- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21811 WP No. 15456 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 15456 OF 2024 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI MANJUNATH C S S/O SRINIVAS GOWDA T AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O AT 1ST MAIN ROAD NEAT SHANI MAHATHMA TEMPLE GULPETE KOLAR 563101. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SHEELA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SRI. SHIRISH KRISHNA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE 560001. 2. THE DIRECTOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION VISHVESHWARIAH TOWER BANGLAORE 560001. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT KUMBARAHALLI VILLAGE Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21811 WP No. 15456 of 2024 TAMAKA POST , KOLAR TALUK KOLAR-563103 4. PROJECT DIRECTOR DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION GULPETE KOLAR 563 101. 5. THE CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION KOLAR REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER THE CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, KOLAR TOWN KOLAR-563101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4: R5 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, THEREBY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. GNKO/ SIBANDHI/ CR/181/2023-24, DATED MAY 06, 2024(ANNEXURE A) ISSUED BY THE R3-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT 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 H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21811 WP No. 15456 of 2024 ORAL ORDER 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the endorsement dated 06.05.2024 passed by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-A, whereby the request of the petitioner for regularization of his service has been rejected. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Driver on daily wages in the respondent No.5, Corporation, in the year 1996. He was working against the sanctioned post. Even after working continuously for 10 years, his service has not been regularized. Therefore, he had given a representation to the competent authority. Since the said representation had not been considered by the competent authority, he filed W.P.No.22489/2021. This Court by order dated 17.03.2023 disposed of the writ petition and directed the respondent Nos.3 to 5 therein to consider the representation of the petitioner taking into account the letter issued by the Directorate of Municipal - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21811 WP No. 15456 of 2024 Administration dated 15.06.2021 and to take a decision in the matter in accordance with law within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of representations that may be made by the petitioners. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 has issued the impugned endorsement dated 06.05.2024 vide Annexure-A. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that even though the petitioner is entitled for regularization of his service to the post of Driver in the respondent No.5, Corporation and even though the Directorate of Municipal Administration by letter dated 15.06.2021 has recommended for considering the case of the petitioner for regularization, the impugned endorsement has been issued by the respondent No.3 rejecting the request of the petitioner. The only reason given by the respondent No.3 for rejecting the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has not completed 10 years of service on or before 10.04.2006. The same is contrary - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21811 WP No. 15456 of 2024 to the law laid by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition. 4. The learned AGA appearing for the respondents- State has submitted that the case of the petitioner for regularization will be considered in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Umadevi (3). If the petitioner satisfies the condition as mentioned in paragraph-53 of the Umadevi’s (3) case, the respondent shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the writ papers. 6. The petitioner was appointed as a Driver in respondent No.5, Corporation in the year 1996 on daily wages. Even though the petitioner has completed his 10 years of service as daily wage employee, his service has not been regularized. Hence, he made a representation to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21811 WP No. 15456 of 2024 the competent authority for regularizing his service. Since the representation has not been considered, the petitioner filed W.P.No.22489/2021. This Court by order dated 17.03.2023 disposed of the writ petition and directed the competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 has issued the impugned endorsement dated 06.05.2024 vide Annexure-A rejecting the request of the petitioner for regularization on the ground that the petitioner has not completed 10 years of service on the before 10.04.2006. 7. The reason given by the respondent No.3 is that if the employees complete 10 years of service after the judgment of Umadevi (3), i.e., 10.04.2006, they are not entitled for regularization. The said reasoning of the respondent No.3 is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari and others vs. State of Jharkhand and others reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238. In fact, the Apex Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari, has considered the law laid down - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21811 WP No. 15456 of 2024 by the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Umadevi (3) and held that Regularization Rules to employees, who had not completed 10 years of service on cut-off date of 10.04.2006 on the ground that the same was not permitted by Umadevi (3), is not correct. The relevant paragraphs of the decision rendered in Narendra Kumar Tiwari’s case is extracted hereinbelow: “6. The concept of a one-time measure was further explained in Kesari in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the Report which read as follows: “9. The term “one-time measure” has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi (3), each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularise their services. 10. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi (3), cases of several daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees were still pending before courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21811 WP No. 15456 of 2024 did not commence the one-time regularisation process. On the other hand, some government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of the decision in Umadevi (3), will not lose their right to be considered for regularisation, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six- month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi (3) has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily- wage/ad hoc/casual employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10- 4-2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi (3), but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi (3), the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one-time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of Umadevi (3), are so considered. 11. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi (3) is twofold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21811 WP No. 15456 of 2024 courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi (3) was rendered, are considered for regularisation in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily-wage/ad hoc/casual basis for long periods and then periodically regularise them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10-4- 2006 [the date of decision in Umadevi (3)] without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularisation. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularisation within six months of the decision in Umadevi (3) or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularisation in terms of the above directions in Umadevi (3) as a one- time measure.” 7. The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi (3) was therefore two-fold, 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) is a - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21811 WP No. 15456 of 2024 clear indication that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appointments, and whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed. This is nothing but a form of exploitation of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularisation and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head. This is precisely what Umadevi (3) and Kesari sought to avoid. 8. If a strict and literal interpretation, forgetting the spirit of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3), 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 15th November, 2000 and the cut-off date was fixed as 10 th April, 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 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21811 WP No. 15456 of 2024 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.” 8. Therefore, the reason given by the respondent No.3 in the impugned endorsement that since the petitioner has not completed 10 years of service on or before 10.04.2006 and on that ground alone the request of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected, is unsustainable. 9. Under the circumstances and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned endorsement is liable to be set aside. Hence, the following order is passed: ORDER a) The writ petition is allowed. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21811 WP No. 15456 of 2024 b) The impugned endorsement dated 06.05.2024 issued by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-A, is hereby set aside. c) The competent authority is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for regularization, in terms of paragraph-53 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Umadevi (3) and also keeping in view the letter dated 15.06.2021 issued by the Directorate of Municipal Administration, within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE DM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 59