- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30223-DB WP No. 9063 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 9063 OF 2020 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. MR. L.R. SRINIVASAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O. RANGAIAH, R/AT VINAYAKA NAGARA, CHANNAPURA ROAD, KOTE, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101. 2. MRS. BHARATHI, W/O. L.R. SRINIVASAMURTHY, SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY LR'S., 2A. MS. SHWETHASHREE D/O. L.R. SRINIVASAMURTHY D/O. LATE BHARATHI AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 2B. MS. BANUSHREE L.S. D/O. L.R. SRINIVASAMURTHY D/O. LATE BHARATHI AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 2C. MS. MEGHASHREE L.S. D/O. L.R. SRINIVASAMURTHY D/O. LATE BHARATHI AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT VINAYAKA NAGARA CHANNAPURA ROAD, KOTE, CHIKKAMANGALURU - 577 101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KESHAV M. DATAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30223-DB WP No. 9063 of 2020 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, RERPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER FOR SOCIAL WELFARE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101. 4. DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101. 5. TALUK SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1, R2, R4 AND R5; SRI ASHOK NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A DATED 17.10.2019 IN APPLICATION No.5980-5981 OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION IN APPLICATION No.5980-5981 OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC,. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30223-DB WP No. 9063 of 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND) The unsuccessful applicants in Application Nos.5980- 5981/2012 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), have preferred the present petition challenging the order dated 17.10.2019, whereby the Tribunal rejected the said applications. 2. The facts, in brief, as outlined in the pleadings are: 2.1 The petitioners were appointed as Hostel Superintendent and Cook on daily wages on 20.05.1985 and 27.05.1985, respectively, and their services were regularized by an order dated 29.06.2009 (Annexure-A1). Subsequently, a notice dated 07.09.2012 was issued by respondent No.3, seeking an explanation as to why the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30223-DB WP No. 9063 of 2020 regularization order should not be withdrawn. In response, the petitioners submitted a reply, contending that their regularization was in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal, and the relevant Official Memorandum, Circulars, and other instructions issued by the Government. 2.2 Thereafter, respondent No.3 withdrew the regularization order by a subsequent order dated 17.10.2012. This decision was challenged before the Tribunal. The respondent-State contended that the petitioners were appointed on a contract basis after the cutoff date of 01.07.1984, for a period of 29 days, and that their contractual employment was extended in compliance with interim directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.8192/1990, as well as in Writ Petition Nos.12610/1993 and 28248-449/1998. The interim orders in these writ petitions restrained the termination of daily wage employees appointed after 01.07.1984. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30223-DB WP No. 9063 of 2020 2.3 The Tribunal, in its decision, held that the petitioners did not meet the criteria for regularization as prescribed in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1] by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was further held that the earlier order regularizing the petitioners’ services was in contravention of the principles laid down in Umadevi's case, and action was initiated against the concerned officer responsible for the regularization. The Tribunal declined to interfere with the order. The present petition challenges the said order. 3. Sri Keshav M. Datar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners were appointed on contract basis as Hostel Superintendent and Cook on daily wages, and that they have completed the requisite period of service so as to fulfill the conditions laid down in Umadevi’s case. Learned counsel further submits that the cancellation order is not a speaking order, inasmuch as it does not take into consideration the reply filed by the petitioners. It is contended that the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30223-DB WP No. 9063 of 2020 petitioners, having been regularized, cannot be subjected to cancellation of their services after a long lapse of three years, as the same is impermissible in law. 3.1 It is urged that the petitioners’ case for regularization was considered and accepted on the ground that they had satisfied the conditions stipulated in Umadevi’s case. The petitioners were appointed on daily wage basis against sanctioned posts and have continuously served for more than 19 years without the benefit of any interim protection from Court orders. It is further submitted that the interim orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.8192/1990 and in Writ Petition Nos.12610/1993 and 28248–449/1998 are not applicable to the petitioners, as they were not parties to those proceedings. The interim orders, it is urged, applied only to the parties to the lis and not to others. When the interim orders were not binding on the authorities insofar as the petitioners are concerned, it is not open to contend that the services of the petitioners were continued only by - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30223-DB WP No. 9063 of 2020 virtue of the interim orders passed by this Court. Learned counsel further submits that the cancellation of regularization has been effected by respondent No.3, who was not authorized to do so. 4. On the other hand, Smt. B. Sukanya Baliga, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5, submits that the petitioners were not appointed on daily wage basis against sanctioned posts. It is contended that the requisite qualification for the post is SSLC or equivalent examination together with a one-year Teacher Training Certificate. The petitioners, however, possess only the SSLC qualification and do not hold the requisite Teacher Training Certificate. Hence, they were not qualified for appointment to the post in question. It is further submitted that the services of the petitioners were continued only in compliance with the interim orders passed by this Court. Though the petitioners were not parties to the said writ petition, the interim orders were made applicable to all daily wage employees. Accordingly, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30223-DB WP No. 9063 of 2020 learned AGA submits that the requirements stipulated in Umadevi’s case are not satisfied in the present case. 4.1 Learned AGA further submits that the earlier regularization was in violation of the principles laid down in Umadevi’s case. It is stated that disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the Officer concerned for having regularized the petitioners in contravention of the said decision. It is contended that the petitioners cannot claim any benefit or protection on the basis of an impermissible or unlawful action. It is further submitted that petitioner No.1 has already attained the age of superannuation and petitioner No.2 has since expired. Hence, they are not entitled to seek regularization of their services. 5. Sri Ashok Nayak, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, supports the submissions advanced by the learned Additional Government Advocate. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30223-DB WP No. 9063 of 2020 6. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the writ petition papers. 7. The petitioners claim to have been appointed on daily wage basis as Hostel Superintendent and Cook on 20.05.1985 and 27.05.1985 respectively. It is their case that their services were regularized by order dated 29.06.2009, upon being satisfied that they had fulfilled the criteria laid down in Umadevi’s case. The respondent- State, however, takes a contrary stand, contending that the petitioners were not appointed against sanctioned posts and that they did not possess the qualifications prescribed for such posts. It is further contended that the petitioners were continued in service on daily wage basis only by virtue of the interim orders passed by this Court. 8. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that they possess the requisite qualification cannot be accepted. As per the Notification dated 09.05.1962, the prescribed qualification for the post of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30223-DB WP No. 9063 of 2020 Hostel Superintendent (Junior) is SSLC or an equivalent examination together with a Teacher Training Certificate. Petitioner No.1 possesses only the SSLC qualification and does not hold the requisite Teacher Training Certificate. Hence, it cannot be held that the petitioner possesses the prescribed qualification. 9. In the present case, as pleaded by the petitioners, their appointments were made on 20.05.1985 and 27.05.1985 respectively. Furthermore, their engagement on daily wage basis was protected by the interim orders of this Court in Writ Petition No.8192/1990 and in Writ Petition Nos.12610/1993 and 28248– 449/1998. The order of appointment of petitioner No.1, produced at Annexure–R1, does not indicate that the appointment was made against a sanctioned post. 10. The regularization earlier granted in favour of the petitioners has been found to be illegal, being in contravention of the principles laid down in Umadevi’s - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30223-DB WP No. 9063 of 2020 case. Accordingly, notice was issued to withdraw the said regularization. The reply submitted by the petitioners was duly considered by the authorities. The Tribunal, upon a detailed examination of the matter, has held that the order withdrawing regularization is justified, as the petitioners’ appointment was not in conformity with the conditions prescribed in Umadevi’s case. 11. On perusal of the records and upon consideration of the contentions urged by learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court finds that the appointment of the petitioners was not against the sanctioned posts and that the petitioners do not possess the requisite educational qualification as on the date of their initial appointment. The appointment of the petitioners even on daily wage basis is not by the competent authority. 12. The contention that the petitioners were earlier regularized having been satisfied the compliance of - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30223-DB WP No. 9063 of 2020 Umadevi's case, hence, withdrawal of the regularization is impermissible cannot be accepted. 13. At a later stage, the regularization is found to be illegal in contravention of Umadevi's case. Hence, the regularization is withdrawn. The authority concerned has taken necessary action against the Officer who has regularized the services of the petitioners in violation of Umadevi's case. Be that as it may, the regularization in contravention of Umadevi's case would not accrue any right of regularization in favour of the petitioners unless the compliance of requirement of Umadevi's case is demonstrated. No such grounds are demonstrated before this Court. 14. In view of the aforesaid findings, we are of the considered opinion that the withdrawal of the regularization of the petitioners’ services, being in violation of the principles laid down in Umadevi’s case, is justified. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30223-DB WP No. 9063 of 2020 15. The order of the Tribunal upholding the said withdrawal is found to be justifiable, and no ground is made out for interference. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49