- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19979 WP No. 15433 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 15433 OF 2022 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MUNIYAPPAN S/O S VENKATAPPA AGE 47 YEARS POURAKARMIKA R/O KILAR PETE NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE HOSAKOTE 562114. 2. M MUNINARYANA SWAMY S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGE 56 YEARS POURAKARMIKA R/O GOWTHAM COLONY 2ND CROSS,HOSAKOTE 562114. 3. H ANJINAPPA S/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGE 56 YEARS POURAKARMIKA R/O KUVEMPU NAGARA M V BADAVANE HOSAKOTE 562114. 4. AMEERJAN S/O PAREJAN AGE 56 YEARS POURAKARMIKA R/O AMBEDKAR COLONY HOSAKOTE 562114. Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19979 WP No. 15433 of 2022 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. R SHASHIDHARA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKASA SOUDHA DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI HOSAKOTE 560001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, V V TOWERS AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE 01. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BHEERASANDRA VILLAGE DEVANAHALLI TALUK 562101. 4. THE CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL HOSAKOTE 562114. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.BOJEGOUDA T KOLLER, AGA FOR R1 TO R3: SMT. VIJAYASHREE M, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KEMPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ORDER OR DIRECT IN THE NATURE OF WRIT, QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-3 IN ORDER NO. JINAKO/SIBBANDI/CR/80/2018-19 DATED: 08.04.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-E 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:19979 WP No. 15433 of 2022 ORAL ORDER 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he will not press prayer (a). The only relief sought in this writ petition is for seeking a mandamus to consider the representation. The prayer (b) is extracted below: “(b) Issue writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction, in the nature of writ, directing the respondents to consider the representations dated 18.06.2022 given by the petitioners vide Annexures-K, K1, K2 and K3, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed as Pourakarmika in the fourth respondent - Town Municipal Council in the year 1987 on daily wage basis. From that day, they were working as Pourakarmikas in the fourth respondent – Town Municipal Council. The fourth respondent – Town Municipal Council passed Resolution No.675 dated 28.05.1994, approving the appointment of 25 employees, including the petitioner, working in the fourth respondent – Town Municipal - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19979 WP No. 15433 of 2022 Council. Pursuant to the said resolution, appointment order has been issued on 20.02.1995. The fourth respondent sent a recommendation to the third respondent for approval of the appointment of 25 employees, who are working in the fourth respondent – Town Municipal Council. By communication dated 08.04.2022, vide Annexure-E, the third respondent approved appointment of only ten employees and no order has been passed in respect of the petitioners are concerned. Therefore, petitioners submitted representations vide Annexure-K series, all dated 18.06.2022. Since their representations are not considered, they are before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are working in the 4th respondent – Town Municipal council from the year 1987. By a resolution of Municipality dated 28.05.1994 in Resolution No.675, it was resolved to approve the appointment of 25 employees. Out of that, in respect of 10 employees - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19979 WP No. 15433 of 2022 appointment order has been issued on 01.01.1995. In respect of the petitioners are concerned, the appointment order has been issued on 20.02.1995 and the 4th respondent sent a proposal to the Deputy Commissioner to approve the appointment of all the 25 employees. Even though all the 25 daily wage employees have been regularized as per Resolution No.675 dated 28.05.1994, the appointment order has been issued on different dates. The third respondent vide communication dated 08.04.2022 vide Annexure-E, approved the appointment of only 10 employees whose appointment order has been issued on 01.01.1995. No order has been passed in respect of the petitioners are concerned. Therefore, the petitioners submitted representations vide Annexure-K series seeking for approval of their appointment since they are also similarly situated persons whose appointment has been approved. But the respondents have not considered the said representations. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19979 WP No. 15433 of 2022 4. In view of the above, since the representations submitted by the petitioners, all dated 18.06.2022 vide Annexure-K series have not been considered, it is suffice for this Court to direct respondent No.3 to consider the representations of the petitioners vide Annexure-K Series, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, not later than 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE DM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 49