- 1 - WP No. 22588 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 22588 OF 2023 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: P VENKATAPPA S/O PUTTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, WORKING AS FOREST WATCHER, AT MAKALI FOREST, DODDABALLAPURA RANGE, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561 204. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH P.H, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOREST DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSRVATOR OF FORESTS ARANYA BHAVAN, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE -560 003. 3. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (TERRITORIAL), BENGALURU CIRCLE, VANA VIKASA, 18TH CROSS, Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - WP No. 22588 of 2023 MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE -560 003. 4. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE -560 003. 5. THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA-561 203 6. THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER DODDABALLAPURA RANGE DODDABALLAPURA, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561 203. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISHA A.S, AGA FOR R1 - R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE SIMILAR NATURE QUASHING ORDER DATED 06.07.2016 BEARING No. Va.Aa.Aa./Dho.Va/PCP.CR-92/2016-17 PASSED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A15 HOLDING THE SAME IS ILLEGAL AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 29.06.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, RAJESH RAI K, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 3 - WP No. 22588 of 2023 CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-applicant assailing the order dated 18.11.2020 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Application No.9200/2016, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the endorsement dated 06.07.2016 and a consequential direction to the respondent authorities to regularize his services as a Forest Watcher from 01.04.1984 with all attendant service and monetary benefits. 2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present writ petition are that the petitioner asserts that he was initially engaged as a Forest Watcher in the Forest Department on 01.04.1984 on a daily-wage basis and continued to render service in various capacities under the Department for a considerable period. It is his specific case that, notwithstanding the long and continuous service rendered by him, the respondent-authorities failed to regularize his services. The petitioner is stated to have submitted several representations seeking regularization of his services and grant of the pay scale attached to the post of Forest Watcher. Since no favourable - 4 - WP No. 22588 of 2023 action was taken on the said representations, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing Application No.1964/2013. The Tribunal, by its order dated 21.01.2016, directed the respondent-authorities to consider the petitioner’s claim for regularization in accordance with law, having regard to the relevant Government Orders and the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the respondent- authorities considered the claim of the petitioner and, by endorsement dated 06.07.2016, rejected his request for regularization on the ground that he did not fulfil the eligibility criteria prescribed under the relevant Government Orders and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Aggrieved by the said endorsement, the petitioner filed Application No.9200/2016 before the Tribunal seeking quashing of the endorsement and issuance of a consequential direction to the respondent-authorities to regularize his services with retrospective effect. 4. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the pleadings, material placed on record and the rival submissions advanced by the parties, dismissed the application by its order dated - 5 - WP No. 22588 of 2023 18.11.2020, holding that the petitioner had failed to establish any legally enforceable right to seek regularization of his services. The correctness of the said order is lis in the present writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel Sri. Virupakshaiah P.H, for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri. Harisha. A.S. for the respondent No.1 to 6. We have also perused the records and the material placed before us. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the endorsement issued by respondent No.1 as well as the order passed by the Tribunal are wholly unsustainable in law. It was submitted that the petitioner had discharged duties as a Forest Watcher for more than three decades with uninterrupted service and, therefore, his claim for regularization could not have been rejected. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was appointed against a sanctioned post of Forest Watcher in terms of the Cadre and Recruitment Rules governing the Mysore Forest Department. In such circumstances, having regard to the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SECRETARY GOVT. OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS VS. UMADEVI AND OTHERS - 6 - WP No. 22588 of 2023 reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 and STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. M.L KESARI reported in 2010 (8) SCC 247, the respondent- authorities were under an obligation to consider and regularize the services of the petitioner. 7. It was further contended that several similarly situated persons, who had worked in the very same cadre of Forest Watchers, had been extended the benefit of regularization and granted the pay scale attached to the said post. Denial of similar treatment to the petitioner, according to the learned counsel, amounts to hostile discrimination and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was argued that these material aspects have neither been properly appreciated nor adequately considered by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order. On these grounds, learned counsel prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the reliefs sought for by the petitioner be granted. 8. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate supported the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and contended that the petitioner was engaged only as a daily- wage worker and not against any sanctioned post. It was submitted that the documents relied upon by the petitioner - 7 - WP No. 22588 of 2023 themselves disclose that he was not working in the Forest Department on a regular basis. According to the respondents, the petitioner was engaged on a daily-wage basis for carrying out watch and ward duties in respect of departmental plantations and was paid wages at the rates approved by the Government for the actual number of days he worked. 9. Learned Additional Government Advocate further submitted that the petitioner had not rendered continuous service and was engaged only as and when labour was required by the Department. It was also contended that under the Cadre and Recruitment Rules, 1957, there was no sanctioned cadre post designated as “Forest Watcher”. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to have been appointed against a sanctioned post in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules. In such circumstances, the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umadevi and M.L.Kesari (supra) would have no application to the facts of the present case. On these grounds, learned Additional Government Advocate sought dismissal of the writ petition and affirmation of the order passed by the Tribunal. - 8 - WP No. 22588 of 2023 10. In the light of the rival submissions and upon perusal of the records secured from the Tribunal, the point that would arise for our consideration is: Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing Application No.9200/2016 filed by the petitioner? 11. As could be discerned from the Mysuru Forest Department Cadre and Recruitment Rules, 1957, no category of post designated as “Forest Watcher” finds place in the sanctioned cadre. Though the Rules contemplate posts such as Forest Guards and Game Watchers in the industrial establishment, i.e., Wood Preservation Plant, Bhadravathi, there is no specific sanctioned post of Forest Watcher. Be that as it may, the certificate produced by the petitioner at Annexure–A2, dated 01.06.1987, discloses that he had worked as a “Water Mali” in the Polonjogi Halli Forest Nursery on a daily-wage basis during the period from 1984 to 1987. Further, the certificate produced at Annexure–A3 indicates that the petitioner had rendered service on a daily-wage basis during the periods 1992 to 1994 and thereafter from 1998 to 2004. - 9 - WP No. 22588 of 2023 12. The aforesaid documents, therefore, clearly demonstrate that the petitioner had neither been appointed against a sanctioned post of Forest Watcher nor had he rendered continuous service for a period of ten years in such a post so as to satisfy the requirements laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi and M.L.Kesari (supra). These aspects of the matter have been elaborately considered and duly appreciated by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order. 13. We, therefore, find no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, we answer the point raised above in the affirmative. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS/V