- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13176 WP No. 11251 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 11251 OF 2023 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. M. FAYAZ AHMED AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O S. MOHD. BASHEER R/AT NO.21/185, TIPPU MOHALLA MUSLIM BLOCK K.R. NAGAR TOWN MYSORE DISTRICT-571602. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.S.NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.B.MUKKANNAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE PROJECT MANAGER KARNATAKA STATE AIDS PREVENTION SOCIETY, NO.4/13/1, CRESCENT ROAD, HIGH GROUNDS BANGALORE-560001. 3. THE DISTRICT SURGEON GENERAL HOSPITAL RAMANAGARA-562159. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K.KENCHE GOWDA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 3; SRI. S.V. GIRI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13176 WP No. 11251 of 2023 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM BEARING NO.KSAPS/ADMN/23/2022-23 DATED 31.03.2023 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-E UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an Official memorandum bearing No.PÀgÁK¦æ¸ÉÆ/DqÀ½vÀ/23/2022-23 dated 31.03.2023 passed by respondent No.2 as well as the Official Memorandum bearing No. fDgÁ/J.Dgï.n./¹§âA¢/01/2022-23 dated 31.03.2023 passed by respondent No.3, by which his resignation was accepted. The petitioner has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to renew his contract for a further period from 01.04.2023 to 31.03.2024 by considering his representation on par with other contract employees. 2. (i) The petitioner contends that he was selected as a Counsellor on contract basis by respondent No.2 on 22.03.2007 for a period of one year or until further orders, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13176 WP No. 11251 of 2023 whichever was earlier. He contends that though the contract was for a period of one year, it was renewed from time to time and was in force from 02.04.2022 to 31.03.2023. He contends that the renewal of the contract is based on performance appraisal by the Nodal Officer and the District Programme Officer of the District Hospital, Ramanagara. The petitioner claimed that his performance was assessed for the year 2022- 23 and the officers mentioned above had appraised his performance and awarded Grade - A and recommended for continuation of his contract. The Nodal Officer after verification of the performance of the petitioner had awarded 98 marks and recommended for renewal of the contract period. It is contended that some officers of respondent No.2 had forced the Nodal Officer and the Programme Officer of the District Hospital, Ramanagara, to award lesser marks to the petitioner. The petitioner brought this to the notice of the respondent No.1 about not following the order passed by the National AIDS Control Organization (NACO) regarding transfer of the contract employees. The petitioner alleged that officers of respondent No.2 had allegedly made false allegations against the petitioner and thereby humiliated him. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13176 WP No. 11251 of 2023 (ii) The petitioner contends that out of frustration, he submitted a representation dated 27.03.2023 to the respondent No.2 not to renew his contract for the term 2023-24. He however, contends that he did not submit the representation voluntarily but it was due to the harassment meted out to him by the officers of respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 vide an Official Memorandum dated 31.03.2023 put an end to the contract of the petitioner with effect from 31.03.2023. Based on the above, respondent No.3 issued an Official Memorandum dated 31.03.2023 relieving the petitioner from service. The petitioner made another request on 05.04.2023 to respondent No.2 to renew the contract and to continue his service. The petitioner contends that despite his representation, the respondent No.2 did not take any steps to continue the contractual period. The respondent No.3 thereafter forwarded the representation of the petitioner to the respondent No.2 for consideration and also recommended to renew contract of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that instances of employees who were absent and who had submitted resignation, yet were continued are galore in respondent No.2. The petitioner therefore, prays that the impugned Official Memorandums - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13176 WP No. 11251 of 2023 issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3 be quashed and a direction be issued to the respondent No.2 to consider his representation for renewal of the contract for the period 01.04.2023 to 31.03.2024. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was out of frustration that the petitioner had submitted a representation to discontinue his services. He submits that on realization of the mistake, he had submitted a representation to renew the contract. He therefore, prays that an opportunity be granted to the petitioner by continuing his services at the District Hospital, Ramanagar. 4. The petition is opposed by the respondent No.2 who has contended inter alia that the petitioner had submitted representation on his own and requested the respondent No.2 not to continue contract for the period beyond 31.03.2023. Therefore, the respondent No.2 had discontinued the services of the petitioner by passing the impugned Official Memorandum following which, respondent No.3 had also passed an order relieving the services of the petitioner. It is also contended that reconsideration of the case of the petitioner does not arise as - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13176 WP No. 11251 of 2023 the respondent No.2 is governed by the NACO guidelines and since it is a project driven by the Central and State Government, the respondent No.2 cannot allow persons to leave abruptly and then again rejoin. Along with the statement of objections, an endorsement dated 07.06.2023 is filed which discloses that the representation of the petitioner dated 27.03.2023 and 05.04.2023 were considered and rejected. It is therefore, contended that no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 reiterated the above contentions and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. The learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 submitted that the dispute is between petitioner and respondent No.2 and no steps is sought against respondent No.1. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and the learned Additional Government Advocate. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13176 WP No. 11251 of 2023 8. The averments of the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner had submitted a representation before respondent No.2 to discontinue his services from 31.03.2023. Following this, respondent No.2 had issued the impugned Official Memorandum discontinuing the petitioner from service. The respondent No.3 followed it up by issuing Official Memorandum and communicated the same to the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged these Official Memorandums on the ground that the representation given by him to discontinue services was not done voluntarily but was done due to the harassment meted out to him by the authorities. This cannot be a ground for the petitioner to challenge the impugned Official Memorandums issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3. Since the representation of the petitioner is already considered and rejected, no indulgence can be shown to the petitioner in this writ petition. 9. Hence, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. 10. It is however, open for the petitioner to re-apply for the post, in the event, respondent Nos.2 and 3 invite - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13176 WP No. 11251 of 2023 applications for the post of Counsellor. If the petitioner re- applies, respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall consider the case of the petitioner in light of his previous experience. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33