- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24311-DB RP No. 410 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REVIEW PETITION NO. 410 OF 2024 BETWEEN: BASAVANNA S/O LATE SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS WORKING AS GROUP 'C' EMPLOYEE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE CUBBONPET, BENGALURU-560 001 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA HARAVI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNEMNT DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTATIVE REFORMS VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24311-DB RP No. 410 of 2024 AND SERICULTURE M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001 4. THE DIRECTOR OFFICE OF DIRECTORATE OF HORTICULTURE LALBAGH BENGALURU-560 004 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR RESPONDENTS) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER-47 RULE 1 R/W SEC. 114 OF CPC, PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO (i) REVIEW ORDER DATED 20.06.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. No.6149/2023. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24311-DB RP No. 410 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This review petition is filed seeking a review of the order dated 20.06.2024 passed in WP No.6149/2023. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 3. The review petitioner had filed the Applications No.3095 to 3103/2020 before the State Administrative Tribunal seeking to quash the impugned endorsement No.PHOEI:Aa:SI:VINI6:15/2016-17 dated 29.11.2018 issued by respondent No.4, to regularize the services and to grant all service benefits to the applicants. 4. The respondents had submitted their written objections. The contentions raised had been considered by the Tribunal and the Tribunal had held as under:- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24311-DB RP No. 410 of 2024 "Coming to the grounds mentioned in the applications and also on examination of the entire pleadings of the applicants, it is no where mentioned as to what is the date of appointment of each of the applicants and what is the date of reporting duty. Overall, nothing has been pleaded regarding the nature of appointment with details. The applicants never contended that they are/were appointed against clear vacancy/post existing as on the date of appointment in the Department of Horticulture. It is also pertinent to note on the basis of court order, their services has been continued and they have served in the Horticulture Department since last 25- 30 years. It is not in dispute, considering the length of service of the applicants, the State Govt. brought all the applicants under purview of Karnataka State Daily Wage Employees’ Welfare Act, 2012 and the benefit is extended to all the applicants. This aspect is not denied by the applicants in their applications. So far as, number of judgements and regularization of the several applicants in other departments, it is not in dispute, it is settled law, each case of the applicants shall be considered individually for their regularization in the concerned department. So also the number of decisions pleaded in the applications, refers to different applicants in different stages in the different departments. It is settled law, there cannot be any straight jacket formula to give benefits to the applicants, each cases shall be examined independently along with merits and to grant relief. In the present case on hand, the 1st respondent after examining the case of the applicants and others thoroughly, that too, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24311-DB RP No. 410 of 2024 by considering all the judgements of the Supreme Court in Malathi Das case and also in the case of Umadevi clearly came to the conclusion that the applicants were not appointed against clear vacancies as on the date of their appointments as a Daily/Temporary Employees. In addition, the 1st respondent clearly came to the conclusion that the applicants have been continued in service through the intervention of court/Tribunal orders. Over all, coming to the conclusion that the applicants have not fulfilled four conditions as per the decision in Umadevi’s case in Para 53 of the judgment, the applicants have fulfilled only two conditions and other two conditions were not fulfilled. Therefore, their regularization is refused, which is in accordance with law and we do not find any infirmity. It is also settled law, that merely making repeated representations to the 1st respondent or other respondents itself is not sufficient to grant relief in favour of the applicants. In other words, merely making repeated representations do not constitute proper explanation for condonation of delay. In the present case on hand, the applicants have been in the habit of submitting repeated representations to the 1st respondent and it cannot give cause of action to approach this Tribunal again and again. As we have already discussed, when the relief sought by the applicants has attained finality, the question of reopening similar cases and deciding the same does not arise. We accept the objection statement filed by the learned Govt. Pleader. The applications are devoid of merits. Hence, we proceed to pass the following: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24311-DB RP No. 410 of 2024 ORDER The applications are hereby dismissed." 5. The order of the Tribunal had been challenged before this Court. This Court had considered the contentions advanced and had held that in view of the specific directions issued by the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and in view of the fact that the posts were not sanctioned posts and since the applicants had not established that they had been appointed after following any transparent selection procedure, the benefit of the exceptions carved out by the Apex Court in Umadevi's case(supra) would not be applicable to the petitioner. 6. In the review petition, the petitioner contends that several orders of regularization had been passed including in Writ Petitions No.46905 - 47238/2003 by this Court and that the SLP filed against the said judgment was dismissed on 16.04.2013. It is therefore contended that - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24311-DB RP No. 410 of 2024 since similarly situated persons had been granted the benefit of regularization, the petitioner is also entitled to a consideration of the claim. It is further contended that representation dated 18.06.2018 had been preferred by the petitioner's as per order of the Tribunal in Contempt Applications No.695 to 704/2016 and that it is the bounden duty of respondent No.1 to consider the same. 7. We notice that the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge had considered the contentions raised by the review petitioner in detail. What was under challenge before the Tribunal was the endorsement dated 29.11.2018 issued by respondent No.4. It was after examining the factual aspects of the case that the Tribunal had dismissed the application filed by the review petitioner. This Court, considering the writ petition, had also considered the contentions advanced and had come to the conclusion that the finding of the Tribunal that the case of the review petitioner did not come within the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24311-DB RP No. 410 of 2024 exceptions as provided by the Constitutional Bench in Umadevi's case(supra) was correct. 8. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that identically situated persons had been granted the benefit of regularization, we are of the opinion that the factual aspects of the matter having been considered by the Tribunal as well as by this Court, no grounds have been made out by the review petitioner for a review of the judgment. 9. There is no merit in the contentions raised. The petitioner had already been granted the benefit of the "Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012". No useful purpose would be served by considering a representation after the Tribunal and this Court have considered the claims for regularization on merits and rejected the same. 10. In the above view of the matter, we find no error to be corrected in the judgment under review. The - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24311-DB RP No. 410 of 2024 review petition therefore fails, the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE RAK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5