Sri Hanumantharayappa V Vs the Principal Secretary - Citation 1233874 - Court Judgment

Judgment:

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE28H DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.9310 OF2016(S-REG) C/W WRIT PETITION No.36565 OF2013(S-REG) WRIT PETITION No.22964 OF2015(S-REG) WRIT PETITION No.16373 OF2016(S-REG) WRIT PETITION No.62411 OF2016(S-REG) WRIT PETITION No.12439 OF2021(S-REG) IN WRIT PETITION No.9310 OF2016BETWEEN:

1. SRI HANUMANTHARAYAPPA V., S/O A.VEERAIAH AGED ABOUT37YEARS R/A NO.95, MARIYAPPANAPALYA JNANABHARATHI POST BENGALURU – 56.

2. K.S.RUDRAMURTHY S/O K.SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT42YEARS KADABAGERE VILLAGE AND POST BENGALURU NORTH TALUK DASANAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU – 30.

3. S.D.SUNDRESH S/O DODDAIAH AGED ABOUT39YEARS2R/A NO.71/3, OPP: RAJADHANI PUBLIC SCHOOL MARIYAPPANAPALYA BENGALURU – 56.

4. H.V.ARUNACHALAPATHY S/O VENKATACHALAPATHY AGED ABOUT38YEARS R/A: SY NO.207/1A, NO.40 BANDEMATA EXTENSION2D CROSS, KOMMAGHATTA MAIN ROAD KENGERI SATLITE TOWN BENGALURU – 60.

5. CHAKKANNA S/O MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT40YEARS NO.1133, 7TH BLOCK VISHSWERAIAH LAYOUT MUDDINAPALYA SUNKADAKATTE BENGALURU – 91.

6. NAGARAJU S.P., S/O LATE PAPANNA AGED ABOUT37YEARS R/A NO.1002, 2ND CROSS JNANABHARATHI, II BLOCK BENGALURU – 56.

7. H.B.RAMASWAMY S/O BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT49YEARS B-6 QUARTERS HEALTH CENTRA BLOCK BENGALURU UNIVERSITY JNANABHARATHI BENGALURU-56. 3

8. M.N.NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT40YEARS 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 ABOUT39YEARS NO.138, 12TH CROSS ULLAL MAIN ROAD JNANAGANGA NAGARA JNANABHARATHI POST BENGALURU-56.

12. GANGABORAIAH S/O NINGAIAH AGED ABOUT33YEARS SUPPLIER, P. G. STUDENTS HOSTEL2BENGALURU UNIVERSITY JNANABHARATHI, BENGALURU R/A35SONNENAHALLI MARUTHINAGAR JNANABHARATHI POST BENGALURU-56. 4

13. RAJANI S., D/O LATE SIDDARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT37YEARS NO.13, 1ST MAIN ROAD PALACE GUTTAHALLI BENGALURU-03.

14. KRISHNAMURTHY J.H., S/O LATE SANJEEV SHETTY AGED ABOUT47YEARS NO.48, 2ND CROSS ANUBHAVNAGAR MUDDANAPALYA BENGALURU-72.

15. KADRAIAH S/O NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT43YEARS R/A25 1ST CROSS W C ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-10.

16. MUNIRATHNA S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT37YEARS NO.38, 6TH MAIN JNANABHARATHI BENGALURU-56.

17. RAMESHA B.G., S/O LATE B. M. GURUSWAMY AGED ABOUT36YEARS NO.290, MATHRUSHREE NILAYA4H CROSS, SRI RAMA LAYOUT MANGANAHALLI BENGALURU-60.

18. CHANNAKESHAVAIAH S/O C. MARAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT38YEARS5ANDANAPPA LAYOUT KUVEMPU NAGAR, THAVAREKERE BENGALURU-562 130.

19. RAVIKUMAR K.S., S/O LATE K.S.SHAMANNA AGED ABOUT42YEARS NO.141, KODIGEHALLI SAHAKARANAGAR POST BENGALURU-92.

20. ARUNKUMAR V., S/O VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT38YEARS 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)) AND1 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)) 6 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO ISSUE FORMAL

ORDER

OF REGULARIZATION PURSUANT TO ANNX-D & F, THE

ORDER

S OF STATE GOVERNMENT DT.25.11.2015 & 01.01.2016 AND ETC., IN WRIT PETITION No.36565 OF2013BETWEEN1 SMT. ANURADHA R., W/O NAGARAJU U., AGED ABOUT36YEARS 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 ABOUT41YEARS HOSTEL MANAGER, LADIES HOSTEL GNANA BHARATHI CAMPUS, BANGALORE UNIVERSITY BENGALURU560056. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI V. LAKSHMINARAYAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING) AND1 STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO EDUCATION DEPARTMENT M. S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU560001. 7

2. BANGALORE UNIVERSITY GNANA BHARATHI BENGALURU560056 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI D. ASHWATHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (VIDEO CONFERENCING) R1 IS DELETED VIDE COURT

ORDER

DATED0303.2014) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES226AND227OF 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 OF2015BETWEEN KOMALA M., W/O LATE MANJUNATH SWAMY C., AGED ABOUT40YEARS 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)) AND1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY8THE CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU560001.

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 ARTICLE226OF 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. 9 IN WRIT PETITION No.16373 OF2016BETWEEN1 SRI ANJALAPPA N., S/O NARAYANAPPA46YEARS, 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. 10

6. SMT. M. LAKSHMAMMA W/O MUNISONNAPPA45YEARS, 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) AND1 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, M S BUILDINGS, BENGALURU – 560 001.

2. THE BANGALORE UNIVERSITY JNANABHARATHI BENGALURU – 560 056 REPRESENTED11BY 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 ARTICLES226AND227OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-2 TO ISSUE FORMAL

ORDER

OF REGULARISATION PURSUANT TO ANNEX-D & F THE

ORDER

S OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT DATED2511.2015 AND0101.2016 AND ETC., IN WRIT PETITION No.62411 OF2016BETWEEN1 SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR B.M., S/O LATE MAHADEV, AGED ABOUT41YEARS, 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 ABOUT43YEARS, WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, EXAMINATION BRANCH, JNANA BHARATI CAMPUS, BENGALURU UNIVERSITY, BENGALURU-560 056. RESIDING AT NO.226, 1ST MAIN, 12 2ND CROSS, S.G. NAGAR, MALLATHAHALLI POST, BENGALURU.

3. SRI. PRASHANTH S/O. B.RAMANNA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT46YEARS, WORKING AS LABORATORY TECHNICIAN, HEALTH CENTRE, JNANA BHARATI CAMPUS, BANGALORE UNIVERSITY, BENGALURU-560 056. RESIDING AT3D CROSS ROAD, JANATA EXTENSION, JNANA BHARATHI POST, BENGALURU.

4. SRI. CHANNAKESHAVA S/O. SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT43YEARS, 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 ABOUT38YEARS, 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, 13 LBS NAGAR, INDIRANAGAR II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 038.

6. SRI. INDERESH KUMAR M. P., S/O. PARAMASHIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT37YEARS, 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 ABOUT40YEARS, 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 ABOUT42YEARS, 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. 14

9. SRI.J.

THAMMAIAH S/O. JAVARAPPA, AGED ABOUT43YEARS, 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 ABOUT46YEARS, WORKING AS ATTENDER, GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, JNANA BHARATI CAMPUS, BANGALORE UNIVERSITY, BENGALURU-560 056, RESIDING AT82, BEHIND BHOOTAPA TEMPLE, NAGADEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU.

11. SRI. GIRISH S/O. GIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT37YEARS, 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, 15 AGED ABOUT50YEARS, 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 ABOUT42YEARS, 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 ABOUT38YEARS, 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)) 16 AND1 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 ARTICLE226OF 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., 17 IN WRIT PETITION No.12439 OF2021BETWEEN:

1. SRI RANGASWAMY S/O. LATE GUDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT50YEARS, WORKING AS COOK PG-3 HOSTEL BANGALORE UNIVERSITY JNANABHARATHI CAMPUS BENGALURU-560 056.

2. SRI BASAVAIAH S/O LATE MALLAIAH AGED ABOUT56YEARS, WORKING AS COOK PG-3 HOSTEL BANGALORE UNIVERSITY JNANABHARATHI CAMPUS BENGALURU-560 056.

3. SMT. M. JAYAMMA W/O JAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT46YEARS 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 ABOUT55YEARS WORKING AS LAB ATTENDER DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY BANGALORE UNIVERSITY JNANABHARATHI CAMPUS BENGALURU-560 056. 18

5. SMT. R. NETHRAVATHI W/O H.K.GANGADHARAIAH AGED ABOUT51YEARS 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 ARTICLE226OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM19THE RESPONDENTS; QUASH THE IMPUGNED

ORDER

DATED0102.2016 PASSED BY THE R1 VIDE ANNEXURE-V INSOFAR AS THESE PETITIONERS IS CONCERNED AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE R2 AND3TO 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

ORDER

S, 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:

20. 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. 21 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. 22 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. 23 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 1 (2006) 4 SCC124 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 25 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 26 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 27 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 28 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 29 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 30 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. 31

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 32 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 33 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 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 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, 34 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 35 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 DzÁsjvÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉÆ½¸ÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ. G¯ÉèÃR:

1. vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæ PÀæªÀiÁAPÀ: Er 54 AiÀÄÄJE2006¢£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«zÁs£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 ««zÀs ºÀAvÀzÀ°è 1994 gÀ°è ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉÆ½¸À¯ÁVzÉ. 36 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¢ «¨ÁsUÀ-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, 37 F «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§AzÀ¥ÀlÖ ¥ÀgÁªÀµÀðPÀ n¥ÀàtÂ ºÁUÀÆ ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ – ¥ÀæwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀjUÀuÉ£ÉUÉ ®UÀwÛ¸À¯ÁVzÉ C£ÀÄ§AzÀs-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 38 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 CzÀsåPÀëvÉAiÀÄ°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 ¥ÉÊQ85d£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§AzÀs 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 39 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«zÁs£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. as regards various other posts sanctioned “2. 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 40 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¥ÁsgÀ¸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 41 112 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 PÁgÀtªÁV10ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À ¤gÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÉÃªÉ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ vÁvÁÌ°PÀªÁV UÀÄwÛUÉ DzsÁgÀzÀªÉÄÃ¯É PÁAiÀiÁð ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ 87 d£ÀgÀ ¥ÉÊQ85d£ÀgÀ ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉÆ½¸ÀÄªÀ ¤nÖ£À°è ªÉÃvÀ£À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ ¨ÀsvÉåUÀ¼À ªÉZÀÑªÀ£ÀÄß ¨sÀj¸À®Ä Block grants «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄzÀ MmÁÖgÉ C£ÀÄzÁ£ÀzÀs ( ) ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ ¨Àsj¸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-D42employees 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 ««zÀs PÀbÉÃj / «¨ÁsUÀUÀ¼À°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 DzÁsgÀzÀ°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. 43 ¸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.” 44 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 45 ¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C£Àé¬Ä¸À¯ÁVzÉAiÉÄÃ?. ¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÄÀß ¥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 CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÀ 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 ¨ÉÆÃzÀsPÉÃvÀgÀ £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 F99d£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 46 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 47 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:

48. “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 49 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 SCC1 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. 50 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 – WP542842013 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 51 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 52 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” 53 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¸ÀÄE24¸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 54 £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 ¥És§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 55 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. 56 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. F83– 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. F83d£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, F10d£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 «¨ÁsUÀzÀ°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. 57 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. 58 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 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 2 (2018) 8 SCC23859 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.

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. 60

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 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- 3 (2018) 13 SCC43261 wage basis, etc. in exploitative forms. This situation was not envisaged by Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 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 62 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 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 63 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 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 4 (2020)5 SCC73264 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 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 65 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 66 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 67 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 68 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) 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 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 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].. 5 (2014) 4 SCC58369 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 employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. 70 (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 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 71 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 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 6 (2019) 10 SCC51672 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. 73

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 74 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. 7 (2015) 17 SCC50475 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) 8 (2016) 15 SCC74776 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 SCC1:

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 SCC1:

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 SCC1:

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 SCC1:

2006. SCC (L&S) 753]. and M.L. Kesari [State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC247: (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 SCC238: (2018) 2 SCC (L&S) 472]. . Madan Lokur, J., construed the decision in Umadevi (3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC1:

2006. SCC (L&S) 753]. in the following terms: [Umadevi (3) case [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), 9 (2019) 4 SCC29077 (2006) 4 SCC1:

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 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 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 SCC1:

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 SCC1:

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 SCC1:

2006. SCC (L&S) 753]. , M.L. Kesari [State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, (2010) 9 SCC247: (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 826]. and Narendra Kumar Tiwari [Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand, (2018) 8 SCC238: (2018) 2 SCC (L&S) 472]. . 78

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) 79 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 SCC429 SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPTT., CHENNAI v. R. GOVINDASWAMY - (2014) 4 SCC769 UNION OF INDIA v. ALL80INDIA TRADE UNION CONGRESS - (2019) 5 SCC773 SATYA PRAKASH V. STATE OF BIHAR - (2010) 4 SCC179and 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:

10. Civil Appeal Nos.5689-5690/2021 disposed on 07.10.2021 81 “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. 82 (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 83 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 84 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, 85 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, 2012 (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 11 Civil Appeal No.5292 of 2019 disposed of on 09-07-2019 86 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 SCC1and 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. 87 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 88 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 89 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 90 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

Court	Karnataka High Court
Decided On	Feb-28-2022
Case Number	WP 9310/2016
Judge	M.NAGAPRASANNA
Appellant	Sri.hanumantharayappa V
Respondent	The Principal Secretary

Sri.hanumantharayappa V Vs. The Principal Secretary - Court Judgment