1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO.3805/2023 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SRI THYAGARAJU S/O LATE V RAMARAJU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RETIRED HAWALDAR (GROUP-C) OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT GOVT. BOYS JAVELIN HOMES MASKAM ROAD ANDERSON PET POST K.G.F. KOLAR DISTRICT-563113 R/AT NO.366 OTTEVADI STREET MASKAM, ‘A’ BLOCK ANDERSON PET POST K.G.F. KOLAR DISTRICT-563113. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. BASAVARAJA PATEL G.K., ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD EMPOWERMENT OF DIFFERENTLY ABLED AND 2 SENIOR CITIZEN DEVELOPMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY. 2. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT M.S. BUILDING DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDI BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS RELATING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE KSAT AT BENGALURU DATED 26.03.2022 MADE IN A.NO.319/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PERUSE AND QUASH THE SAID ORDER AS ERRONEOUS AND CONTRARY TO LAW, AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION NO.319/2021 AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 16.06.2025 COMING ON THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF 3 CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner, aggrieved by order dated 26.03.2022 in Application No.319/2021 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘Tribunal’) wherein the petitioner’s challenge to endorsement dated 21.02.2019 (Annexure-A7) rejecting petitioner’s request for regularization of his services, is before this Court. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner claims that he was appointed as Hawaldar on daily wage basis at Certified School, KGF under order dated 27.12.1984 against a sanctioned vacant post. The order of appointment dated 27.12.1984 (Anenxure-A8) makes it clear that the appointment is purely temporary and can be terminated without assigning any reason. 4 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was continued on daily wage basis and the petitioner has rendered 35 years of continuous service. Earlier, the petitioner approached the Tribunal along with others in Application Nos.5471 to 5803 of 2001 seeking regularization of service and the Tribunal by order dated 22.07.2002 directed the petitioner and others to submit representation to the Government and directed the Government to verify all the claims and in the event of their having put in ten years of continuous service, pass such appropriate orders in accordance with law. The respondent-State preferred writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.46905 to 47238 of 2003 calling in question the order dated 22.07.2002 in Application Nos.5471-5803/2021. The said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 19.11.2003, against which, the respondent-State preferred Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court in 5 SLP(C).No.13724/2006, which was dismissed by order dated 16.04.2013, with an observation that having regard to the fact that the respondents i.e., petitioner and others herein have been in continuous service for 25-28 years, it is not inclined to interfere in the matter. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner and others filed Contempt of Tribunal Application Nos.512 to 614 of 2016 and the said Contempt of Tribunal Application was disposed of by order dated 25.05.2018 directing the petitioner and others to make appropriate representation and with a direction to the State to pass an appropriate order on the representation. In pursuance of the direction issued by the Tribunal in CTA, respondent No.1 passed impugned order dated 21.02.2019 (Annexure-A7) rejecting the request of the petitioner for regularization on the ground that the petitioner is/was not appointed against vacant 6 sanctioned post and that the petitioner was continued in service on daily wage basis on the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.No.8192/1990 filed by the Karnataka State Government Daily Wage Employees Federation (R) (for short, ‘Federation’). 5. Questioning the said order, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in the above stated Application No.319/2021. The Tribunal rejected the application of the petitioner accepting the contention of the respondent-State that the petitioner is not appointed against a vacant sanctioned post and that the petitioner’s service also continued on the basis of interim order passed by this Court. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 6. Heard learned counsel Sri.Basavaraja Patil.G.K., for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.Vikas Rojipura for 7 respondents. Perused the entire writ petition papers as well as the case-laws cited by learned counsel appearing for the parties. 7. Learned counsel Sri.Basavaraja Patil.G.K., would submit that the Tribunal committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is/was not appointed against the vacant sanctioned post and that the petitioner continued his services on daily wage basis only on the interim order passed by this Court in writ petition filed by the Federation. Learned counsel would submit that Annexure-A8, order of appointment itself makes it clear that the appointment of the petitioner was against vacant sanctioned post and due to shortage of guards the petitioner was appointed as Hawaldar in the Certified School at KGF. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Government has not denied Annexure-A8, order of appointment and when the Government has not 8 denied the order of appointment dated 27.12.1984 (Annexure-A8), it is submitted that the Tribunal could not have come to the conclusion that there is overwriting in the date below the signature. 8. Learned counsel would also submit that the State has filed its statement of objections and in its entire statement of objections, the State has not uttered any word or denied appointment of petitioner against sanctioned vacant post. It is also not the case of the respondent-State that there is no sanctioned post of Hawaldar in Certified School, KGF. In the above circumstances, he submits that the finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner is not appointed against the sanctioned vacant post is erroneous and opposed to the material on record. 9. Nextly, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the finding of the Tribunal that the 9 petitioner was continued on daily wage basis on the strength of the interim order passed in the writ petition filed by the Federation is wholly erroneous. Learned counsel referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. UMADEVI (3) AND OTHERS1 would submit that one of the conditions laid down in the above stated decision is that one should not have continued in service on the interim order passed by any Court or Tribunal. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that no writ petition of the petitioner was pending and there was no interim order in favour of the petitioner in a writ petition filed by him and the services of the petitioner was continued by the respondents as there was dearth of guards in the Certified School as could be seen from the order of appointment itself. Learned counsel would submit that 1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 10 the Tribunal could not have come to the conclusion that the petitioner has not fulfilled condition No.4 based on the interim order passed by this Court in a writ petition filed by the Federation. Thus, learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition, since the petitioner has fulfilled all the conditions laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in UMADEVI case (supra). 10. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.Vikas Rojipura would vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner for regularization of his services. Learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the appointment of the petitioner is not against the sanctioned vacant post and further he submits that the petitioner was continued on daily wage/temporary basis on the strength of the interim order granted by this Court in a writ petition filed by the Federation. It is his submission that the petitioner would not fulfill 11 the condition and criteria laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in UMADEVI (supra). 11. Learned Additional Government Advocate would further submit that the appointment of the petitioner is contrary to Article 14 and while making appointment of the petitioner, no applications were called for and as such, he would not be entitled for regularization. It is his specific contention that only irregular appointments could be regularized and if the appointment itself is illegal, it cannot be regularized. It is submitted that even for temporary or daily wage appointment, Constitutional Scheme shall be followed and if the appointment on temporary or daily wage is opposed to Constitutional Scheme, such person would not be entitled for benefit of regularization. Learned Additional Government Advocate places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UPENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND 12 OTHERS2 and contends that a daily wager who is appointed contrary to law would not be entitled for regularization. Since the petitioner’s appointment is contrary to Constitutional Scheme, the petitioner would not be entitled for regularization. Thus, learned Additional Government Advocate would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 12. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the point that arises for our consideration is as to, Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner would be entitled for a direction to regularize his services? 13. Answer to the above point would be in the Affirmative for the following reasons: 2 (2018) 3 SCC 680 13 The petitioner was appointed under order dated 27.12.1984 of the Superintendent, Government Certified School, KGF (Annexure-A8). The order of appointment itself makes it clear that the petitioner is appointed as Hawaldar on daily wage basis to a vacant Hawaldar post. Further, the order of appointment makes it clear that due to shortage of guards as it has become difficult to send the inmates to hospitals and guarding the inmates in the institution, in the interest of smooth running of administration of the institution, the petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis as Hawaldar. In other words, the petitioner was appointed to a vacant Hawaldar post due to necessity of services of a guard in the institution. But, the appointment was purely temporary. However, the said temporary appointment continued from time to time and the petitioner has completed more than 35 years of temporary continuous service. 14 14. Before the Tribunal, the respondent-State has not disputed the order of appointment dated 27.12.1984 of the petitioner. On the other hand, the endorsement issued by the respondents rejecting the request of the petitioner for regularization was on the ground that the petitioner had not fulfilled the condition that the appointment shall be to a vacant sanctioned post and that one should not have been continued on daily wage or temporary service on the basis of the interim order passed by the Court or Tribunal. 15. When the State has not disputed the order of appointment of the petitioner, the Tribunal is not justified in coming to the conclusion that there is correction in the order of appointment. A perusal of the order of appointment, it is seen that date of appointment is typed as 27.12.1984. There is no correction to the typed portion of the date. Where the 15 Superintendent, Government Certified School has signed and has put date, there is correction. Person who has signed, himself has corrected the date. As observed by the Tribunal, “this ‘4’ figure is very thick compared to other figures as 27.12.84” is not correct. The signature and all the letters are thick and Tribunal proceeded to examine Annexure-A8, order of appointment on suspicion, without there being any dispute raised, which is impermissible in law. When the order of appointment itself makes it clear that a post of Hawaldar in the pay scale of Rs.410-700/- is vacant and due to shortage of guards in the interest of smooth running of the administration of Institution, the petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis as Hawaldar on purely temporary basis, the Tribunal could not have come to a contrary conclusion that “looking to the contents of the order portion under Annexure-A8 the appointment order of the applicant 16 there is no mention that he has been appointed to the vacant sanctioned post”. The above finding is patently contrary to the preamble portion of the order of appointment dated 27.12.1984 (Annexure-A8). Thus, we conclude that the appointment of the petitioner on temporary basis is against sanctioned vacant post of Hawaldar. 16. The petitioner initially approached the Tribunal along with others in Application Nos.5471 to 5803 of 2001 and the said application was disposed of by order dated 22.07.2002, whereby, the petitioners therein were directed to submit representations to the Government and in turn, the Government was directed to verify the claims and in the event of their having put in 10 years of continuous service, to pass such appropriate orders. The State’s challenge to the said order before this Court in W.P.Nos.46905 to 17 47238 of 2003 was rejected by the order dated 19.11.2003. Further, the State Government’s petition to the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP(C).No.13724/2006 was dismissed by the order dated 16.04.2013 with an observation that “Having regard to the fact that the respondents have been in continuous service for 25-28 years, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter.” 17. When the Tribunal directed the respondents to examine the claims of the petitioner and when the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the SLP of the State with an observation that petitioner and others are continuously in service for more than 25-28 years, the State had an obligation to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate order. Instead, the petitioner was made to file Contempt of Tribunal Application and one more representation. On considering the subsequent representation of the 18 petitioner, the State under impugned order dated 21.02.2019 (Annexure-A7), rejected the request of the petitioner for regularization on irrelevant, erroneous and incongruent ground i.e., the petitioner is not appointed against sanctioned vacant post and that the petitioner was continued in service on the strength of the interim order passed in a writ petition filed by the Federation. Both the grounds on which petitioner’s request for regularization is rejected are contrary to records and it appears that the State had made up its mind to reject the request of the petitioner for regularization on one or the other preposterous ground. 18. The request of the petitioner for regularization could not have been rejected on the ground that he has not been appointed against sanctioned vacant post, in view of the findings above, based on the order of appointment dated 27.12.1984, 19 which abundantly makes it clear that the petitioner was appointed against sanctioned vacant post of Hawaldar due to shortage of guards and in the interest of smooth running of administration of the Institution. 19. The petitioner had approached the Tribunal along with others in the year 2001, and the Tribunal, by its order dated 22.07.2002, directed to examine the claims of the applicants therein and, in the event they had put in 10 years of continuous service, to pass such appropriate orders in accordance with law. The State even after dismissal of the SLP filed by them, failed to comply the order of the Tribunal as well as the order of High Court dated 19.11.2003 in W.P.Nos.46905 to 47238 of 2003. 20 20. The other ground for rejection of petitioner’s request for regularization is that, the petitioner was continued in service on the strength of interim order passed in a writ petition filed by the Federation. Admittedly, the petitioner as an individual had not approached the Court and there was no specific interim order directing the continuation of petitioner in any of the writ petitions. On the other hand, the petitioner had approached the Tribunal in the year 2001 and the same was disposed of on 22.07.2002 itself. The interim order passed in a writ petition filed by the Federation and continuation of the petitioner has no relevancy. The petitioner’s services was necessitated and continued due to dearth of guards in the institution i.e., Certified School, KGF, which can be ascertained from the order of appointment itself. 21 21. The contention of the State that the appointment of the petitioner is contrary to Article 14 and as the appointment of the petitioner is contrary to Constitutional Scheme, he would not be entitled for regularization is untenable and cannot be countenanced. It is too late in the day after having continued the petitioner on temporary/daily wage basis for more than 35 years, the contention that the appointment of the petitioner is contrary to Article 14 and Constitutional Scheme, is misplaced. It is not open at this length of time for the State to contend that the petitioner’s appointment is illegal. It is for the State to think and take a decision before appointing a person on temporary basis. A person who is offered employment on daily wage or temporary basis would have no choice in the days of unemployment and he would be compelled to accept employment on temporary or daily wage basis due to 22 pressing needs. The State, after appointing a person on daily wage or temporary basis, cannot be permitted at this length of service to contend that his appointment is contrary to Article 14 or Constitutional Scheme. The State has an obligation to comply Article 14 and Constitutional Scheme before making appointment. Having made appointments even to say contrary to Article 14 and Constitutional Scheme, it cannot blame the employee for accepting such employment, that too after 35 years. 22. Learned Additional Government Advocate places reliance on the decision in UPENDRA SINGH (supra) to contend that a daily wager who is appointed contrary to law is not entitled for regularization. The decision in UPENDRA SINGH (supra) places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in UMADEVI (3) (supra). Paragraph 53 of the UMADEVI (3) (supra) provides for regularization 23 of a daily/temporary employee on certain circumstances, if he fulfills the conditions laid down therein. Since the petitioner herein fulfills the criteria laid down for regularization in UMADEVI (3) (supra), the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in UPENDRA SINGH (supra) would not be an impediment to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization. Moreover, based on the facts, we have come to the conclusion that the petitioner was appointed to a vacant post of Hawaldar, as indicated in the order of appointment dated 27.12.1984 (Annexure-A8). 23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS VS. M.L.KESARI AND OTHERS3 explained its earlier decision in UMADEVI (3) (supra), at paragraphs 7, 8 and 11, which we reproduce as follows: 3 (2010) 9 SCC 247 24 “7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against “regularisation” enunciated in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1], if the following conditions are fulfilled: (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications 25 and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. 8. Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] casts a duty upon the Government or instrumentality concerned, to take steps to regularise the services of those irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure. Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] directed that such one- time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 10-4-2006). 11. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] is twofold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi 26 (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] was rendered, are considered for regularisation in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily-wage/ad hoc/casual basis for long periods and then periodically regularise them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10-4-2006 [the date of decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] ] without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularisation. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularisation within six months of the decision in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered 27 for regularisation in terms of the above directions in Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1] as a one-time measure.” 24. In the case of JAGGO VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS4, the Hon'ble Apex Court was considering the regularization of part time/contractual employee and at paragraphs 10, 12, 13, 14, 21 and 26, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as follows: “10. Having given careful consideration to the submissions advanced and the material on record, we find that the appellants' long and uninterrupted service, for periods extending well beyond ten years, cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial appointments as part-time or contractual. The essence of their employment must be considered in the light of their sustained contribution, the integral nature of their work, and the fact that no evidence suggests their entry was through any illegal or surreptitious route. 4 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 28 12. Despite being labelled as “part- time workers,” the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature; instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants' tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work. 13. The claim by the respondents that these were not regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed by the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private 29 agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another, further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional. 14. The abrupt termination of the appellants' services, following dismissal of their Original Application before the Tribunal, was arbitrary and devoid of any justification. The termination letters, issued without prior notice or explanation, violated fundamental principles of natural justice. It is a settled principle of law that even contractual employees are entitled to a fair hearing before any adverse action is taken against them, particularly when their service records are unblemished. In this case, the appellants were given no opportunity to be heard, nor were they provided any reasons for their dismissal, which followed nearly two decades of dedicated service. 30 21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial label of the appellants' engagements and the outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal. Courts must look beyond the surface labels and consider the realities of employment : continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments. In that light, refusing regularization simply because their original terms did not explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity. 26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular 31 appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one- time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.” 25. In the case on hand also, the petitioner is continued on daily wage/temporary basis for nearly 35 years. After extracting regular work from the 32 petitioner, the action of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner’s request for regularization at this length of time is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair and opposed to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 26. For the reasons recorded above, writ petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, we pass the following: ORDER a) The order dated 26.03.2022 in Application No.319/2021 passed by the Tribunal is set aside. b) Consequently, Government order bearing No.ªÀĪÀÄE 35 J¸ïeÉr 2017, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ dated 21.02.2019 (Annexure-A7) is also quashed. 33 c) In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner would be entitled for regularization and accordingly, respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner and shall grant all consequential benefits on such regularization. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE NC CT: bms