- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1710 WP No. 110569 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 110569 OF 2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. VENKATESH S/O. AYYAPPA BALLARI, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. KRISNANAGAR, SAVANUR, TQ: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI. 2. SHRI. SHANKARAPPA S/O. ANJANAYYA BANGI, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: KAMAL BANGADI SAVANUR, TQ: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI. 3. SHRI. ANJANA S/O ANASAVVA TONDUR, AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. AMBEDKAR NAGAR, SAVANUR, TQ: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. HEMANTHKUMAR L. HAVARAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPTD BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU. 3. THE PRESIDENT, THE KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR SAFAI KARMACHARIES, 4TH MAIN ROAD, SAMPANGIRAMANAGAR, BANGALURU, Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1710 WP No. 110569 of 2017 BANGALURU. 4. THE DIRECTOR DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, 9TH FLOOR, V V TOWER, BANGALURU. 5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI. 6. THE DIRECTOR, DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL, HAVERI DIST. HAVERI. 7. THE CHIEF OFFICER, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SAVANUR, SAVANUR TQ: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI. 8. SHRI. CHANDRU S/O PEDDANNA BANGI, AGE. MAJOR, OCC: R/O SAVANUR, TQ: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI. 9. SMT. HEMA W/O. SOMANATH BANGI, AGE. MAJOR, OCC: MANUAL SCAVENGER, R/O. SAVANUR, TQ: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI. 10. SMT. NAGARATNA W/O NAGESH BANGI, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. MANUAL SCAVENGER, R/O. SAVANUR, TQ. SAVANUR, DIST. HAVERI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1, R2, R4 TO R6, SRI SURESH S. SHETTEMANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R8 TO R10, SRI. B. M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R7, NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIRORI TO QUASHING IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 07.10.2017 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO. 3 IN CASE NO.SKC:96/2017, VIDE ANNEXURE-F. DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.7 TO APPOINT PETITIONERS AS CONTRACT BASE OF MANUAL SCAVENGER. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1710 WP No. 110569 of 2017 THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) The petitioners are before this Court calling in question an order dated 07.10.2017 passed by the third respondent, whereby the claim of the petitioners for appointment on contract basis for in the municipality. 2. Heard Sri Hemanthkumar L. Havaragi, lerned counsel for petitioners, Sri Sharad V. Magadum, learned AGA for respondents No.1, 2, 4 to 6, Sri Suresh S. Shettemanavar, learned counsel for respondents No.8 to 10 and Sri B. M. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.7. 3. The first petitioner during the pendency of the subject petition is no more. Therefore, who remain is petitioners No.2 and 3. The issue in the lis revolves around rehabilitation of manual scavengers after its abolition in terms of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1710 WP No. 110569 of 2017 Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short). 4. On 22.08.2016, it transpires that people belonging to certain community had submitted representation to the seventh respondent to appoint them on contract basis in Savanur Municipal Council as Poura Karmika. The representation is said to have been recommended between all quarters of the office. Notwithstanding the said recommendation, it is the case of the petitioners that they are not chosen to be appointed as Poura Karmika on contract basis, despite the fact that they were all working as manual scavengers earlier to its abolition in terms of the Act. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners taking this Court through the documents appended to the petition would submit that preference for appointment as Poura Karmika should have been to the petitioners and not to the private respondents who had - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1710 WP No. 110569 of 2017 never worked as scavengers and their rehabilitation was not that was needed. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.8 to 10 would submit that the petitioners are also working on the strength of the interim order granted 6 years ago, as Poura Karmika in the Municipality. 7. The counsel representing the Municipality would also admit the same. 8. Learned AGA would also toe the lines of the counsels representing for the Municipality and the private respondents. 9. The issue now would be, whether the Municipal Council has followed the directions of the Karnataka State Commission for Safari Karmchari. It is on consideration of the scheme of rehabilitation of those manual scavengers on coming into force of the Act, the manual scavengers had to be rehabilitated. In terms of the direction of the Commission, the respondent-Municipality ought to have - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1710 WP No. 110569 of 2017 offered employment on contract basis to all those persons who are working as manual scavengers prior to its abolition under the Act, as also to others on their eligibility. 10. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners were not chosen but respondents No.8 to 10, but the direction was to appoint every person who was working as a manual scavenger earlier the Act, by stage by stage. Therefore, if respondents No.8 to 10 have been performing the duties till now, it is time that the petitioners are also to be considered to do the duties of a Poura Karmika on contract basis in the teeth of the object of the Act being the rehabilitation of manual scavengers. Therefore, it is for the respondent-Municipality and State to ensure that rehabilitation happens in a non-arbitrary manner and not leading to pick and choose of any person. The Municipality shall now consider the cases of these petitioners for the post of Poura Karmika on albeit contract basis, in the Municipality and also not dislodge the respondents No.8 to - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1710 WP No. 110569 of 2017 10, except in accordance with law, if they are all working, and work is available to all. 11. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NAA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5