court or Tribunal. While holding so, the Tribunal observed
that the rejection of Respondent's request for regularization
on the ground that he does not comply with the
requirements of paragraph 53 of the judgment in the case
of
Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi
and Others1
was erroneous. The said judgment of the
Tribunal has become final as it was not challenged by the
Appellants.

In view thereof, the Respondent had a right to
be considered for regularization of his service in
accordance with the judgment in
Umadevi
's case on the
basis of the findings recorded by the Tribunal in its
judgment dated 09.03.2012.

The rejection of the request of the Respondent
for regularization of his service in the light of the
Act of 2012 is not correct. It is relevant to note that
the Act of 2012 does not deal with the judgments
which were passed earlier granting the benefit of
regularization to daily wage employees. Therefore,
the judgments of the Tribunal 1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 and
the High Court on regularization remain unaffected.
In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of
this case, we do not see any reason to interfere with
the direction issued by the High Court to regularize
the service of the Respondent.
Eight weeks' time is granted to comply with the
order. The Civil Appeal and pending applications stand
dispose of accordingly."

(Emphasis supplied)

Therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court (supra),

the State cannot now direct the University to consider the cases

of the petitioners under the Daily Wage Welfare Act. Therefore,

such orders communicated to the University by the State will

run counter to the judgment in the case of
REVANNA
(supra).

23. It is now germane to notice in the journey of the order

to consider the result of such regularization. Granting arrears of

wages to the petitioners in the event of their regularization will

mulct either the State or the University and then place the State

or the University under financial stress. Therefore, the

petitioners shall not be entitled to any back-wages once the

benefit of regularization is granted to the petitioners in terms of

the recommendations/proposals made by the University from

time to time, but such service rendered by each of the

petitioners after 10 years of their initial appointment shall count
for the purpose of determination of every other service condition

and all terminal benefits.

24. Ergo, on a coalesce of the afore-narrated facts; the law

laid down in
the case of UMADEVI and its aftermath; the

correspondences/recommendation/proposal of the University to

the State, would all lead to an unmistakable inference that the

petitioners who were all appointed by the University close to 20

years ago, have continued to work, in and for the University

without any break, and never on the strength of any interim

order granted by any judicial fora. In their heydays these

petitioners have toiled to serve the University on receiving even

paltry sums as salary. The need of these employees by the

University is time and again recognised in the

communications/proposals for such regularization. If their cases

are not considered at this juncture, it would be an arbitrary

action, violative of
Article 14
of the Constitution of India and

would result in leaving the employees in the lurch. The

buoyancy of hope that the petitioners have all along carried with
them should not again be turned by the respondents into a

fatigue of despair. The State and the University cannot display a

hands-off to their obligation, to consider the cases of the

petitioners.

25. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The Writ Petitions are allowed.

(ii) The orders impugned in all these writ petitions stand
quashed.

(iii) The State Government shall consider the proposal of
the University sent on 12.09.2019 or any other
proposal/recommendation sent hitherto, to
12.09.2019 and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law, bearing in mind the
observations made in the course of the order.

(iv) The University shall not shirk its responsibility of
considering the cases of the petitioners for
regularization of their services in the event the State
Government would leave it to the discretion of the
University to consider the cases of the petitioners for
regularization.

(v) In the event the orders of regularization are passed
by the University, the petitioners shall not be entitled
to any arrears of salary, but would become entitled to
count their services after completion of 10 years from
the respective dates of their initial engagement for
the purpose of determination of all other service
conditions and every terminal benefit.

(vi) The University and the State Government, in unison,
shall consider the claim of the petitioners in terms of
directions (iii) and (iv) within four months, from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Sd/-

JUDGE
bkp
CT:MJ