- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3012 WP No. 103107 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 103107 OF 2024 (S-DIS) BETWEEN: SMT. PADMAVATI B. NAGANAGOUDAR, AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. PRESENTLY NIL R/O. H.NO.27, Y.S COLONY, NEAR CMDR OFFICE, VEERABHADRESWAR LAYOUT, DHARWAD -580004. …PETITIONER (BY SRI CHETAN T. LIMBIKAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU -560001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR RURAL DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION, 2ND FLOOR, KHB COMPLEX CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G ROAD, BENGALURU -560009. 3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, DHARWAD- 08. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTHILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 & R2, SRI RAJENDRASWAMI C. HOSAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3) VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.19 10:32:35 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3012 WP No. 103107 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO I. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED DISMISSAL ORDER DATED 29.02.2024 BEARING ITS NO:DAZIPAM/MuKANiAa/SwaBhaMi(Gra)/2023-24/3000 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND REINSTATE THE PRESENT PETITIONER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF’S AS ARE DEEMED FIT AND NECESSARY UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE COST OF THIS WRIT PETITION IN INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 29.02.2024, by which, the third respondent terminates the service of the petitioner, as a Consultant of Information, Education and Communication, which comes under the Scheme-Swatch Bharat Mission. 2. Heard Sri Chetan T. Limbikai, learned counsel for petitioner, Smt. Kirtilatha R. Patil, learned HCGP for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri Rajendraswami C. Hosamath, learned counsel for respondent No.3. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3012 WP No. 103107 of 2024 3. Facts in brief, germane are as follows: The petitioner is appointed as a Consultant on 23.12.2005 in the respondent and is in continuous employment for the last 18 years. It is the submission of the petitioner that she has received several certificates for the work performed throughout these 18 years. For the year 2021, the performance of the petitioner, according to the respondent, was not up to the mark. Therefore, a notice comes to be issued and reply submitted by the petitioner to the notice results in her termination. The termination has led the petitioner to this Court in subject petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that for 18 long years petitioner has worked with the respondent under the Scheme though, the contract was renewed from time to time. Non-achievement of target in a particular year cannot result in termination of the petitioner, is submission of the counsel appearing for the petitioner. He would seek to place reliance upon the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3012 WP No. 103107 of 2024 judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K. Raghupathi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others1 to buttress his submission towards the quashment of the order. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 would seek to defend the action of termination, taking this Court through a communication with regard to the Scheme for appointment of persons under the Swachch Bharat Mission. According to the learned counsel, in terms of the communication, one should get at least 30 marks in a particular year for continuance of their services albeit on contract basis. He would submit that since the petitioner fell short of achieving the said target, termination was the only option available. 6. Learned HCGP would toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 and would seek dismissal of the petition. 1 (2022) 6 SCC 346 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3012 WP No. 103107 of 2024 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions and perused the material on record. 8. The aforenarrated facts are not in dispute. The issue lies in a narrow campus. The petitioner is appointed as a Consultant of Information in Education and Communication coming under the Swachch Bharat Scheme in the year 2005 and has continued uninterruptedly for 18 years, is a matter of record. A show cause notice comes to be issued on 22.09.2023 on the score that the petitioner has fallen short of achieving the target of 30 marks in a given year, which is said to have depicted poor performance of the petitioner. Till 18 years, there was no problem, the performance of the petitioner has been good and in one particular year, it is said to have fallen short, which the learned counsel for the petitioner would dispute. Be that as it may. 9. Non-achievement target for a particular year cannot mean that the person, who has worked for 18 years in the Scheme, can be shown the doors, on any - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3012 WP No. 103107 of 2024 noon day without holding any enquiry or otherwise with regard to such performance. Even otherwise, the Apex Court in plethora of cases has held mere non-achievement of a target or the good performance in a particular year cannot mean that the services of those persons who were employed even on contract basis can be terminated. The Apex Court in the case of K. Raghupathi (supra) has held as follows: “9. As per the affidavit of the said University, it could thus clearly be seen that, for every vacant post, the said University publishes an open advertisement inviting applications from all the interested candidates. It would further show that the appointments are made only after the candidates are selected by the Selection Committee. It is thus clear that though the nomenclature given to the appointment is contractual, candidates are required to undergo the entire selection process. It could further be seen that as per the affidavit of the said University itself, though the employees are technically appointed on a contractual basis, they get all the benefits and allowances as per the Rules applicable. The affidavit would further show that even according to the said University, for permanency in tenure, their terms and conditions of appointment are identical to those of regularly appointed candidates. 10. It is thus clear that the appellant was appointed after he underwent the entire selection process. Even as per the University, though the appointment shows that it is on a contractual basis, for all the purposes, it is on a regular basis. It could thus be seen that even for the appointment on a contractual basis in the said University, a candidate is required to undergo the entire selection process. Though he is appointed on a contractual basis, his terms and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3012 WP No. 103107 of 2024 conditions are almost like a regular employee. It will be relevant to note that the Annual Performance Assessment Report (for short “APAR”) of the appellant during the period 201213 show his performance to be outstanding. Every other parameter in his APAR is shown as excellent. With regard to his integrity, it is mentioned that there is nothing against the appellant adversely reflecting his integrity. It is further stated in his APAR that he enjoys a good reputation and his integrity is good. 11. It will be further relevant to refer to the counter affidavit filed before this Court on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4. It is stated in paragraph (4) that the reasons for the appellant not being continued in the service are at Annexure P9 (Page 116120) and Annexure P26 (Page 165166). 12. Insofar as Annexure P9 is concerned, it is an APAR to which we have already referred hereinabove. As such, the same cannot be a ground for noncontinuation of the services of the appellant. As a matter of fact, thereafter, the appellant’s services have been continued for another one year vide order dated 7.08. 2013. 13. Insofar as the document at Annexure P26 is concerned, it is an administrative warning issued to the appellant by the Dean of the said University on 10.01.2014, which reads thus: “Office of Dean, Planning & Research GBU013 /Dplng/09/201421 Dated: 10/1/14 Administrative Warning It has been observed that you write on files simply "Put up file on such and such date". You have been continuing to do this even after my several verbal communications and warning against this. This is not only against ethics and official decorum but also against administrative norms. In response to my objections you told me that you have been instructed by the finance officer and the earlier officiating registrar, Mr. Pankaj Sharma to do so. You have put this noting even on dates when I have been on leave. Photocopies of such recent - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3012 WP No. 103107 of 2024 notings are being attached herewith as evidence. There is also an overwriting in the date mentioned in one of the notings. All your above mentioned activities amount to gross irregularity in your work and also expose your conspirational character. This definitely makes you unfit to work on any responsible position. You are being served this warning in writing to provide you an opportunity to improve your official working and conduct. Sd/- Anuradha Mishra Dean P & R CC: 1. Registrar for information and record 2. PS to Hon’ble Vice-Chancellor for information” 14. It could thus be seen that though the communication of the said University dated 12 th August 2014 states that the appellant’s contractual period has expired, in the facts of the present case, it would reveal thathis services were discontinued on account of the allegation made against him by the Dean of the said University. Since even according to the said University, though the employment was contractual but the employee was entitled to get all the benefits of a regular employee, we find that in the facts of the present case, the appellant’s services could not have been terminated without following the principles of natural justice. We therefore find that the present appeal deserves to be allowed on this short ground. 15. In the result, the impugned order dated 23 rd May 2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, thereby dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant and the communication passed by the said University dated 12 th August 2014, thereby discontinuing the services of the appellant, are quashed and set aside. he appellant is directed to be reinstated with continuity in service. However, the appellant would not be entitled to any back wages.” - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3012 WP No. 103107 of 2024 10. In the light of the aforenarrated facts and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K. Raghupathi, the petition deserves to succeed and the orders impugned to be obliterated. 11. For the aforesaid reasons the following : ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 29.02.2024 vide Annexure-A passed by the respondent No.3 stands quashed. (iii) Petitioner shall become entitled for all consequential benefits that would flow from the order. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NAA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21 CT. GTB