- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41942 WP No. 1598 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 1598 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. D.S.PRATHAP S/O SUBBANNA.D, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT DEVANURU VILLAGE, NANJANAGUDU TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 119. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.N.KUMAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION (TECHNICAL) VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION (COLLEGIATE AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION) PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001. 3. UNDER SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION (TECHNICAL EDUCATION) GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560001. 4. THE SECRETARY SREE GURU MALLESHWARA MAHAVIDYALAYA SAMSTE (POLYTECHNIC) Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41942 WP No. 1598 of 2025 DEVANOOR, NANJANAGUDU TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571314. 5. THE PRINCIPAL SREE GURU MALLESHWARA MAHAVIDYALAYA SAMSTE (POLYTECHNIC) DEVANOOR, NANJANAGUDU TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT-571314. 6. SATHISHA.K.S S/O SHIVANANJAPPA MAJOR, R/AT KANANURU VILLAGE, HULLAHALLI HOBLI, NANJANAGUDU TLAUK, MYSORE DISTRICT – 571314. 7. MANAGING DIRECTOR CHECKMATE ASSET SERVICES PVT. LTD., OFFICE AT NO.1128, 13TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, 1ST STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR MYSURU - 570017. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.B.SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI.THYAGARAJA.S., ADVOCATE FOR C/R4 AND R6; SRI.SANDEEP.R., ADVOCATE FOR R6; R7 – SERVED.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 13.11.2024 IN NO.ED 68 TPE 2024 AT SL.NO.9 ISSUED BY R-3 AT ANNX-P IN RESPECT OF R-6; DIRECT THE R-1 TO 5 TO EXTEND THE BENEFIT OF SALARY UNDER GRANT- IN-AID FOR THE POST OF MECHANIC TO THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41942 WP No. 1598 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 13.11.2024 in No.ED 68 TPE 2024 at Sl.No.9 issued by respondent No.3 at Annexure-N in respect of respondent No.6. b) Issue a writ in nature of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 5 to extend the benefit of salary under Grant-in-Aid for the post of Mechanic to the petitioner. c) Issue such other direction which the Hon’ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are as follows: The petitioner after completion of SSLC, completed ITI course and he was appointed as a Mechanic in Mechanical Engineering Division of respondent - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41942 WP No. 1598 of 2025 No.3/Institution on 06.10.2017. Since then, he was working as a Mechanic in the said Institution on a permanent basis without any remark and un-beamishly and the petitioner is eligible for appointment for the post of Mechanic. The respondent/Institution recommended the name of respondent No.5 for the post of Mechanic under Grant-in-Aid pattern to the Government by providing false information, saying that he was working since 2016. During the pendency of the writ petition in W.P.No.23035/2024 and also despite the knowledge of pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the respondents by colluding each other passed an order admitting respondent No.6 in Grant-in-Aid for the post of Mechanic at Sl.No.9 of the annexure in the said order. It is contented that respondent No.6 is not eligible for the same and the same was done only to deprive the appointment of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Respondent No.4 filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the memorandum of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41942 WP No. 1598 of 2025 petition and contended that the petitioner was appointed on a temporary basis on certain terms and conditions stipulated in the order of appointment. It is the condition stated in the order of appointment that the order of appointment may be cancelled or the service of the petitioner may be discontinued at any moment and stated that the pay salary conditions are decided by the management. The petitioner having accepted the terms and conditions mentioned in the appointment order, do not have any vested right to seek a relief against the management for approving his appointment with the salary grant and it is also contented that the petitioner was appointed on a temporary basis by an order of appointment dated 06.10.2017 and the respondent No.6 was appointed on a regular basis on 17.02.2016 and his probation was declared on 06.03.2018. It is contended that the sixth respondent was eligible for the post of Mechanic and he was appointed by the Institution. The order of appointment issued to respondent No.6 is in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41942 WP No. 1598 of 2025 accordance with law. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 learned counsel for respondent No.6. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis and he submits that the petitioner has a vested right to seek for regularization. He submits that respondents No.4 and 5 colluding with respondent No. 6 created the records and recommended the name of respondent No.6 for Grant-in- Aid instead of recommending the name of the petitioner for Grant-in-Aid. The action of the respondents, in not recommending the name of the petitioner for Grant-in-Aid, is arbitrary. He also submits that as on the date of the alleged appointment of respondent No.6, he was working somewhere else. So, he submits that respondent Nos.4 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41942 WP No. 1598 of 2025 and 5 got created the documents to help respondent No.6. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 submits that respondent No.6 was appointed on 16.02.2016 on a regular basis and his probation was declared on 06.03.2018 and respondent No.6 was working in the Institution from the date of appointment and he was not working anywhere other than respondent Nos.4 and 5/Institutions. He submits that the petitioner got created an Annexure-J to establish that respondent No.6 was working somewhere else. He further submits that there are records in respondent Nos.4 and 5/Institutions to establish that respondent No.6 was working as a Mechanic in the Mechanical Department in respondent Nos.4 and 5/Institutions since from the date of appointment. He also submits that in case, if respondent No.6 was not working in respondent Nos.4 and 5/Institutions, the petitioner has not taken any steps - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41942 WP No. 1598 of 2025 against respondent No.6 either by lodging a complaint or by reporting the same to the higher authorities. He submits that the petitioner is estopped to contend that respondent No.6 was not working in respondent Nos.4 and 5/Institutions from 16.02.2016. Hence, he also submits that the question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is a disputed question of facts and the Writ Court cannot decide the disputed question of facts under writ jurisdiction. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 7. I have perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 8. There is no dispute that the petitioner was working as a Mechanic in Mechanical Department in respondent No.4 and 5/Institutions from 06.10.2017 on contract basis and respondent No.6 was also working as a Mechanic in Mechanical Department since 16.02.2016. Respondent Nos.4 and 5/Institutions produced an appointment order of respondent No.6 which discloses that - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41942 WP No. 1598 of 2025 respondent No.6 was appointed on 16.02.2016 on a regular basis and his probation was declared on 06.03.2018. Though the petitioner was well aware that the probation period of respondent No.6 was declared in 2018, the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the order of declaring the probation period of respondent No.6 in 2018. However, the petitioner was working on a contract basis and his contract came to an end and respondent Nos.4 and 5 have not extended the contract. 9. The petitioner has no vested right to continue in service as a Mechanic in Mechanical Department. Respondent Nos.4 and 5/Institutions recommended the name of respondent No.6 for Grant-in-Aid. The grievance of the petitioner is that his name should have been recommended for Grant-in-Aid. Admittedly, the petitioner was working on a contract basis and his service was not regularized by respondent Nos.4 and 5. Hence, the question of recommending the name of the petitioner for Grant-in-Aid would not arise. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41942 WP No. 1598 of 2025 considering the appointment of respondent No.6 and declaration of probation period, have recommended the name of respondent No.6 for Grant-in-Aid. Respondent Nso.4 and 5 have rightly recommended the name of respondent No.6 for admitting his service for Grant-in-Aid. 10. I do not find any error in recommending the name of respondent No.6 for admitting his service in Grant-in-Aid and respondent No.6 is a senior to the petitioner. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. I do not find any grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE NC. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4