- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24523 WP No. 23097 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 23097 OF 2021 (S-REG) BETWEEN: SRI D.T. VENKATESH S/O D THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NTB QUARTERS BHADRAVATHI, KARNATAKA -577301 WORKING AS, BILL COLLECTOR TOWN MUNICIPALITY BHADRAVATHI -577301 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARATH S GOWDA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 4TH FLOOR VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001. 3. DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION REP BY ITS SECRETARY DR B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD 9TH AND 10TH FLOOR Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24523 WP No. 23097 of 2021 VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWER BENGALURU-560001 4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SIR M V ROAD (SAVALANGA ROAD) SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577201. 5. THE COMMISSIONER TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BHADRAVATHI, HONSAMANE BHADRAVATHI -577 301 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4: SRI. B L SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO REGULARIZE THE SERVICE OF PETITIONER AND QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS DATED:29.12.2017 IN SO FAR AS THIS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED HELD UNDER THE CHAIRMANSHIP OF 4TH RESPONDENT REJECTING THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER FOR REGULARIZATION VIDE ANNEXURE-R1 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs: “A. Issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondent authorities to regularize the service of petitioner. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24523 WP No. 23097 of 2021 1. Issue writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash the proceedings dated 29.12.2017 in so far as this Petitioner is concerned held under the chairmanship of 4th Respondent rejecting the case of the petitioner for regularization vide Annexure R1. 2. Issue writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash the Checklist prepared by 5th Respondent along with Letter dated 22.09.2022 in No.5566-BDVT- CMC/ADMIN/EMP/EST-1/CR-055/19-20 (4531/ 19-20) vide Annexure R3. B. Issue writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent Authorities to grant such arrears and service benefits consequential to regularization of service, from the date of completion of ten (10) years of service from the date of Appointment.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner was appointed as an Attender in the Library attached to Town Municipal Council, Shivamogga, on daily wage basis from 01.10.1988. From that day, he is continuously working as a daily wage employee in the Town Municipal - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24523 WP No. 23097 of 2021 Council, Shivamogga. The petitioner approached this Court seeking a direction for regularization as a permanent employee of the Municipal Corporation by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.41318/2003. This Court, on 12.06.2009 disposed of the said writ petition, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner along with the other co-workers and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Thereafter, vide Annexure-D dated 30.12.2017, except the petitioner, the cases of the other co-workers who have filed the writ petition has been considered. Then, the Commissioner, Town Municipal Council, Bhadravati by communication dated 29.06.2020 vide Annexure-E to the Deputy Commissioner, Shivamogga, recommended the name of the petitioner for regularization. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner recommended the name of the petitioner for regularization to the Director of Municipal Administration on 29.10.2020 vide Annexure-F. Since no order has been passed, the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24523 WP No. 23097 of 2021 petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. After service of notice, the State filed an objection stating that the State Level Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner – respondent No.4 has passed a resolution. In respect of the petitioner’s case is concerned, it is rejected on the ground that the Municipal Council has submitted a report stating that the petitioner’s case is not of clear vacancy. They have also enclosed checklist submitted by the Municipal Council to the District Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner. Hence, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the writ petition challenging both Annexures R1 and R3. The same has been allowed. Therefore, he sought for quashing of both Annexures R1 and R3 filed by the State Government, along with the statement of objections. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that as per the directions of this Court in W.P.No.41318/2003 disposed of on 12.06.2009, the co- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24523 WP No. 23097 of 2021 employees services has been regularized by order dated 30.12.2017 vide Annexure-D. Vide Annexure-E, dated 29.06.2020, the fifth respondent – Town Municipal Council sent a communication to the fourth respondent – Deputy Commissioner, Shivamogga recommending the name of the petitioner for regularization on the ground that the petitioner has satisfied all the conditions mentioned in the case of SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS vs. UMADEVI (3) AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2006 SC 1806. On the basis of the recommendations of the fifth respondent, the Deputy Commissioner recommended the name of the petitioner by communication dated 29.10.2020 vide Annexure-F to respondent No.3 - the Directorate of Municipal Administration, stating that the petitioner has satisfied all the conditions and his case can be considered for regularization. Thereafter, the Municipal Council changed its decision vide Annexure R3 dated 22.09.2022, that they have prepared the checklist to submit to the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24523 WP No. 23097 of 2021 District level Committee where they have stated that the petitioner’s case cannot be considered for regularization on the ground that initial appointment of the petitioner is not against a sanctioned post and contended that this action of the fifth respondent is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. He further submitted that, even assuming that the petitioner’s appointment is not against a clear vacancy, the petitioner was working from 01.10.1988 and till today his service was continued without any break. That itself shows the requirement of the petitioner’s work. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of JAGGO vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (SLP(C) No.5580/2024 disposed of on 20.12.2024). 6. Lastly, even the case of his co-employees was recommended by the fifth respondent. Their appointment is also not against the sanctioned posts. Inspite of that, their services has been regularized. Only in respect of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24523 WP No. 23097 of 2021 petitioner, the respondent has denied the same, which is against the right guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and contended that even the Apex Court in the cases of MALATHI DAS (RETIRED) NOW P.B.MAHISHY AND OTHERS vs. SURESH AND OTHERS reported in (2014) 13 SCC 249 has held that in case of regularization, parity has to be maintained. 7. The learned AGA appearing for the respondent State contended that as per the judgment of UMADEVI (supra), the petitioner has to first satisfy that his appointment is against a clear vacancy and it is not an illegal appointment, it is only an irregular appointment. Since the appointment is not against a clear vacancy, therefore, the petitioner’s case for regularization was not considered. 8. Secondly, there cannot be negative equality. Since his co-employee has been regularized contrary to UMADEVI (supra), the petitioner cannot claim parity. In support of his contention, he relied on paragraph 28 of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24523 WP No. 23097 of 2021 judgment of the Apex Court n the case of R.MUTHUKUMAR AND OTHERS vs. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, TANGEDCO AND OTHERS reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 151. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers. 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as a daily wage employee in the fifth respondent Municipal Council on 01.10.1988. As on today, the petitioner is working as a daily wage employee in the fifth respondent - Town Municipal Council. The petitioner, along with his co-workers approached this Court by filing WP.No.41318/2003 and this Court, on 12.06.2009 directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization. The fifth respondent vide Annexure-E dated 29.06.2020 recommended the name of the petitioner for regularization stating that the petitioner has satisfied all the conditions mentioned in UMADEVI (supra). Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner has also - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24523 WP No. 23097 of 2021 recommended the name of the petitioner and sent communication to the Director of Municipal Administration by letter dated 29.10.2020. The fifth respondent changed the decision and sent a communication to the District Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner, vide Annexure R3, stating that the petitioner was not appointed against a clear vacancy. On that ground, the impugned order Annexure R1 has been passed by the Committee, rejecting the request of the petitioner for regularization. In the impugned orders vide Annexures R1 and R3, the only ground for rejection is that the appointment of the petitioner is not against a clear vacancy. The petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of JAGGO (supra). The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted below: “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 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24523 WP No. 23097 of 2021 how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private 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.” 11. In the case on hand, the petitioner has worked as a daily wage employee from 1988, i.e., almost 37 years. It is clear that they need the service of the petitioner. This aspect of the matter was not considered by the fifth respondent while sending recommendation to the Government. 12. The respondents have considered the case of the co-employees of the petitioner – Ningappa, Eshwarappa and Ramegowda, even though their appointment is not against sanctioned posts. In this regard, the Apex Court in the case of MALATHI DAS (supra) has held as below: “13. In the aforesaid undisputed facts it is wholly unnecessary for us to consider as to whether - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24523 WP No. 23097 of 2021 the cases of persons who were awaiting regularization on the date of the decision in UMADEVI (3) is required to be dealt with inasmuch as the claims of the respondent employees can well be decided on principles of parity. Similarly placed employees having been regularized by the State and in case of some of them such regularization being after the decision in UMADEVI (3) we are of the view that the stand taken by the appellants in refusing regularization to the respondents cannot be countenanced. However, as the said stand of the appellants stems from their perception and understanding of the decision in UMADEVI (3) we do not hold them liable for contempt but make it clear that the appellants and all the other competent authorities of the State will now be obliged and duty-bound to regularize the services of the respondents (74 in number) which will now be done forthwith and in any case within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.” On these grounds, the writ petition requires to be allowed and the impugned orders vide Annexures R1 and R3 requires to be set aside. 13. Accordingly, the following order is passed: - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24523 WP No. 23097 of 2021 (i) The writ petition is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned orders vide Annexure R1 dated 29.12.2017 and Annexure R3 dated 22.09.2022 are hereby quashed. (iii) The matter is remanded back to the fourth respondent - Deputy Commissioner. (iv) The fourth respondent – Deputy Commissioner is directed to decide the matter, in accordance with law, keeping in view the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of JAGGO (supra), MALATHI DAS (supra) and UMADEVI (supra), as expeditiously as possible not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 50