Smt Sunandarabai D O Ogappa Biradar Vs the State of Karnataka Represented by the Additional Chief Secretary - Citation 1232745 - Court Judgment

Judgment:

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH R DATED THIS THE11H DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.101424 OF2023(S-REG) C/W WRIT PETITION No.105056 OF2022(S-RES) WRIT PETITION No.100735 OF2023(S-REG) WRIT PETITION No.101408 OF2023(S-REG) WRIT PETITION No.101413 OF2023(S-REG) WRIT PETITION No.101429 OF2023(S-REG) WRIT PETITION No.101431 OF2023(S-REG) IN WRIT PETITION No.101424 OF2023 BETWEEN: RAGHAVENDRA S/O SRINIVAS DESHPANDE AGED ABOUT54YEARS OCC: TEACHER N.A.MUTHANNA MEMORIAL POLICE CHILDRENS RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL DHARWAD R/O PLOT No.215, GYNABA LAYOUT NEAR BANASHREE NAGAR D.N.KOPPA, DHARWAD – 580 001. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE AND SMT. SOUMYA S.GUJAMAGADI, ADVOCATE) 2 AND:

1. . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY POLICE SERVICE-1 DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CHIEF OFFICE NRUPATUNGA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001. 3 . N.A.MUTTANNA MEMORIAL POLICE CHILDREN’S RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, DHARWAD REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL POLICE, NORTHERN RANGE BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI – 590 001. 4 . THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DHARWAD DISTRICT DHARWAD – 580 007. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S.KALSURMATH, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED2009.2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 WITH RESPECT TO NO.HD47 PCA2022VIDE ANNEXURE-AQ, IN SO FOR AS PETITIONER ARE CONCERNED. 3 IN WRIT PETITION No.105056 OF2022 BETWEEN: SRI. PRAMOD KUMAR S/O DABALESHWAR RONAND AGED ABOUT52YEARS OCCUPATION: TEACHER N.A.MUTTANNA MEMORIAL POLICE CHILDREN'S RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL DHARWAD R/O H.No.80, PLOT No.70, PAVAN PARK SADHANKERI, DHARWAD DHARWAD TALUK AND DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE AND SMT. SOUMYA S.GUJAMAGADI, ADVOCATE) AND:

1. . THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY POLICE SERVICE - 1 DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CHIEF OFFICE, NRUPATUNGA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001. 3 . N.A.MUTTANNA MEMORIAL POLICE CHILDREN'S RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL POLICE, NORTHERN RANGE BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI – 590 001. 4 4 . THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DHARWAD DHARWAD DISTRICT - 580 002. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S.KALSURMATH, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED2009.2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 WITH RESPECT TO NO.HD47 PCA2022VIDE ANNEXURE-AH. IN WRIT PETITION No.100735 OF2023 BETWEEN: SRI. ADAVAYYA S/O. CHANDRASHEKARAYYA ALLAYYANAVARMATH AGED ABOUT52YEARS OCCUPATION: TEACHER N.A.MUTTANNA MEMORIAL POLICE CHILDREN’S RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL DHARWAD R/O. C/O BLOCK No.A, HOUSE No.6 RAKSHA COLONY PHO DHARWAD TALUK AND DISTRICT – 580 001. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE AND SMT. SOUMYA S.GUJAMAGADI, ADVOCATE) 5 AND:

1. . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY POLICE SERVICE - 1 DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CHIEF OFFICE, NRUPATUNGA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001. 3 . N.A.MUTTANNA MEMORIAL POLICE CHILDREN'S RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, DHARWAD REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL POLICE, NORTHERN RANGE BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI – 590 001. 4 . THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DHARWAD DISTRICT DHARWAD – 580 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S.KALSURMATH, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED2009.2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 WITH RESPECT TO NO.HD47 PO SE A2022VIDE ANNEXURE-AH, IN SO FAR PETITIONER CONCERNED. 6 IN WRIT PETITION No.101408 OF2023 BETWEEN: SRI. PRAKASH S/O PYATAPPA PAWADSHETTI AGED ABOUT47YEARS OCCUPATION: TEACHER N.A.MUTTANNA MEMORIAL POLICE CHILDREN'S RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL DHARWAD R/O C/O KERALA AYURVEDIC CENTRE SADHANKERI DHARWAD DHARWAD TALUK AND DISTRICT – 580 001. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE AND SMT. SOUMYA S.GUJAMAGADI, ADVOCATE) AND:

1. . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY POLICE SERVICE - I DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CHIEF OFFICE, NRUPATUNGA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001. 3 . N.A.MUTTANNA MEMORIAL POLICE CHILDREN’S RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL POLICE HEAD QUARTER’S, DHARWAD REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR7GENERAL POLICE, NORTHERN RANGE BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT – 590 001. 4 . THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DHARWAD DHARWAD DISTRICT – 580 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S.KALSURMATH, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED2009.2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT No.1 WITH RESPECT TO No.HD47 PCA2022VIDE ANNEXURE-AN IN SO FAR PETITIONER IS CONCERNED. IN WRIT PETITION No.101413 OF2023 BETWEEN: SMT. JAYASHRI D., D/O BHARAMAGOUDA DANNAPPANAVAR AGED ABOUT44YEARS OCCUPATION: TEACHER N.A.MUTTANNA MEMORIAL POLICE CHILDREN'S RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL DHARWAD R/O C/O RAJU KADEMANI No.186, KHB COLONY AMARGOL, HUBBALLI, DHARWAD TALUK AND DISTRICT – 580 001. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE AND SOUMYA S.GUJAMAGADI, ADVOCATE) 8 AND:

1. . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY POLICE SERVICE -1 DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CHIEF OFFICE, NRUPATUNGA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001. 3 . N.A.MUTTANNA MEMORIAL POLICE CHILDREN’S RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL POLICE HEAD QUARTER’S, DHARWAD REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL POLICE, NORTHERN RANGE BELGAVI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT – 590 001. 4 . THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DHARWAD DHARWAD DISTRICT – 580 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S.KALSURMATH, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED2009.2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT No.1 WITH RESPECT TO No.HD47 PCA2022VIDE ANNEXURE-AH IN SO FAR PETITIONER IS CONCERNED. 9 IN WRIT PETITION No.101429 OF2023 BETWEEN: SMT. SUNDARABAI D/O OGAPPA BIRADAR AGED ABOUT48YEARS OCCUPATION: TEACHER N.A.MUTTANNA MEMORIAL POLICE CHILDREN’S RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL DHARWAD R/O C/O G.M.MATTAD, SAI LAYOUT MANAGUTTI PLOT NEAR BAL VIKAS ACADEMY YALAKI SHETAR COLONY DHARWAD – 580 001. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE AND SMT. SOUMYA S.GUJAMAGADI, ADVOCATE) AND:

1. . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE UNDER SECRETARY POLICE SERVICE - 1 DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CHIEF OFFICE, NRUPATUNGA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001. 3 . N.A.MUTTANNA MEMORIAL POLICE CHILDREN’S RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL POLICE HEAD QUARTER’S, DHARWAD REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL POLICE10NORTHERN RANGE, BELGAVI BELAGAVI DISTRICT – 590 001. 4 . THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD – 580 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S.KALSURMATH, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED2009.2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 WITH RESPECT TO NO.HD47 PCA2022VIDE ANNEXURE-AH, IN SO FOR AS PETITIONER ARE CONCERNED. IN WRIT PETITION No.101431 OF2023 BETWEEN: SRI. UMAR FAROOQ S/O DAVOOD KHAN BADAMI AGED ABOUT51YEARS OCCUPATION: TEACHER N.A.MUTTHANA MEMORIAL POLICE CHILDRENS RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL DHARWAD R/O NIZAMUDHIN COLONY, 4TH CROSS NEAR VIDYARANYA, HIGH SCHOOL DHARWAD, TALUK AND DISTRICT DHARWAD – 580 001. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE AND SMT. SOUMYA S.GUJAMAGADI, ADVOCATE) 11 AND:

1. . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY POLICE SERVICE - 1 DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001. 2 . THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CHIEF POLICE, NRUPATUNGA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001. 3 . N.A.MUTTANNA MEMORIAL POLICE CHILDREN’S RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL POLICE HEAD QUARTER’S, DHARWAD REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL POLICE, NORTHERN RANGE BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT – 590 001. 4 . THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DHARWAD DHARWAD DISTRICT – 580 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S.KALSURMATH, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED2009.2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 WITH RESPECT TO NO.HD47 PCA2022VIDE ANNEXURE-AL, IN SO FOR AS PETITIONER ARE CONCERNED. 12 THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

ORDER

S ON1512.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

Conglomeration of these cases seek a common prayer though the petitioners are different. The prayer that is sought is quashment of endorsement issued declining to accede to the request of the petitioners for regularization of their services and seek a consequential direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to regularize the services of the petitioners with all benefits and in cases of those who have retired from service to extend all terminal benefits.

2. The Facts that lead the petitioners to this Court, in the subject petitions, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows: The facts narrated in all these petitions are common except the dates of entry of the petitioners into service of N.A. Muttanna Memorial Police Children’s Residential School, Police Head Quarters, Dharwad (‘the School’ for short). On 14-05-1997 a decision was 13 taken by Government to establish the School. In furtherance of the said decision on 05-06-1997 a Government order comes to be issued establishing the said School. The Government order captured the fact that Education and Finance Departments were consulted and then a decision was taken. Staffing pattern was also appended to the Government order dated 05-06-1997. The Government then issues a notification calling for applications for appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff for the children of Police at Dharwad. Accordingly, another notification dated 07-07-1997 comes about calling for applications for the sanctioned 27 posts in the School. Call letters were issued on 10-07-1997 to all the eligible persons for attending the interview on 17-07-1997. In terms of the interview so conducted, the petitioners were selected and appointed on different dates. The details of their appointments viz., dates of appointment and the cadre to which they are appointed are as shown in the following tabular statement: Sl. Writ Name of the Date of Appointed No Petition Petitioner appoint- cadre Number ment 01 101424 Raghavendra.S2907.1997 Mathematics of 2023 Deshpande Teacher 02 105056 Pramodkumar 25.10.1997 Physical of 2022 Ronad Education 14 Teacher 03 100735 Adavayya 10.02.2004 Kannada of 2023 Teacher 04 101408 Prakash 13/14-02- Yoga of 2023 2003 Teacher 05 101413 Jayashri D1211.2007 Assistant of 2023 Teacher in Science 06 101429 Sundarabai 21.12.2002 Assistant of 2023 Teacher 07 101431 Umar Farooq 29.07.1997 Hindi of 2023 Teacher It is the case of the petitioners that they have been working in the respective cadres without any break from the date of appointment. It is also their case that they have been requesting/ seeking/representing for regularization of their services on several occasions and when that claim of the petitioners was not considered, had approached this Court and this Court had directed consideration of the representation within 6 months. Claiming to be considering the representations, the impugned endorsement comes to be issued declining to accept the claim of the petitioners, which has led the petitioners to knock at the doors of this Court yet again in the subject petitions. 15

3. Heard Sri Raja Raghavendra Naik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri V.S. Kalsurmath, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all these cases would vehemently contend that most of the petitioners in these cases have put in 24 to 25 years of service. Many instances that would declare them to be regular employees of the State Government have taken place in the cases at hand. Communications have been made from the Superintendent of Police of the District to the Director General and Inspector General of Police that these petitioners should be regularized in service. The petitioners have been and are being paid Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance, City Compensatory Allowance and all other benefits as is provided to regular State Government employees. The petitioners are working against sanctioned vacant posts. They were applicants to the notification issued by the School. It is, therefore, they are entitled to be regularized even in the teeth of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA16v. UMADEVI(3)1. He would, by taking this Court through the documents appended to the petitions seek to demonstrate that the Director General and Inspector General of Police had in fact addressed a communication to the Department of Home Affairs to regularize these employees as they were working for more than 22 to 23 years. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioners had knocked at the doors of this Court seeking a direction to regularize their services and not protection of their services on the ground that they would be terminated. Therefore, they are not litigious employees.

5. The learned High Court Government Pleader, on the other hand, would vehemently refute the submissions by taking this Court through the contents of the statement of objections in defending the impugned endorsement on the score that the selection of the petitioners both teaching and non-teaching were purely on temporary basis as there were no Cadre and Recruitment Rules and temporary employees working for several years would not give them any right to seek regularization as they were appointed 1 (2006) 4 SCC117 temporarily. Merely because they have been selected pursuant to sanctioned posts by calling for interview, the appointments are not made in terms of General Recruitment Rules, roster has not been followed and therefore, they are back door entrants and as such their services cannot be regularized.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. It is necessary to narrate the story from the date on which the 3rd respondent/School comes to be established. On 14-05-1997 the then Minister for Home and Wakfs holds a meeting/proceeding in which there emerges the necessity for establishment of residential school for police children and accordingly sought the Deputy Commissioner to identify 108 acres of land for establishment of residential school at Ganjigatti Village, Kalgatagi Taluk and till then to establish residential school at Police Quarters, Dharwad. 18

8. The proceedings were taken further and the school was established on 05-06-1997. Prior to said establishment of School, correspondences were made between the Education Department and the Finance Department which accord sanction for 27 posts of teaching and non-teaching staff in the School that was said to commence. The staffing pattern and expenditure required are as follows: “ANNEXURE A. Expenditure for starting a Police Residential School SCHOOL STAFF – RECRUITMENT Sl. Designation No.of Pay DA HRA Total Amounts No.With Pay Posts for 7 Scale months 1 Principal 1 2050 2378 285 4713x7 32991.00 (2050-3950) 2 Assistant 4 1520 1763 175 3458x4x7 96824.00 teacher (1520-2900) 3 Language 2 1520 1763 175 3458x2x7 48412.00 Teacher 4 Physical 1 1520 1763 175 3458x7 24206.00 Education Teacher (1520-2900) 5 Craft 1 1130 1310 175 2615x7 18305.00 Teacher (1520-2900) 6 Yoga 1 1520 1763 175 3458x7 24206.00 Instructor (1520-2900) 7 Computer 1 1520 1763 175 3458x7 24206.00 Instructor (1520-2900) 19 8 F.D.A (1280- 1 1280 1484 175 2839x7 20573.00 2395) 9 Typist 1 1130 1310 175 1015x7 18305.00 (1130-2100) 10 Group D2840 974 120 1934x2x7 27076.00 (840-1040) Total 335104.00 Or 3.36 Lakh B. NON RECRUITING:

1. Furniture Lumpsum 3,00,000

2) Library Books Lumpsum 50,000

3) Laboratory Articles Lumpsum 1,00,000

4) Rent 1,00,000

5) Contingency Rs.2,000 24,000 Month Total A+B654,000 9,90,000” Then comes the notification in the newspaper calling for applications from eligible persons for appointment of staff to the School. As stated above, the school was named N.A. Muttanna Memorial Police Children’s Residential School. The petitioners submitted their respective applications and were all appointed as teachers on different dates in different subjects. One unmistakable fact that would emerge from what is aforesaid is that the petitioners were appointed to both teaching and non-teaching posts pursuant to identification of vacant sanctioned posts in the School. The 20 appointments preceded conduct of an interview of all the petitioners. What was paid to these petitioners from the date of their appointments was consolidated salary depicting them to be temporary appointees and continuing them from year to year. But, the fact remains that the petitioners continued to work without any break.

9. After about 7 to 8 years of service rendered by the petitioners, the Superintendent of Police, Dharwad who was ex- officio Member of the Board of the School, communicates to the Director General and Inspector General of Police that the services of the petitioners and the like should be regularized. The communication emerges on 10-02-2005 and it reads as follows: “F ªÉÄÃ°£À «µÀAiÀÄzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ, ¸ÀPÁðj DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå: ºÉZï.r/24/¦©¯ï-97, ¢£ÁAPÀ:05.06.1997 gÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀÄPÀÌ¼À ªÀ¸Àw ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄÄ 01-08- 1997 jAzÀ ¥ÁægÀA¨sÀªÁV PÁAiÀÄð ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÉ. ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄÄ 6 jAzÀ 10£ÉÃ vÀgÀUÀwAiÀÄªÀgÉUÉ MlÄÖ 250 «zÁåyðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢zÀÄÝ, PÀ£ÀßqÀ ºÁUÀÆ EAVèÃµï ªÀiÁzÀåsªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß M¼ÀUÉÆArzÉ. ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀzÀåsPÉÌ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdåzÀ ¥ÀoÀåPÀæªÀÄPÀÌ£ÀÄUÀÄtªÁV PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ. EzÉÆAzÀÄ ¸ÀAAiÀÄÄPÀÛ (¥ÁæxÀ«ÄPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ËæqsÀ) ±Á¯ÉAiÀiÁVzÉ. 27 ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À£ÀÄß SÁAiÀÄAUÉÆ½¸ÀÄªÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ:

1997. gÀ°è ±Á¯É ¥ÁægÀA¨ÀsªÁzÁV¤AzÀ F27ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ ªÀÄAdÆgÁVzÀÄÝ, EzÀgÀ°è 11 d£À ¨ÉÆÃzÀsPÀ ¹§âA¢, 04 PÀbÉÃj ¹§âA¢, 7 ªÀ¸Àw ¤®AiÀÄzÀ ¹§âA¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 5 d£À ¥Ámïð mÉÊA ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À£ÀÄß M¼ÀUÆÉ ArzÉ. ¸ÀzÀjÃ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À£ÀÄß E°èAiÀÄªÀgÉUÀÆ SÁAiÀÄAUÉÆ½¹gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. C®èzÉÃ CªÀjUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ vÀgÀºÀzÀ ¸ÀPÁðj 21 ¸Ë®¨sÀåUÀ¼ÁzÀ ªÁ¶ðPÀ ¨ÀsvÉå ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ ªÉZÀÑzÀ ªÀÄgÀÄ¥ÁªÀw, J¯ï.n.¹. gÀeÉ ¸Ë®¨sÀå EvÁå¢UÀ¼ÀÄ zÉÆgÉAiÀÄÄwÛ®è. ¸ÀzÀjÃ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀPÁðj ªÀÄÆ® ªÉÃvÀ£ÀzÀ°è gÀÆ. 10 PÀrvÀUÉÆ½¹ ªÉÃvÀ£À ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁUÀÄwÛ®è. ¸ÀzÀjÃ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ½UÉ ªÉÃvÀ£À ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀÝ®è ¥Àæw ªÀµÀð gÀÆ.10 PÀrvÀUÉÆ½¹ ªÉÃvÀ£À ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁUÀÄwÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀjÃ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ½UÉ ªÉÃvÀ£À ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ°è ¥Àæw ªÀµÀð ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀjPÉAiÀÄ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ EzÉ. ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀjPÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄAdÆgÁw «¼ÀA§ªÁzÀ°è ¹§âA¢ d£À vÀªÀÄä ªÉÃvÀ£À ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄªÀ°è vÉÆAzÀgÉ C£ÀÄ¨Às«¸ÀÄvÀÛ°zÁÝgÉ. EzÀjAzÀ ¥Àæw ªÀµÀðªÀÇ vÉÆAzÀgÉ GAmÁUÀÄwÛzÉ.

1) ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ ²PÀëPÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À «ªÀgÀ: PÀæ. ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ºÀÄzÉÝ ºÀÄnÖzÀ ¸ÉÃªÉUÉ «zÁåºÀðvÉ ªÉÃvÀ£À ±æÃÉtÂ ¸ÀA ¢£ÁAPÀ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 1 qÁ.ªÉÊ.¦.PÀ®è£ÉUËqÀgÀ ¥ÁæZÁAiÀÄðgÀÄ 7-3-69 19-9-97 JA.J¹ì., 5,990-00 jAzÀ ©.Jqï., (¸ÀºÀ²PÀëPÀ) 1- ¦.ºÉZï.r. 4-02 jAzÀ (¥ÁæZÁAiÀÄðgÀ Ä) 2 ²æÃ. Dgï.J¸ï.zÉÃ±À¥ÁAqÉ ¸ÀºÀ²PÀëPÀgÀÄ 1-6-66 1-8-97 ©.J¹ì., 4,565-00 ©.Jqï., JA.J3²æÃ.AiÀÄÄ.r.§zÁ«Ä ¨ÁsµÁ 20-7- 1-8-97 JA.J., 4,565-00 ²PÀëPÀgÀÄ 70 ©.Jqï., 4 ²æÃ.Dgï.JA.ªÀÄÄzÁÝ¥ÀÆgÀ PÀA¥ÀÆålgï 1-12-69 1-8-97 ©.J¹ì., 4,565-00 ²PÀëPÀgÀÄ ©.Jqï., ¦.f.r.¹.J., 5 ²æÃªÀÄw.J£ï.©.©gÁdzÁgÀ ¨ÁsµÁ 29-11- 5-9-97 JA.J., 4,565-00 ²PÀëPÀgÀÄ 54 ©.Jqï., 6 ²æÃ.«.J¸ï.¥ÁnÃ® PÁæ¥ïsÖ ²PÀëPÀgÀÄ 20-7- 5-9-97 J.JA3990-00 69 7 ²æÃ.¥ÀæªÉÆÃzÀ gÉÆÃtzÀ zÉÊ»PÀ 22-7- 16-9-97 ©.J.©.¦.Jq 4,565-00 ²PÀëPÀgÀÄ 68 ï., 8 ²æÃ ¦.¦.¥ÀªÁqÀ±ÉnÖ AiÉÆÃUÀ 20-7- 14-12-03 JA.J.

4,565-00 ²PÀëPÀgÀÄ 72 ¦.f.r.ªÁ AiÀiï.J¸ï 9 ²æÃ.J.¹.C®èAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀºÀ ²PÀëPÀgÀÄ 1-6-68 11-2-04 JA.J.JAJq 4,565-00 ªÀÄoÀ ï., 10 ²æÃªÀÄw. J£ï.©.¸ÀtvÀAV ¸ÀºÀ ²PÀëPÀgÀÄ 7-1-77 4-8-03 ©.J¹ì. 4,565-00 ©.Jqï., 11 PÀÄ.J¸ï.N.©¯ÁzÁgÀ ¸ÀºÀ ²PÀëPÀgÀÄ 1-1-72 21-12-02 JA.J.©.Jqï 4,565-00 22

2) ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ ²PÀëPÉÃvÀgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À «ªÀgÀ: PÀæ. ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ºÀÄzÉÝ ºÀÄnÖzÀ ¸ÉÃªÉUÉ «zÁåºÀðvÉ ªÉÃvÀ£À ±æÃÉtÂ ¸ÀA ¢£ÁAPÀ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ D¦üÃ¸ï ¹§âA¢ 1 ²æÃ Dgï.«.¥ÁnÃ® ¥Àæ.zÀ.¸À 14-4-57 8-9-97 ©.PÁA3450-00 2 ²æÃªÀÄw. mÉÊ¦¸ïÖ 16-6-73 1-8-97 JA.J.©.Jqï 2,990-00 eÉ.JA.UÀÄgÀÄªÀqÉAiÀÄgÀ ¸ÉÖ£ÉÆÃ 3 ²æÃ.Dgï.©.lPÀÌ¼ÀQ r.UÀÆæ¥ï 22-7-75 1-8-97 J¸ï.J¸ï.J¯ï.¹ 2,490-00 4 ²æÃ.Dgï.©.CgÀ½ r.UÀÆæ¥ï 22-7-74 9-9-97 J¸ï.J¸ï.J¯ï.¹ 2,490-00 ºÁ¸ÉÖÃ¯ï ¹§âA¢ 1 ²æÃ.PÉ.©.®ªÀiÁtÂ ªÁqÀð£ï 1-6-76 1-4-02 JA.J4565-00 2 ²æÃ.PÉ.J¸ï.eÁ£ÀPÀÄ£ÀªÀgÀ ªÁqÀð£ï 4-5-71 17-1-05 ©.J.©.Jqï 4,565-00 3 ²æÃ.JA.J£ï.²gÀPÉÆÃ¼À ªÁZïªÀÄ£ï 20-3-68 1-8-97 J¸ï.J¸ï.J¯ï.¹ 2,490-00 4 ²æÃ.JA.©.¨Á¯Áf ªÁZïªÀÄ£ï 23-12-77 1-8-97 J¸ï.J¸ï.J¯ï.¹ 2,490-00 5 ²æÃ.gÀªÉÄÃ±ï ªÀÄÄZÀÑAr PÀÄPï 19-8-61 1-8-97 2,490-00 6 ²æÃªÀÄw.®PÀëöäªÀÄä ªÀÄÄZÀÑAr PÀÄPï 14-4-68 9-9-97 2,490-00 7 ²æÃªÀÄw.±ÀPÀÄAvÀ¯Á PÀÄPï 25-6-49 1-8-97 2,490-00 ¤A¨Á¼ÀPÀgÀ 08. SÁ° ºÀÄzÉÝ ¥ÁlðmÉÊA ºÉ®Û D¦üÃ¸Àgï ªÉÃvÀ£À gÀÆ.500=00 1997 jAzÀ 09. “ ¥ÁlðmÉÊA lÆålgï gÀÆ.300=00 PÀrªÉÄ ªÉÄÃvÀ£À 10. “ “ gÀÆ.300=00 EgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ 11. “ “ gÀÆ.300=00 E°èAiÀÄªÀgÉUÀÆ 12. “ “ gÀÆ.300=00 ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼ÀÄ SÁ° EgÀÄvÀÛªÉ F ªÉÄÃ¯É w½¹zÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À°è SÁ° EgÀÄªÀ ¥ÁlðmÉÊA ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝUÉÆ½¹ G½zÀ 22 ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À°è PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß «±ÉÃµÀ £ÉÃªÀÄPÁw CrAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉÆ½¸À®Ä PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVzÉ.” The communication supra narrated that 27 posts that were filled by both teaching and non-teaching staff have to be regularized. The dates of entry and persons working in teaching posts were eleven and persons working in non-teaching posts were seven. Later 23 emerges another communication from the Director General and Inspector General of Police on 24-07-2007 for grant of Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance, City Compensatory Allowance and all other allowances that are paid to regular employees of the State. The said communication reads as follows: “PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï E¯ÁSÉ ¸ÀASÉå:

30. ¹§âA¢/ªÉÃ¤/07-08 ¢£ÁAPÀ:24.07.2007 UÉ, ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ CzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ ²æÃ J£ï.J.

ªÀÄÄvÀÛtÚ ¸ÁägÀPÀ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀÄPÀÌ¼À ªÀ¸Àw ±Á¯É zsÁgÀªÁqÀ. ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ, «µÀAiÀÄ: ²æÃ J£ï.J.ªÀÄÄvÀÛtÚ ¸ÁägÀPÀ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀÄPÀÌ¼À ªÀ¸Àw ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ ¨sÉÆÃzÀsPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉÆs ÃzÀsPÉÃvÀgÀ ¹§âA¢UÀ½UÉ 2007 gÀ ¥ÀjµÀÌøvÀ ªÉÃvÀ£À ±ÉæÃtÂAiÀÄrAiÀÄ°è ªÉÃvÀ£À ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¸ÀÄªÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ. G¯ÉèÃR:

1. vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå: ªÀ¸Àw±Á¯É/¹§âA¢/2007-08, ¢£ÁAPÀ:

22. 6/07

2) ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå: ºÉZï.r/197/¦M¦/2004, ¢£ÁAPÀ:

2. 4/07

3) ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå: ºÉZï.r/25/¦©J¯ï/2003 ¢£ÁAPÀ:

27. 08/2005 * * * ªÉÄÃ°£À «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, G¯ÉèÃTvÀ vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ, G¯ÉèÃR-3 gÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è ¸ÀzÀj ±Á¯ÉUÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå: ºÉZïr 24 ¦©J¯ï 97, ¢£ÁAPÀ 05/06/1997 gÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è ªÀÄAdÆgÁVzÀÝ PÁæ¥sïÖ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ §zÀ¯ÁV qÁæ¬ÄAUï ºÄÀzÉÝ JAzÀÄ ªÀiÁ¥ÁðqÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ªÀiÁvÀæ C£ÀÄªÀÄw ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ, F ªÀiÁ¥ÁðrUÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ DyðPÀ ºÉÆgÉAiÀÄ ¨ÉÃrPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸À¢gÀÄªÀ µÀgÀwÛUÉ 24 M¼À¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀÄ w½¹gÀÄªÀ »£Éß¯ÉAiÀÄ°è qÁæ¬ÄAUï ²PÀëPÀgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ ªÉÃvÀ£À ±ÉæÃtÂAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C¼ÀªÀr¸À®Ä §gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. DzÀÝjAzÀ, ²æÃ J£ï.J.ªÀÄÄvÀÛtÚ ¸ÁägÀPÀ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀÄPÀÌ¼À ªÀ¸Àw ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ ¨ÉÆs ÃzÀsPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨sÉÆÃzsÀPÉÃvÀgÀ ¹§âA¢UÀ½UÉ 2007gÀ ¥ÀjµÀÌøvÀ ªÉÃvÀ£À ±ÉæÃtÂAiÀÄ°è ªÉÃvÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀAvÉ ¥ÀjµÀÌj¹ ¤UÀ¢ü¥Àr¹PÉÆ¼Àî®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹zÉ. PÀæ. ºÀÄzÉÝ »A¢£À ªÉÃvÀ£À ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ªÉÃvÀ£À ¸ÀA. ±ÉæÃtÂ ¸ÀASÉå ±ÉæÃtÂ 1 ¦æ¤ì¥Á¯ï 6000-11200 1 11400-21600 2 ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ²PÀëPÀgÀÄ 4575-8400 4 8825-16000 3 ¨sÁµÁ ²PÀëPÀgÀÄ 4575-8400 2 8825-16000 4 zsÉÊ»PÀ ²PÀëPÀgÀÄ 4575-8400 1 8825-16000 5 qÁæ¬ÄAUï ²PÀëPÀgÀÄ 3300-6300 1 6250-12000 6 AiÉÆÃUÀ ²PÀëPÀgÀÄ 4575-8400 1 8825-16000 7 PÀA¥ÀÆålgï E£çÀìPÀÖgï 4575-8400 1 8825-16000 8 ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ zÀeÉð 3850-7050 1 7275-13350 ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ 9 ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÀÄÑUÁgÀgÀÄ 3000-5450 1 5800-10500 10 ªÁqÀð£ï 4575-8400 2 8825-16000 11 UÀÆæ¥ï-r 2500-3850 2 4800-7275 12 PÀÄPï 2500-3850 3 4800-7275 13 ªÁZïªÀÄ£ï 2500-3850 2 4800-7275 n¥ÀàtÂ: vÀÄnÖ¨sÀvÉå ªÀÄ£É ¨ÁrUÉ £ÀUÀgÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¨ÀsvÉå ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ ¨ÀsvÉå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ ¨sÀvÉåUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ½UÉÆ¼À¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹, ¸À»/- qÉÊgÉPÀÖgï d£ÀgÀ¯ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï d£ÀgÀ¯ï D¥ïs ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ïgÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV.” What can be inferred from the aforesaid communication is that to all the cadres pay scale is to be revised and fixed along with other allowances that would be paid to regular employees. Nothing moved later for a long time. On 25-03-2009 a Government order 25 comes to be issued making 22 posts permanent and abolishing 5 posts, again with the concurrence of the Department of Finance. The Government order reads as follows: “PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ £ÀqÀªÀ½UÀ¼ÀÄ «µÀAiÀÄ: PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀÄPÀÌ¼À ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ ¨sÉÆÃzÀsPÀ-¨ÉÆs ÃzÀsPÉÃvÀgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À£ÀÄß SÁAiÀÄA DV ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉ¸ÀÄªÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ. NzÀ¯ÁVzÉ:

1. ಮ(cid:2)ಾ (cid:4)(cid:5)ೇ(cid:8)ಶಕರು ಮತು(cid:14) ಆರ(cid:16)ಕ ಮ(cid:2)ಾ (cid:4)(cid:17)ೕ(cid:16)ಕರವರ ಪತ(cid:20) ಸಂ(cid:23)ೆ(cid:24): ಆ (cid:25).ಎ(cid:27)ಎ(cid:28)(2)9/2003- 04 (cid:29)(cid:30)ಾಂಕ 25.10.2008.

2. ಸ(cid:31)ಾ(cid:8)(cid:17) ಆ(cid:5)ೇಶ ಸಂ(cid:23)ೆ(cid:24):(cid:2)ೆ ! 215 ".#.ಎ(cid:27) 2003 (cid:29)(cid:30)ಾಂಕ:

27. 08/2005 ಪ(cid:20)%ಾ(cid:14)ವ(cid:30)ೆ: &ೕ’ೆ (1) ಓದ’ಾದ ಪತ(cid:20)ದ*+ ಕ(cid:30)ಾ(cid:8)ಟಕ -ಾಜ(cid:24) /*ೕ0 ಕ’ಾ(cid:24)ಣ (cid:31)ಾಯ(cid:8)ಕ(cid:20)ಮದ ಅಂಗ5ಾ6 7ಾರ5ಾಡ 9’ೆ+ಯ ಕಲಘಟ6 <ಾಲೂ+ಕು ಗಂ9ಕ>?. @ಾ(cid:20)ಮದ*+ /*ೕ0 ಇ’ಾ(cid:23)ೆಯ (cid:30)ೌಕರರು ಅCಕ(cid:17)ಗಳ ಮಕEF@ೆ G(cid:5)ಾ(cid:24)Hಾ(cid:24)ಸ (cid:4)ೕಡುವ ಸಲು5ಾ6 ಆ ಆ(cid:5)ೇಶದ*+ ಸೂIJದಂ<ೆ GGಧ 27 ಹು(cid:5)ೆMಗNೆOಂ(cid:29)@ೆ ಕ(cid:30)ಾ(cid:8)ಟಕ -ಾಜ(cid:24) /ಲ*ೕ0 ಮಕEಳ ªÀ¸Àw Qಾ’ೆ %ಾR"ಸಲು ಸ(cid:31)ಾ(cid:8)ರದ ಮಂಜೂ-ಾSಯನುU ಸ(cid:31)ಾ(cid:8)(cid:17) ಆ(cid:5)ೇಶ ಸಂ(cid:23)ೆ(cid:24): (cid:2)ೆ ! 24 "#ಎ(cid:27) 97 (cid:29)(cid:30)ಾಂಕ 05/06/97ರ*+ (cid:4)ೕಡ’ಾ6ತು(cid:14). &ೕ’ೆ (2) ಓದ’ಾ6 ಸ(cid:31)ಾ(cid:8)(cid:17) ಆ(cid:5)ೇಶದ*+ ಈ Wಂ(cid:5)ೆ ಇದM (cid:31)ಾ(cid:20)X?. Y(cid:16)ಕರು ಹು(cid:5)ೆMಯನುU Zಾ(cid:20)[ಂ\ Y(cid:16)ಕರು ಹು(cid:5)ೆM@ೆ ].ಾಪ(cid:8)ಡು ].ಾಡಲು ಸ(cid:31)ಾ(cid:8)ರದ ಮಂಜೂ-ಾS (cid:4)ೕಡ’ಾ6(cid:5)ೆ. ತದನಂತರ ಸದ(cid:17) ಹು(cid:5)ೆMಗಳ ಅವCಗಳನುU (cid:31)ಾಲ(cid:31)ಾಲ(cid:31)ೆE ಮುಂದುವ-ೆJ(cid:31)ೊಂಡು ಬಂ(cid:29)ದುM, (cid:31)ೊ(cid:30)ೆಯ(cid:5)ಾ6 ಮುಂದುವ-ೆJದ ಅವCಯು (cid:29)(cid:30)ಾಂಕ:

31. 03/2009ರಂದು (cid:31)ೊ(cid:30)ೆ@ೊಳ_‘ತ(cid:14)(cid:5)ೆ. <ಾ<ಾE*ಕ5ಾ6 ಮುಂದುವ-ೆಸ’ಾದ 27 ಹು(cid:5)ೆMಗಳ aೈc ಅ-ೆ(cid:31)ಾ*ಕ ಆ-ೋಗ(cid:24) ಅC(cid:31)ಾ(cid:17)-01 ಮತು(cid:14) ಅ-ೆ(cid:31)ಾ*ಕ dೋಧಕರು 04 ಹು(cid:5)ೆMಗಳನುU ರದುM@ೊFಸಲು (cid:2)ಾಗೂ ಇನುUFದ 22 ಹು(cid:5)ೆMಗಳನುU (cid:23)ಾಯಂ ಆ6 ಮುಂದುವ-ೆಸಲು ಸ(cid:31)ಾರದ ಮಂಜೂ-ಾS (cid:4)ೕಡುವಂ<ೆ (cid:31)ೋ(cid:17)ತು<ಾ(cid:14)-ೆ. ಸದ(cid:17) ಹು(cid:5)ೆMಗಳನುU ತ(cid:24)9J (cid:31)ಾಲ(cid:31)ಾಲ(cid:31)ೆE ಮುಂದುವ-ೆJದ ಅವCಯು ಐದು ವಷ(cid:8)ಕೂE &ೕಲg>?.ರುವhದ(cid:17)ಂದ, ಮಂಜೂರು ].ಾ!ರುವ 27 ಹು(cid:5)ೆMಗಳ aೈc 22 ಹು(cid:5)ೆMಗಳನುU (cid:23)ಾಯಂ ಆ6 ಮುಂದುವ-ೆಸುವ ಮತು(cid:14) 5 ಅ-ೆ(cid:31)ಾ*ಕ ಹು(cid:5)ೆMಗಳನುU ರದುMಪ!ಸುವ ಕು(cid:17)ತು ಪ(cid:17)Yೕ*J ಈ (cid:31)ೆಳಕಂಡಂ<ೆ ಆ(cid:5)ೇಶ (cid:2)ೊರ!ಸ’ಾ6(cid:5)ೆ. 26 ಸ(cid:31)ಾ(cid:8)ರದ ಆ(cid:5)ೇಶ ಸಂ(cid:23)ೆ(cid:24): (cid:2)ೆ ! 166 "ಓ"

2009. dೆಂಗಳOರು, (cid:29)(cid:30)ಾಂಕ:

25. 03-2009 ಪ(cid:20)%ಾ(cid:14)ವ(cid:30)ೆಯ*+ Gವ(cid:17)Jದ ಅಂಶಗಳ W(cid:30)ೆU’ೆಯ*+ ಕ(cid:30)ಾ(cid:8)ಟಕ -ಾಜ(cid:24) /*ೕ0 ಮಕEಳ ವಸS Qಾ’ೆ@ೆ ಅನುಬಂದದ*+ ಸೂIJರುವಂ<ೆ ಮಂಜೂ-ಾ6ರುವ 27 ಹು(cid:5)ೆMಗಳ aೈc 22 ಹು(cid:5)ೆMಗಳನುU (cid:23)ಾಯಂ ಆ6 ಮುಂದುವ(cid:17)ಸಲು (cid:2)ಾಗೂ 5 ಅ-ೆ(cid:31)ಾ*ಕ ಹು(cid:5)ೆMಗಳನುU ರದುMಪ!ಸಲು ಸ(cid:31)ಾ(cid:8)ರದ ಮಂಜೂ-ಾS (cid:4)ೕ!(cid:5)ೆ. ಮುಂದುವ-ೆದು, ವೃಂದ ಮತು(cid:14) (cid:30)ೇಮ(cid:31)ಾS (cid:4)ಯಮಗಳನುU (cid:4)ರೂ"ಸಲು ಕ(cid:20)ಮ (cid:31)ೈ@ೊಳ‘ಪ>?.(cid:5)ೆಂದು ಸೂIJ(cid:5)ೆ. ಈ ಆ(cid:5)ೇಶವನುU ಆj(cid:8)ಕ ಇ’ಾ(cid:23)ೆಯ >ಪgk ಸಂ(cid:23)ೆ(cid:24): ಆಇ 278 5ೆಚm- 11/2009, (cid:29)(cid:30)ಾಂಕ 18-03-2009gÀ ¸ÀºÀªÀÄwAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ºÉÆgÀr¹zÉ. ಕ(cid:30)ಾ(cid:8)ಟಕ -ಾಜ(cid:24)aಾಲರ ಆ(cid:5)ೇQಾನು%ಾರ ಮತು(cid:14) ಅವರ (cid:2)ೆಸ(cid:17)ನ*+ ¸À»/- (©.JA.®QëöäÃ£ÁgÁAiÀÄt) ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢üÃ£À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð M¼ÁqÀ½vÀ E¯ÁSÉ (¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÉZÀÑ)” When things stood thus, the Government issues another order directing continuance of the petitioners in the posts of teachers with the arrangement that was subsisting then till regularization process is completed. The communication dated 24-08-2009 reads as follows: “ಇವ(cid:17)ಂದ: ಸ(cid:31)ಾ(cid:8)ರದ ಅಪರ ಮುಖ(cid:24) (cid:31)ಾಯ(cid:8)ದY(cid:8)ಗಳ_, ಒNಾಡFತ ಇ’ಾ(cid:23)ೆ, dೆಂಗಳOರು. ಇವ(cid:17)@ೆ, ಮ(cid:2)ಾ (cid:4)(cid:5)ೇ(cid:8)ಶಕರು ಮತು(cid:14) 27 ಆರ(cid:16)ಕ ಮ(cid:2)ಾ (cid:4)(cid:17)ೕ(cid:16)ಕರು, dೆಂಗಳOರು. ].ಾನ(cid:24)-ೇ, Gಷಯ: Y(cid:20)ೕ ಎ(cid:28).ಎ. ಮುತ(cid:14)ಣq %ಾrರಕ /*ೕ0 ಮಕEಳ ವಸS Qಾ’ೆಯ Jಬsಂ(cid:29)ಯವ(cid:17)@ೆ 5ೇತನ aಾವS ಬ@ೆt. ಉ’ೆ+ೕಖ: (cid:4)ಮr ಪತ(cid:20)ದ ಸಂ(cid:23)ೆ(cid:24):#ಎX/133/2006-07, (cid:29)(cid:30)ಾಂಕ:

18. 07/2009. * * * &ೕಲEಂಡ Gಷಯ (cid:2)ಾಗೂ ಉ’ೆ+ೕಖ(cid:31)ೆE ಸಂಬಂCJದಂ<ೆ Y(cid:20)ೕ ಎ(cid:28).ಎ. ಮುತ(cid:14)ಣq %ಾrರಕ /*ೕ0 ಮಕEಳ ವಸS Qಾ’ೆಯ dೋಧಕ ಮತು(cid:14) dೋಧ(cid:31)ೇತರ Jಬsಂ(cid:29)ಯವ(cid:17)@ೆ ಸ(cid:31)ಾ(cid:8)(cid:17) ಆ(cid:5)ೇಶ ಸಂ(cid:23)ೆ(cid:24): (cid:2)ೆ ! 166 "ಓ"

2009. (cid:29)(cid:30)ಾಂಕ:

25. 03/2009ರ ಆ(cid:5)ೇಶದ*+ (cid:23)ಾಯಂ ].ಾ!ದ ಹು(cid:5)ೆMಗಳ*+ ಅವರುಗಳ %ೇ5ೆಯನುU ಸಕ(cid:20)ಮ@ೊFಸುವ Gಷಯದ ಕು(cid:17)ತು ಪ(cid:17)Yೕ*J ಸೂಕ(cid:14) (cid:4)7ಾ(cid:8)ರ <ೆ@ೆದು(cid:31)ೊಳ_‘ವವ-ೆ@ೆ ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ (cid:4)ೕಡುS(cid:14)ರುವ 5ೇತನ ಪದvSಯನುU ಮುಂದುವ-ೆಸುವಂ<ೆ SFಸಲು (cid:4)(cid:5)ೇ(cid:8)Yತ(cid:30)ಾ6(cid:5)ೆMೕ(cid:30)ೆ. ಮುಂದುವ-ೆದು, ಅವರುಗಳ ಸಕ(cid:20)ಮ(cid:31)ೆE ಸಂಬಂCJದಂ<ೆ ಪ(cid:20)ಸು(cid:14)ತ ಪ(cid:20)%ಾ(cid:14)"ತ ವಸS Qಾ’ೆಯ*+ (cid:31)ೆಲಸ (cid:4)ವ(cid:8)WಸುS(cid:14)ರುವ dೋಧಕ ಮತು(cid:14) dೋಧ(cid:31)ೇತರ Jಬsಂ(cid:29)ಗಳ %ೇ5ಾ GವರಗಳನುU ಈ ಪತ(cid:20)(cid:31)ೆE ಲಗS(cid:14)Jದ ತಃSÉÛಯ*+ ನಮೂ(cid:29)Jದಂ<ೆ GವರಗಳನುU ಕಳ_Wಸುವಂ<ೆ ಮತು(cid:14) ಇವರುಗಳ %ೇ5ೆಯನುU ಸಕ(cid:20)ಮ@ೊFಸಲು ತಮr ಖIತ ಅx¥Áæಯ(cid:5)ೊಂ(cid:29)@ೆ SFಸಲು (cid:4)(cid:5)ೇ(cid:8)Yತ(cid:30)ಾ6(cid:5)ೆMೕ(cid:30)ೆ.” The communication was clear that till a decision was taken to regularize teaching and non-teaching staff of the school, they would continue in the services of the School as obtaining on the said date. Again a communication emerges on 22-10-2009, from the Superintendent of Police for regularization of services of 22 employees from the date of their initial appointment. The communication reads as follows:

28. “¸ÀASÉå: ªÀ¸Àw ±Á¯É/¹§âA¢/2009-2010 9’ಾ+ /*ೕ0 ಕyೇ(cid:17), 7ಾರ5ಾಡ 9’ೆ+, 7ಾರ5ಾಡ ¢£ÁAPÀ:

22. 10-2009 UÉ, ªÀÄºÁ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ DgÀPÀëPÀ ªÀÄºÁ ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå £ÀA.2, £ÀÈ¥ÀvÀÄAUÀ gÀ¸ÉÛ, – ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ 560 001. ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ, «µÀAiÀÄ: Y(cid:20)ೕ ಎ(cid:28).ಎ. ಮುತ(cid:14)ಣq %ಾrರಕ /*ೕ0 ಮಕEಳ ವಸS Qಾ’ೆಯ ಹು(cid:5)ೆMಗಳನುU ತುಂಬಲು ಕರಡು ವೃಂದ ಮತು(cid:14) %ೇ5ಾ Gವರ (cid:2)ಾಗೂ Jಬsಂ(cid:29)ಗಳನುU ಸಕ(cid:20)ಮ@ೊFಸುವ PÀÄjvÀÄ G¯ÉèÃR:

1. ¥ÀæzÁs£À PÀbÉÃj ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀA:©J¥ïs/133/2006-07 ¢:26-08-2009

2) ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀA: ºÉZï.r/208/¦M¦/2009 ¢:24-8-2009 * * * &ೕ’ಾEkJದ Gಷಯ (cid:2)ಾಗೂ ಉ’ೆ+ೕಖ(cid:31)ೆE ಸಂಬಂCJದಂ<ೆ, Y(cid:20)ೕ ಎ(cid:28).ಎ.ಮುತ(cid:14)ಣq %ಾrರಕ /*ೕ0 ಮಕEಳ ವಸS Qಾ’ೆಯ ಬ@ೆt ಉ’ೆ+ೕಖದ*+ (1) ರ*+ (cid:31)ೇFದ ].ಾWSಯ Gವರ ಈ (cid:31)ೆಳ6ನಂS(cid:5)ೆ. 22 ಹು(cid:5)ೆMಗಳನುU ಸಕ(cid:20)ಮ@ೊFಸುವ ಕು(cid:17)ತು ಅxaಾ(cid:20)ಯ 1997 ರ*+ Qಾ’ೆ aಾ(cid:20)ರಂಭ5ಾ(cid:5)ಾ6(cid:4)ಂದ 22 ಹು(cid:5)ೆMಗಳ*+ <ಾ<ಾE*ಕ5ಾ6 11 ಜನ dೋಧಕ Jಬsಂ(cid:29) 4 ಜನ ಕ{ೇ(cid:17) Jಬsಂ(cid:29) (cid:2)ಾಗೂ 7 ವಸS (cid:4)ಲಯದ Jಬsಂ(cid:29)ಯವರು %ೇ5ೆ ಸ*+ಸು<ಾ(cid:14) ಬಂ(cid:29)(cid:5)ಾM-ೆ. ಉ’ೆ+ೕಖ (2) ರ*+ 22 ಹು(cid:5)ೆMಗಳನುU (cid:23)ಾಯಂ @ೊFಸಲು ಸದ(cid:17)ಯವರ Gವರ ].ಾWSಯನುU <ಾವh ಕಳ_WJದ ತಃSÉÛಯ*+ ಸ*+ಸ’ಾ6(cid:5)ೆ. (ಪ(cid:20)S ಲಗS(cid:14)J(cid:5)ೆ). ಸದ(cid:17) Jಬsಂ(cid:29)ಯವ(cid:17)@ೆ ಸ(cid:31)ಾ(cid:8)(cid:17) ಆ(cid:5)ೇಶದಂ<ೆ 1997 (cid:17)ಂದ 2008-09 ರ ವ-ೆ@ೆ ಪ(cid:20)S ವಷ(cid:8) ಒಂ(cid:5)ೊಂದು ವಷ(cid:8)(cid:31)ೆE <ಾ<ಾE*ಕ5ಾ6 ಮುಂದುವ-ೆಸುವ ಆ(cid:5)ೇಶ ಬಂ(cid:29)ರುತ(cid:14)5ೆ. ಸದ(cid:17) ಹು(cid:5)ೆMಗF@ೆ ಮೂಲ 5ೇತನದ*+ ರೂ.10/- ಕ!ತ@ೊFJ5ೕತನ, ತು>?.ಭ<ೆ(cid:24), ಮ(cid:30)ೆdಾ!@ೆ, J.J.ಎ. ಇತ-ೆ (cid:4)ೕ!ರುತ(cid:14)(cid:5)ೆ. (cid:2)ಾ* Qಾ’ೆಯ*+ <ಾ<ಾE*ಕ ಹು(cid:5)ೆMಗಳ*+ ಕತ(cid:8)ವ(cid:24) (cid:4)ವ(cid:8)WಸುS(cid:14)ರುವ (ತಃ(cid:23)ೆ(cid:24)ಯ*+ ನಮೂ(cid:29)Jದಂ<ೆ) ಸದ(cid:17) Jಬsಂ(cid:29)ವರನುU GQೇಷ (cid:30)ೇಮ(cid:31)ಾSಯ!ಯ*+ ಅವರುಗಳನುU (cid:30)ೇಮ(cid:31)ಾS (cid:2)ೊಂ(cid:29)ದ (cid:29)ನ(cid:29)ಂದ (cid:23)ಾಯಂ ಸರ(cid:31)ಾ(cid:17) (cid:30)ೌಕರ-ೆಂದು ಸಕ(cid:20)ಮ@ೊFJ (cid:30)ೇ|ಸಲು ಸೂಕ(cid:14) ಆ(cid:5)ೇಶ (cid:2)ೊರ!ಸುವಂ<ೆ GನಂSಸ’ಾ6(cid:5)ೆ. 29 ಆರು ಅಂಶಗಳ(cid:30)ೊUಳ@ೊಂಡ %ೇ5ಾ Gವರ ಈ (cid:31)ೆಳಕಂಡಂS(cid:5)ೆ.

6) ಇದಲ+(cid:5)ೇ ಈ ಅಭ(cid:24)j(cid:8)ಗಳನುU }ಾವ : ಅಭ(cid:24)j(cid:8)ಗಳನುU ಅ.ಕ(cid:20).ಸಂ(cid:23)ೆ(cid:24):

2. ರ*+ (cid:4)ವೃS(cid:14) (cid:17)ೕS ಭS(cid:8) ].ಾಡ’ಾ6(cid:5)ೆ ಎಂಬುದರ ಅನುಭG (cid:2)ಾಗೂ ಪ(cid:20)SHಾ(cid:4)(cid:127)ತರನುU (cid:30)ೇಮ(cid:31)ಾS ಬ@ೆt ].ಾWS ಮತು(cid:14) ಭS(cid:8) ].ಾಡು5ಾಗ ].ಾ!(cid:31)ೊಳ‘ಲು SFJದಂ<ೆ DAiÉÄÌ |ೕಸ’ಾS (cid:4)ಯಮವನುU ].ಾ!(cid:31)ೊಳ‘’ಾ6ತು(cid:14). ನಂತರ ಹು(cid:5)ೆMಗಳ_ aಾ*ಸ’ಾ6(cid:5)ೆ~ೕ?. <ೆರ5ಾ(cid:5)ಾಗ ಪ(cid:17)Yಷ?. (cid:128)ಾS (cid:2)ಾಗೂ ಪ(cid:17)Yಷ?. ಪಂಗಡದವ(cid:17)@ೆ ಭS(cid:8) ].ಾ!(cid:31)ೊಳ‘’ಾ6ತು(cid:14). ಸದ(cid:17) ಪಂಗಡದವರು ±Á¯É ©lÄÖ (cid:2)ೋ6ರು<ಾ(cid:14)-ೆ. ಪ(cid:20)ಕಟ(cid:129)ೆ (cid:31)ೊ(cid:130)ಾ?.ಗ |ೕಸ’ಾSಯನ(cid:127)ಯ ಅಭ(cid:24)j(cid:8)ಗಳ_ ಲಭ(cid:24)Gರದ (cid:31)ಾರಣ ಮಕEF@ೆ ಸಮಯ(cid:31)ೆE ಸ(cid:17)}ಾ6 Gಳಂಬ ಇಲ+(cid:5)ೇ ಉತ(cid:14)ಮ Y(cid:16)ಣ (cid:4)ೕಡುವ ಉ(cid:5)ೆMೕಶ(cid:29)ಂದ ಅನುಭG. ಪ(cid:20)SHಾ(cid:4)(cid:127)ತ (cid:2)ಾಗೂ ಪ(cid:17)kತ Y(cid:16)ಕ(cid:17)@ೆ ಆದ(cid:24)<ೆ (cid:31)ೊಟು?. ಪ(cid:20)S GಷಯಗF@ೆ ಒಂ(cid:5)ೊಂದು ಹು(cid:5)ೆMಯನುU <ಾ<ಾE*ಕ5ಾ6 (cid:30)ೇಮಕ ].ಾ!(cid:31)ೊಳ_‘<ಾ(cid:14) ಬಂ(cid:29)ರುತ(cid:14)(cid:5)ೆ. (cid:31)ೆಲವh ಹು(cid:5)ೆMಗಳ_ ಒಂದು ಇರುವhದ(cid:17)ಂದ Gದ}ಾj(cid:8)ಗF@ೆ <ೊಂದ-ೆ}ಾಗdಾರ(cid:5)ೆಂದು (cid:30)ೇಮಕ ].ಾ!(cid:31)ೊಂ!ರುತ(cid:14)(cid:5)ೆ (cid:2)ಾಗೂ |ೕಸ’ಾS aಾ*ಸುವhದು ಆ(cid:5)ೇಶ5ಾ6ರುವhದ(cid:17)ಂದ ಮುಂ(cid:29)ನ (cid:31)ಾರಣಗFಂದ ¢£ÀUÀ¼À°è ««zÀs PÁgÀtUÀ½AzÀ (cid:23)ಾ*}ಾಗುವ ಹು(cid:5)ೆMಗಳ*+ dಾ(cid:24)(cid:131)’ಾ\ ಇ(cid:17)ಸ’ಾದ ಹು(cid:5)ೆMಗಳನುU ಭGಷ(cid:24)ದ*+ <ೆರ5ಾಗುವ ಹು(cid:5)ೆMಗಳ*+ ಪ(cid:17)Yಷ?. (cid:128)ಾS, ಪ(cid:17)Yಷ?. ಪಂಗಡ (cid:2)ಾಗೂ ಪ(cid:20)ವಗ(cid:8)-1 ರ (cid:30)ೇಮಕ ].ಾ!(cid:31)ೊಳ_‘ವ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ಸ(cid:17)ದೂ6ಸ’ಾಗುವhದು F PÀÄjvÀÄ ಪ(cid:20)].ಾಣಪತ(cid:20) ಸ*+J ಪ(cid:20)S ಲಗS(cid:14)J(cid:5)ೆ. 30 ಈ Qಾ’ೆ@ೆ dೋಧಕ ಮತು(cid:14) dೋಧ(cid:31)ೇತರ ಹು(cid:5)ೆMಗಳನುU ತುಂಬಲು ಕರಡು ವೃಂದ ಮತು(cid:14) (cid:30)ೇಮ(cid:31)ಾS (cid:4)ಯಮಗಳನುU ತ}ಾ(cid:17)J (ಲಗS(cid:14)J(cid:5)ೆ) ಅನು(cid:132)ೕ(cid:29)ಸಲು (cid:31)ೋ(cid:17)(cid:5)ೆ. ತಮr GQಾ(cid:127)J, ¸À»/- /*ೕ0 ಅCೕ(cid:16)ಕರು (cid:2)ಾಗೂ ಅಧ(cid:24)(cid:16)ರು, Y(cid:20)ೕ ಮುತ(cid:14)ಣq %ಾrರಕ /*ೕ0 ಮಕEಳ ವಸS Qಾ’ೆ, 7ಾರ5ಾಡ.” The aforesaid communication recommends Absorption Rules to be framed for absorbing these petitioners from the dates on which they entered services. Several reminders were sent to do the needful in favour of the petitioners. But the petitioners, without regularization, continued in the services of the School. Proceedings take place on 30-03-2016 under the Chairmanship of the Home Minister. The decision insofar as the present school is concerned reads as follows: “…. …. ….

8) F ªÀÄzsÉå ²æÃ §¸ÀªÀgÁd ºÉÆgÀnÖ, ªÀiÁ£Àå «zÁs£À ¥ÀjµÀvï ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¢£ÁAPÀ 17.12.2015gÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ¸ÀzÀj ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ ¨ÉÆzÀsPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉÆÃzsÀPÉÃvÀgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À°è ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 18 ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ ¹§âA¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄß SÁAiÀÄAUÉÆ½¸À®Ä PÀæªÀÄ ªÀ»¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ PÉÆÃjgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

9) F ªÀ¸Àw ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ ¨ÉÆÃzÀsPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉÆÃzÀsPÉÃvÀgÀ ¹§âA¢AiÀÄªÀgÀ SÁAiÀÄªÀiÁwUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ F »AzÉ ªÀµÀð 2012gÀ°è ¹D¸ÀÄ E¯ÁSÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÄÝ, ¸ÀA«zÁs£ÁvÀäPÀªÁV £ÉÃªÀÄPÁw ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß dgÀÄV¸ÀzÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ E£ÁåªÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è ¹§âA¢UÀ¼À £ÉÃªÀÄPÁw £ÀqÉ¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ CxÀªÁ vÁvÁÌ°PÀªÁV E®èªÉÃ UÀÄwÛUÉ DzÁsgÀzÀ°è PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß 31 SÁAiÀÄªÀiÁwUÉÆ½¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄªÀÅ ²æÃªÀÄw GªÀiÁzÉÃ« ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¤ÃrzÀ wÃ¦ðUÉ «gÀÄzÀÞªÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F J¯Áè CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß UÀªÀÄ¤¹zÀ ¸À¨ÉsAiÀÄÄ «¸ÀÌøvÀªÁzÀ ZÀZÉðAiÀÄ §½PÀ F ªÀÄÄA¢£ÀAvÉ ¤tðAiÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆArvÀÄ:

1. F ªÀ¸Àw ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ ¨ÉÆÃzÀsPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉÆÃzÀsPÉÃvÀgÀ ¹§âA¢AiÀÄªÀgÀ SÁAiÀÄªÀiÁwUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðzÀ°è gÉÆÃ¸ÀÖgï CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Á°¸À¯ÁVzÉAiÉÄÃ JA§ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¥ÀgÀ ªÀÄÄRå PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁV ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ ¥ÁæA±ÀÄ¥Á®gÀÄ gÉÆÃ¸ÀÖgï CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Á°¸À¯ÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ r.f ªÀÄvÀÄÛ L.f.¦.gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ SÁAiÀÄªÀiÁw ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÆtð zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ¸À°è¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ w½¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ.

2) F ªÀ¸Àw ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀÆtð ¥ÀæªÀiÁtzÀ°è ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï C¢üPÁj/¹§âA¢AiÀÄªÀgÀ ªÀÄPÀÌ¼ÀÄ CzsÀåAiÀÄ£À £ÀqÉ¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ CA±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸À¨ÉsAiÀÄÄ UÀªÀÄ¤¹vÀÄ. ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ ¥À©èPï ¸ÀÆÌ°£ÀAvÉ F ªÀ¸Àw ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ°èAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀºÀ ±ÉÃ.70%gÀµÀÄÖ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï C¢üPÁj/¹§âA¢AiÀÄªÀgÀ ªÀÄPÀÌ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ±ÉÃ.30%gÀµÀÄÖ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀ ªÀÄPÀÌ½UÉ CzsÀåAiÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ 2016-17£ÉÃ ¸Á°¤AzÀ CªÀPÁ±À PÀ°à¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆa¹vÀÄ.

3) F ªÀ¸Àw ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ ªÀÈAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉÃªÀÄPÁw ¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ²PÀët E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ°è ZÁ°ÛAiÀÄ°ègÀÄªÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ ¥À©èPï ¸ÀÆÌ¯ï£À ªÈÀAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉÃªÀÄPÁw ¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DzÀsj¹ ¹zÀÝ¥Àr¹ r.f. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ L.f.¦ gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸À°è¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ w½¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ.

4) F ªÀ¸Àw ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ°è PÀ£ÀßqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DAUÀè ªÀiÁzÀåsªÀÄUÀ¼ÉgÀqgÀÀ®Æè ²PÀët ¤ÃqÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß UÀªÀÄ¤¹zÀ ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄÄ EªÀÅUÀ¼À°è UÀÄtªÀÄlÖªÀ£ÀÄß E£ÀßµÀÄÖ ºÉaÑ¹PÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆa¹vÀÄ. ªÀAzÀ£ÉUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå UÀÈºÀ¸ÀaªÀgÀÄ ¸À¨ÉsAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄUÉÆ½¹zÀgÀÄ. ¸À»/- (qÁ|| f.¥ÀgÀªÉÄÃ±ÀégÀ) UÀÈºÀ¸ÀaªÀgÀÄ.” It was resolved to draw up Rules for absorption. Even then, no absorption comes about. The petitioners getting restless began then to knock at the doors of the Tribunal or this Court seeking a prayer 32 of mandamus to regularize their services, as by then they had put in more than 20 years of service. Writ petitions comes to be filed before this Court in Writ Petition Nos.111256-11259 of 2019 and connected cases. The Writ Petitions come to be disposed of on 20-11-2019 by the following order: “In these writ petitions, the petitioners have sought for following reliefs: a. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioners seeking regularization dated 22.6.2019 produced at Annexure-J to J3 respectively in view of the recommendations dated 10.02.2005, 22.10.2009 and 6.9.2012 produced at Annexures-E, F and G respectively and also the Government order dated 24.8.2009 vide Annexure-D and further issue directions to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners as teachers in respondent No.5 school with all service benefits. b. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble court deems fit under the circumstances of the present case including an order for costs may kindly be passed in the interest of justice and equity. Interim prayer c. Pending disposal of the above writ petition an interim order may kindly be granted directing the respondents not to discontinue or disturb the position of the petitioners as teachers in respondent no.5-school in the interest of justice and equity. 33

2. It is the case of the petitioners that they have been working as temporary teachers at N.A. Muttanna Memorial Police Children Residential School, Dharwad, right from the year 1997 without any break and they are rendering their services unblemishedly. They have been working for more than 22 years. Since their services have not been regularized, they made representations vide Annexure J series to respondent No.5. Since their representations have not been considered, the petitioners are before this court.

3. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the State submits that the representation of the petitioners vide Annexure-J series will be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law, if reasonable time is granted by this Court.

4. In view of the submission of the Government Pleader and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is suffice for this Court to direct the respondent No.5 to consider the representation of the petitioners as per Annexures-J, J1 to J3 in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petitions are disposed off.” The representation that was directed to be considered reads as follows:- “ಇಂದ, ²PÀëPÀgÀÄ Y(cid:20)ೕ ಎ(cid:28) ಎ ಮುತ(cid:14)ಣq %ಾrರಕ /*ೕ0 ಮಕEಳ ವಸS Qಾ’ೆ, 7ಾರ5ಾಡ, ಇವ(cid:17)@ೆ, ].ಾನ(cid:24) ಅಪರ ಮುಖ(cid:24) (cid:31)ಾಯ(cid:8)ದY(cid:8)ಗಳ_, 34 ಗೃಹ ಇ’ಾ(cid:23)ೆ, ಕ(cid:30)ಾ(cid:8)ಟಕ ಸ(cid:31)ಾ(cid:8)ರ, G7ಾನ%ೌಧ, dೆಂಗಳOರು. ].ಾನ(cid:24)-ೇ, Gಷಯ :

8. ಜನ Y(cid:16)ಕ Jಬsಂ(cid:29)ಯವರ %ೇ5ೆಯನುU (cid:23)ಾಯಂ@ೊFಸುವ PÀÄjvÀÄ. ಉ’ೆ+ೕಖ :1. ಸ(cid:31)ಾ(cid:8)(cid:17) ಆ(cid:5)ೇಶ ಸಂ(cid:23)ೆ(cid:24):ಎ .!/166/".ಓ."

. dೆಂಗಳOರು ¢£ÁAPÀ:25/03/2009.

2. ಸ(cid:31)ಾ(cid:8)(cid:17) ಆ(cid:5)ೇಶ ಸಂ(cid:23)ೆ(cid:24):ಎ .!/166/".ಓ."

. dೆಂಗಳOರು ¢£ÁAPÀ:

24. 08/2009. * * * &ೕಲEಂಡ Gಷಯ (cid:2)ಾಗೂ ಉ’ೆ+ೕಖದನ(cid:127)ಯ (cid:30)ಾವh 8 ಜನ Y(cid:16)ಕರು 1997 (cid:17)ಂದ ಸ(cid:31)ಾ(cid:8)ರ(cid:29)ಂದ ಮಂಜೂ-ಾದ ಹು(cid:5)ೆMಗಳ*+ ಸತತ5ಾ6 22 ವಷ(cid:8)ಗFಂದ /*ೕ0 ಮಕEಳ ವಸS Qಾ’ೆ, 7ಾರ5ಾಡದ*+ %ೇ5ೆ ಸ*+ಸುS(cid:14)(cid:5)ೆMೕ5ೆ. ಎ0.ಎ0.ಎ(cid:27).J.

ಪ(cid:17)ೕ(cid:135)ೆಯ*+ ಸತತ5ಾ6 8 ವಷ(cid:8) 100% ರಷು?. ಫ*<ಾಂಶ (cid:4)ೕ!ದುM, ಹಲ5ಾರು Gಷಯಗಳ*+ 100 (cid:31)ೆE100ಅಂಕ UÀ½¸ÀÄªÀ°è ಯಶJ(cid:127)}ಾ6(cid:5)ೆMೕ5ೆ. ಈ Qಾ’ೆಯ*+ Y(cid:16)ಕ-ಾದ (cid:30)ಾವhಗಳ_ 22 ವಷ(cid:8)ಗFಂದ %ೇ5ೆ ಸ*+ಸುS(cid:14)ದMರೂ, ಸ(cid:31)ಾ(cid:8)ರದ ಸವಲತು(cid:14)ಗFಂದ ವಂIತ-ಾ6(cid:5)ೆMೕ5ೆ. (cid:31)ಾರಣ ನಮr %ೇ5ೆಯನುU (cid:23)ಾಯಂ@ೊFಸುವಂ<ೆ ತಮr*+ GನಂSJ(cid:31)ೊಳ_‘<ೆ(cid:14)ೕ5ೆ. (cid:23)ಾಯಂ@ೊಂZಾಗ 5ೇತನದ*+ ಆಗುವ ಬದ’ಾವ(cid:129)ೆಯ GವರಗಳನುU ಈ (cid:31)ೆಳ@ೆ ನಮೂ(cid:29)ಸ’ಾ6(cid:5)ೆ.” After the writ petition comes a correspondence between the Director General and Inspector General of Police to the Home Department which assumes certain significance. The communication is on 28-01-2020 and reads as follows: “UÉ, ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀÄºÁ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄºÁ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå £ÀA.2, £ÀÈ¥ÀvÀÄAUÀ gÀ¸ÉÛ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ. 35 ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ, «µÀAiÀÄ: ²æÃ J£ï.J.ªÀÄÄvÀÛtÚ ¸ÁägÀPÀ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀÄPÀÌ¼À ªÀ¸Àw ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ ¹§âA¢UÀ¼À ªÀÈAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉÃªÀÄPÁw ¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß gÀa¸ÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ. G¯ÉèÃR:

1. ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀA:JZïr/¦©J¯ï/97 ¢:5-6-1997

2) ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀA: JZïr/166/¦N¦/2009 ¢:23-3-2009

3) ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå: ME/140/¥ÉÆ¹C/2009 (¨Ás-3)¢:30-12- 2019

4) ¥ÀæzÁs£À PÀZÉÃj ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀA: ¹§âA¢/1/07/2009-10 ¢:17-7-2017

5) ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ, zÁsgÀªÁqÀ ¦ÃoÀ, zÁsgÀªÁqÀ gÀªÀgÀ :WP DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀA11125/259/2019 ¢:20-11-2019. ***** 1. F ªÉÄÃ°£À «µÀAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ G¯ÉèÃR (1) gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ, ªÀÄºÀ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ DgÀPÀëPÀ ªÀÄºÁ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÀªÀgÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï PÀ¯Áåt PÁAiÀÄðPÀæªÀÄzÀrAiÄÀ°è zsÁgÀªÁqÀ f¯ÉèAiÀÄ PÀ®WÀlV vÁ®ÆQ£À UÀAfUÀnÖ UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀÄPÀÌ¼À ªÀ¸Àw ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÁægÀA©ü¸À®Ä ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ªÀ¸Àw ±Á¯ÉUÉ PÀlÖqÀ ¤«Äð¸ÀÄªÀªÀgÉUÉ vÁvÁÌ°PÀªÁV ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ºÉqï PÁlé ð¸ïð, zÁsgÀªÁqÀzÀ°è ¤«Äð¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆa¸À¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. F ªÀ¸Àw ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄÄ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ ¤AiÀÄAvÀætzÀ°ègÀÄªÀ MAzÀÄ ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄÄ £ÀqÉ¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. F ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½UÉ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï C¢üPÀëPÀgÀÄ, zÁsgÀªÁqÀ f¯Éè, zÁsgÀªÁqÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ CzsÀåPÀëgÁVgÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ JAzÀÄ w½¹zÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå ME151¥ÉÆ¹C2018¢£ÁAPÀ:08/08/2018 gÀ°è DgÀPÀëPÀ ªÀÄºÁ ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, GvÀÛgÀ ªÀ®AiÀÄ, ¨É¼ÀUÁ« gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß CzÀåsPÀëgÀ£ÁßV £ÉÃ«Ä¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

2. G¯ÉèÃR (2) gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ, ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀÄPÀÌ¼À ªÀ¸Àw ±Á¯ÉUÉ C£ÀÄ§AzsÀzÀ°è ¸ÀÆa¹gÀÄªÀAvÉ ªÀÄAdÆgÁVgÀÄªÀ 27 ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À ¥ÉÊQ22ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À£ÀÄß SÁAiÀÄA DV ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉ¸À®Ä ºÁUÀÆ 5 CgÉPÁ°PÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝ¥Àr¸À®Ä ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¤ÃrzÉ, ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉzÀÄ ªÀÈAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉÃªÀÄPÁw ¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤gÀÆ¦¸À®Ä PÀæªÀÄPÉÊUÉÆ¼ÀîvÀPÀÌzÉÝAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÉ.

3. G¯ÉèÃR (3) gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ, ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ªÀ¸Àw ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ ¨ÉÆÃzÀsPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉÆÃzÀsPÉÃvÀgÀ ¹§âA¢AiÀÄªÀgÀ ¸ÉÃªÁ «ªÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ EªÀgÀ ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉÆ½¸À®Ä vÀªÀÄä RavÀ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß w½¸À®Ä PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVzÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ ªÀ¸Àw ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛªÀ ¨ÉÆÃzÀsPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉÆÃzÀsPÉÃvÀgÀ 36 ¹§âA¢AiÀÄªÀgÀ ¸ÉÃªÁ «ªÀgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤UÀ¢vÀ £ÀªÀÄÆ£ÉAiÀÄ°è vÀAiÀiÁj¹ EzÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ®UÀwÛ¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

4. G¯ÉèÃR (4) gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ²æÃ J£ï.J.ªÀÄÄvÀÛtÚ ¸ÁägÀPÀ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀÄPÀÌ¼À ªÀ¸Àw ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ ¹§âA¢AiÀÄ ªÀÈAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉÃªÀÄPÁw ¤AiÀÄªÄÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ²ÃWÀæªÁV ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¤ÃqÀÄªÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀÄºÁ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÀPÀëPÀ ªÀÄºÁ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÉÆA¢UÉ ¥ÀvÀæ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ PÉÊUÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

5. G¯ÉèÃR (5) gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ, zÁsgÀªÁqÀ ¦ÃoÀ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀgÀªÀgÀÄ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ²æÃ J£ï.J.ªÀÄÄvÀÛtÚ ¸ÁägÀPÀ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀÄPÀÌ¼À ªÀ¸Àw ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ 8 d£À ²PÀëPÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß SÁAiÀÄAUÉÆ½¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ jmï Cfð ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÁ£ÀÆ£ÁvÀäPÀªÁV EªÀgÀ ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß 6 wAUÀ¼À°è SÁAiÀÄAUÉÆ½¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÀæªÀÄPÉÊUÉÆ¼Àî¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F ªÉÄÃ°£À J¯Áè DA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¹ ²æÃ J£ï.J.ªÀÄÄvÀÛtÚ ¸ÁägÀPÀ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀÄPÀÌ¼À ªÀ¸Àw ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ ªÀÈAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉÃªÀÄPÁw ¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß gÀa¹ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CAVÃPÀj¹ ²ÃWÀæªÁV ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ ¨ÉÆÃzÀsPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉÆÃzÀsPÉÃvÀgÀ ¹§âA¢ ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ²PÀët «¨ÁsUÀzÀ°è ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉÆ½¸À®Ä ªÀÄAdÆgÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀÄªÀAvÉ PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVzÉ. vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹, ¸À»/- DgÀPÀëPÀ ªÀÄºÁ¤ÃjÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, GvÀÛgÀ ªÀ®AiÀÄ, ¨É¼ÀUÁ« ºÁUÀÆ CzÀåsPÀëgÀÄ, ²æÃ J£ï.J.ªÀÄÄvÀÛtÚ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀÄPÀÌ¼ À ªÀ¸Àw ±Á¯É, zÁsgÀªÁqÀs” The aforementioned communication is followed by another communication which reads as follows: “gÀªÀjUÉ, ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¥ÀgÀ ªÀÄÄRåPÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÀÄ, M¼ÁqÀ½vÀ E¯ÁSÉ, «zsÁ£À ¸ËzsÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ. 37 ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ, «µÀAiÀÄ: ²æÃ J£ï.J.ªÀÄÄvÀÛtÚ ¸ÁägÀPÀ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀÄPÀÌ¼À ªÀ¸Àw ±Á¯É ¨ÉÆzsÀPÀ ¹§âA¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄß SÁAiÀÄAUÉÆ½¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ PÉÆÃjgÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ. G¯ÉèÃR:

1. ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀA.:ºÉZï.r/140/¥ÉÆ¹C/2009 ¢.30.12.2019 2. F PÀZÉÃj ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀªÀÄ¸ÀASÉå ¢£ÁAPÀ 20.1.2020 3. ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀÄºÁ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, GvÀÛgÀ ªÀ®AiÀÄ, ¨É¼ÀUÁ« gÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ¸ÀA: ªÀ¸Àw ±Á¯É/ªÀÈAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉÃªÀÄPÁw/2019, ¢.28.1.2020. ***** ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ G¯ÉèÃTvÀ -1gÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß zÀAiÀÄªÀiÁr UÀªÀÄ¤¹j. ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ, DyðPÀ E¯ÁSÉ gÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀA:J¥ïs.r/562/JPïì¦-11/2019, ¢£ÁAPÀ:24/12/2019gÀ°è, K¦æ¯ï 1, 2020 jAzÀ ²æÃ J£ï J ªÀÄÄvÀÛtÚ ¸ÁägÀPÀ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀÄPÀÌ¼À ªÀ¸Àw ±Á¯É, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ ªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄZÀÄÑªÀAvÉ ¸ÀA§AzÀs¥ÀlÖ ¤AiÀÄAvÀæuÁ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ ¸ÀÆa¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ, ¹§âA¢UÀ½UÉ F §UÉÎ £ÉÆÃnÃ¸ï ¤ÃqÀÄªÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆa¸À¯ÁVzÉ. EzÀ®èzÉÃ ²PÀët E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄzÉÆA¢UÉ F PÀæªÀÄ ªÀ»¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ ªÀiÁvÀæªÀ®èzÉ C°ègÀÄªÀ E§âgÀÄ «zÁåyðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸À«ÄÃ¥ÀzÀ ¸ÀPÁðj ±Á¯ÉUÉ ¸ÉÃ¥ÀðqÉUÉÆ½¸À®Ä PÀæªÀÄPÉÊUÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆa¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀgÉ, G¯ÉèÃR (1) gÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¢.30.12.2019gÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ²æÃ J£ï.J.ªÀÄÄvÀÛtÚ ¸ÁägÀPÀ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀÄPÀÌ¼À ªÀ¸Àw ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ ¨ÉÆÃzÀsPÀ ¹§âA¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄß SÁAiÀÄAUÉÆ½¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ PÉÆÃj ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ ªÀÄ£À«UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹, ªÀÈAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉÃªÀÄPÁw ¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ¼À ¥ÀjµÀÌgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CAwªÀÄUÉÆ½¸ÀÄªÀ µÀgÀwÛUÉÆ¼À¥ÀlÄÖ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀÄªÀgÀ£ÀÄß SÁAiÀÄAUÉÆ½¸ÀÄªÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ CUÀvÀå ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ¸À°è¸ÄÀªÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆa¸À¯ÁVzÉ. ¢£ÁAPÀ:

14. 01/2020 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀqÉzÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå «zÁs£À ¥ÀjµÀwÛ£À Cfð ¸À«Äw ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄZÀÑ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¥És§æªÀj wAUÀ¼À°è ¥ÀæªÉÃ±À ¥ÀjÃPÉë £ÀqÉ¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ ªÀåPÀÛ¥Àr¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÀiÁ£Àå «zÁs£À ¥ÀjµÀwÛ£À Cfð ¸À«Äw ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ ªÀåPÀÛ¥Àr¹gÀÄªÀ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß DyðPÀ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÀgÀÄªÀAvÉ PÉÆÃj FUÁUÀ¯ÉÃ ¢£ÁAPÀ:20/01/2020gÀAzÀÄ G¯ÉèÃR (2) ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¢. 30.12.2019gÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ¸ÀÆa¹zÀAvÉ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀÄºÁ ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, GvÀÛgÀ ªÀ®AiÀÄ, ¨É¼ÀUÁ« gÀªÀjAzÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ¯ÁVzÀÄÝ, G¯ÉèÃR (3)gÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀÄºÁ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, GvÀÛgÀ ªÀ®AiÀÄ, ¨É¼ÀUÁ« gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀA:ºÉZïr/24/¦©J¯ï/1997, ¢£ÁAPÀ:05/06/1997gÀ°è zÁsgÀªÁqÀzÀ°è ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀÄPÀÌ¼À ªÀ¸Àw ±Á¯É ¥ÁægÀA©ü¸À®Ä ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¤Ãr ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ gÀªÀgÀ CzsÀåPÀëvÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½ EgÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ w½¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀA:ºÉZï.r/166/¦.N.¦/2009, ¢£ÁAPÀ:23.3.2009 gÀ°è ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ 27 ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À ¥ÉÊQ22ºÀÄzÉÝUÀ¼À£ÀÄß SÁAiÀÄA DV ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉ¸À®Ä ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¤ÃrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ, 38 ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀA:ME/151/¥ÉÆ¹C/2018, ¢£ÁAPÀ:08/8/2018 gÀ°è Lf¦, GvÀÛgÀ ªÀ®AiÀÄ ¨É¼ÀUÁ« gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ CzsÀåPÀëgÀ£ÁßV ¥ÀÄ£Àgï £ÉÃ«Ä¹¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ ¹§âA¢UÀ¼À ªÀÈAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉÃªÀÄPÁw ¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß gÀa¸ÀÄªÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ¥ÀæzÁs£À PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ¢.:17.7.2017gÀAzÀÄ ¸À°è¸À¯ÁVzÀÄÝ, ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ 08 ²PÀëPÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ ¦ÃoÀzÀ°è ¸À°è¹zÀ jmï CfðUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄªÀÅ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÁvÀäPÀªÁV EªÀgÀ ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß 6 wAUÀ¼À°è SÁAiÀÄAÀUÉÆ½¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÀæªÀÄPÉÊUÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀAvÉ DzÉÃ²¹gÀÄªÀÅzÁV w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ºÁUÀÆ ²æÃ J£ï.J.ªÀÄÄvÀÛtÚ ¸ÁägÀPÀ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ªÀÄPÀÌ¼À ªÀ¸Àw ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ ªÀÈAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉÃªÀÄPÁw ¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ²PÀët E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ°è ²PÀëPÀjUÉ EgÀÄªÀ ªÀÈAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉÃªÀÄPÁw ¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ¼À C£ÀÄUÀÄtªÁV gÀa¹ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CAVÃPÀj¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æÃWÀæªÁV ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ ¨ÉÆÃzÀsPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉÆÃzÀsPÉÃvÀgÀ ¹§âA¢ ¸ÉÃªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ²PÀët E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉÆ½¸À®Ä ªÀÄAdÆgÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀÄªÀAvÉ PÉÆÃjgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÀiÁ£Àå «zsÁ£À ¥ÀjµÀwÛ£À ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄzÀAvÉ ¥sÉ§æªÀj 2020gÀ wAUÀ¼À°è ¥ÀæªÉÃ±À ¥ÀjÃPÉëUÉ PÀæªÀÄPÉÊUÉÆ¼Àî¯ÁUÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DyðPÀ E¯ÁSÉ gÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀA:J¥sï.r/562/JPïì¦-11/2019, ¢£ÁAPÀ:24/12/2019gÀ ¤zÉÃð±À£À, ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ M¼ÁqÀ½vÀ E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀA. ºÉZï.r 140 ¥ÉÆ¹C2009¢£ÁAPÀ 30.12.2019gÀ ¸ÀÆZÀ£É ºÁUÀÆ ¢.14.1.2020gÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå «zÁs£À ¥ÀjµÀwÛ£À Cfð ¸À«Äw ¸À¨ÉsAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ ²¥sÁgÀ¹ì£À »£Àß¯ÉAiÀÄ°è, E¯ÁSÉ PÉÊUÉÆ¼Àî¨ÉÃPÁzÀ PÀæªÀÄzÀ §UÉÎ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ ¤zÉÃð±À£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß dgÀÆgÁV ¤ÃqÀÄªÀAvÉ PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVzÉ. vÀªÀÄä £ÀA§ÄUÉAiÀÄ, ¸À»/- (¥Àæ«Ãuï ¸ÀÆzï, L¦J¸ï) qÉÊgÉPÀÖgï d£ÀgÀ¯ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï d£ÀgÀ¯ï D¥ïs ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï.” Both these communications in unison recommend that the order of the Court should be considered and services of the petitioners should be regularized. No orders were passed. It is then the petitioners had to knock at the doors of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.101408 of 2022 which again comes to be disposed of by an 39 order of the Court on 19-04-2022. The order passed on 19-04-2022 reads as follows: “

ORDER

The petitioners are seeking for direction to the respondents to consider the representation made by them seeking for regularization of their services from their respective dates of appointment as requested in Annexures-B1 to B5, and Annexures-AF and AG and in accordance with the Government Order dated 24.08.2009.

2. In my view, since the claim for regularization is being made on the basis of the Government Order dated 24.08.2009, it would be appropriate to direct the 1st respondent to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization as represented by them in their representations Annexures-B1 to B5 and Annexures-AF and AG within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ petition is therefore disposed off.” A direction was issued to consider the representation within three months. When the representations were not considered, the petitioners had to register a Contempt of Court case before this Court. It is then comes the impugned endorsement dated 20-09-2022. Noticing the fact that the endorsement is issued, the contempt of court case comes to be closed on 29-09-2022 reserving liberty to challenge the impugned endorsement. It is, 40 therefore, all these petitions have emerged from the respective petitioners.

10. What can be unmistakably gathered from what is narrated hereinabove are a few undisputable facts viz., (cid:1) The teaching and non-teaching posts were sanctioned prior to commencement of the School by the Education Department with the concurrence of the Finance Department. (cid:1) Paper publication was issued calling for applications from eligible persons. Petitioners applied among others. (cid:1) Interviews were held to assess suitability of the petitioners to both teaching and non-teaching posts. (cid:1) All the petitioners were appointed against those very posts that were sanctioned but the appointments were termed to be temporary. (cid:1) All the petitioners have continued/continuing in the services of the School even as on date without any break for close to two decades after their entry. (cid:1) At no point in time this Court has protected their termination by grant of an interim order. Therefore, continuance of the petitioners in service was not litigious. (cid:1) Instances of the petitioners coming before this Court were seeking regularization of their services and not protecting their employment. 41 All the above factors would lead to solitary unmistakable conclusion that the petitioners are entitled to be regularized in the posts appointing them permanently as every other trite for regular appointment was done in the cases at hand. If roster has not been followed or Cadre and Recruitment Rules are not drawn up, the petitioners cannot be found fault with for the same. What is required in law is that appointments should be against sanctioned vacant posts and they should not be litigious. Case of UMADEVI and its aftermath:

11. Now it becomes germane to notice the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of UMADEVI (supra), wherein it is held 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 SCR128: AIR1967SC1071 , R.N. Nanjundappa [(1972) 1 SCC409 (1972) 2 SCR799 and B.N. Nagarajan [(1979) 4 SCC507 1980 SCC (L&S) 4: (1979) 3 SCR937 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 42 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 bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.

54. It is also clarified that those decisions which run counter to the principle settled in this decision, or in which directions running counter to what we have held herein, will stand denuded of their status as precedents.” (Emphasis supplied) It is also necessary to notice the line of law in the aftermath of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of UMADEVI. 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 43 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 STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. M.L.KESARI2 extended the time for regularisation as directed by the Apex Court in the case of UMADEVI (supra). The relevant paragraphs of the judgment read as follows: “….. ….. …… 11. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC1 is twofold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC1 was rendered, are considered for regularisation in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily-wage/ad hoc/casual basis for long periods and then periodically regularise them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10-4-2006 [the date of decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC1 ]. without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularisation. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularisation within six months of the decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC1 or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right 2 (2010) 9 SCC24744 to be considered for regularisation in terms of the above directions in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC1 as a one-time measure.” (Emphasis supplied) Long after the afore-quoted judgment, the Apex Court considered the right of the employees seeking regularisation of their services. The Apex Court in the case of NARENDRA KUMAR TIWARI v. STATE OF JHARKHAND3, holds as follows: “…. …. …. “7. The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC1 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 SCC1 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 the sword of Damocles over their head. This is precisely what Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC1:

2006. SCC (L&S) 753]. and Kesari [State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC247: (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826]. sought to avoid. 3 (2018) 8 SCC23845 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 SCC1:

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 OnLine Jhar 2904]. passed by the High Court is set aside in view of our 46 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) 12. Later, the Apex Court in the case of SHEO NARAIN NAGAR v. STATE OF U.P.4, 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 SCC1:

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 SCC1:

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-wage basis, etc. in exploitative forms. This situation was not envisaged by Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 (2018) 13 SCC43247 4 SCC1 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 SCC1:

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 SCC1 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 SCC305:

1983. SCC (L&S) 145 : AIR1983SC130, 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 SCC1:

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 SCC1:

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 SCC1:

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 48 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 SCC1:

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 SCC1 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 SCC1:

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 49 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) 13. The Apex Court in the case of CHANDER MOHAN NEGI v. STATE OF H.P.5, 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 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 HP5944 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 HP5944 that such petitions cannot be considered as the public interest litigation. Such a writ 5 (2020) 5 SCC73250 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 SC459 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/M Sc or B Ed, etc. 51 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 52 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 53 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 HP5944 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 HP5944 of the High Court.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. Earlier to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court as afore-quoted, the Apex Court in the case of AMARENDRA KUMAR MOHAPATRA v. STATE OF ORISSA6, had held as follows: “…. …. ….

42. The decision in Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC1:

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 6 (2014) 4 SCC58354 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 SCC1 2006 SCC (L&S) 753]..

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 SCC247: (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 SCC1:

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 SCC247: (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 SCC1:

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 55 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 56 the scheme envisaged in Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC1:

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 SCC1:

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) 15. 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.7, 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 7 (2019) 10 SCC51657 Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC1:

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 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) 16. 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 58 obliterated, but could be considered on several parameters laid down in the said judgments. One unmistakable stream that runs through the judgments of the Apex Court, is that regularization of employees engaged to work for the State for long years should be considered on a case to case basis, depending upon the facts obtaining in those cases.

17. 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 two decades and in some cases beyond that. The services of these petitioners have been utilized in their energetic youth, they have travelled this far and are at advanced age, if they are not now considered for regularization, it would be highly unjust on the part of the State.

18. If the afore-narrated facts are considered on the bedrock of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgments what would unmistakably emerge is, entitlement of petitioners for regularization. The petitioners have been made to 59 work for 20 to 27 years as on today against sanctioned vacant posts. Plethora of recommendations have emerged in favour of the petitioners to grant them all necessary pay scales and perquisites as are given to regular employees. With all these facts being glaring, if the petitioners are not considered for regularization, it would clearly amount to exploitation of human labour by the State.

19. This case forms a classic illustration of the entitlement of the petitioners for regularization even in the teeth of judgment in the case of UMADEVI (supra), as pursuant to the judgment in the case of UMADEVI, the State issued a circular on 13-11-2006, which projected four conditions for regularization of employees. The circular reads as follows: “¢£ÁAPÀ:

10. 04.2006gÀ ¸ÀÄ¦æA PÉÆÃnð£À wÃ¦ð£À »£Éß¯ÉAiÀÄ°è F PÉ¼ÀPÀAqÀ C¦Ã®Ä µÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀÆgÉÊ¹zÀ ¢£ÀUÀÆ° £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉÆ½¸À®Ä ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¸À§ºÀÄzÄÀ.

1) CAvÀºÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÆ®vÀB ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ SÁ° ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è £ÉÃªÀÄPÀ ªÀiÁrgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ.

2) »ÃUÉ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÃªÀÄPÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÁUÀ CªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀA§A¢üvÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹gÀÄªÀ «zÁåºÀðvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ.

3) »ÃUÉ £ÉÃªÀÄPÀUÉÆAqÀAvÀºÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ 10 ªÀµÀðUÀ½UÀÆ ºÉaÑ£À CªÀ¢üUÉ ¸ÀvÀvÀªÁV CzÉÃ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è PÁAiÀÄð ¤ªÀð»¹gÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. 60

4) £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄUÀ¼À CxÀªÁ £ÁåAiÀÄªÀÄAqÀ½UÀ¼À DzÉÃ±ÀPÉÆÌÃ¼À¥ÀlÄÖ 10 ªÀµÀðUÀ½UÀÆ ºÉaÑ£À CªÀ¢üUÉ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀj¹gÀ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ”. (Emphasis supplied) All the four conditions afore-quoted are fulfilled by the petitioners, as those four conditions were the ones found in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of UMADEVI (supra). Therefore, the State, in the peculiar facts of these cases, by holding on to technicalities that roster system was not followed and Cadre and Recruitment Rules were not in existence 27 years ago, cannot now project it, to be an impediment, to regularize the services of the petitioners after having taken their labour for this long time. A few of the petitioners have crossed the age of 50 years; a few of them are in the verge of attaining the age of superannuation and few of them are over aged for any other employment anywhere and have their families and children depending upon the salary or the pension, as the case would be, that the petitioners would get. At this point in time of their lives, if they are shown the doors without any benefits, it would be too harsh on the part of the State to leave these petitioners in the lurch. Therefore, the petitioners become 61 entitle to a mandamus as sought, for consideration of their cases for regularisation of their services.

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

ORDER

(i) Writ Petitions are allowed. (ii) Endorsement dated 20-09-2022 issued by the 1st respondent stands quashed. (iii) The petitioners are held entitled for consideration of their cases for regularisation of their services in the third respondent. (iv) A mandamus thus issues to consider the services of the petitioners with all consequential benefits within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed as a consequence. Sd/- JUDGE Bkp CT:ss

Court	Karnataka Dharwad High Court
Decided On	Mar-11-2024
Case Number	WP 101429/2023
Judge	M.NAGAPRASANNA
Appellant	Smt. Sunandarabai D/o Ogappa Biradar
Respondent	The State Of Karnataka Represented By The Additional Chief Secretary

Smt. Sunandarabai D/o Ogappa Biradar Vs. The State Of Karnataka Represented By The Additional Chief Secretary - Court Judgment