- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25812-DB WP No. 22903 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH 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.22903 OF 2023 (S-CAT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. M.R. HARISH KUMAR S/O LATE M S RAMACHANDRA RAO AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, WORKING AS CAMERAMAN GRADE-II (ADHOC), DOORDARSHAN KENDRA J C NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 006 R/AT NO.65, FLAT NO.103, KSHEERABDI NILAYA APARTMENT, 3RD CROSS, ANJANADRI LAYOUT, KONANAKUNTE BENGALURU – 560 062 2. SRI K S RAVINDRA S/O LATE K SIDDAPPASETTY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS WORKING AS CAMERAMAN GRADE (ADHOC) DOORDARSHAN KENDRA J C NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 006 R/AT NO.U-6, U BLOCK, GATE NO.7, VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 040 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAJARAM T, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25812-DB WP No. 22903 of 2023 AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING, SHASTRY BHAVAN, NEW DELHI – 110 001 2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PRASAR BHARATHI BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA, PTI BUILDING, PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI – 110 001 3. DIRECTOR GENERAL DOORDARSHAN PRASAR BHARATHI BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA, DOORDARSHAN BHAVAN COPERNICUS MARG NEW DELHI – 110 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAYAKARA SHETTY H, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.06.2023 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE, IN OA No. 170/00441/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; b) DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REGULARIZE THE SERVICES FROM 1993 AND NOT FROM 2013; - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25812-DB WP No. 22903 of 2023 c) PASS ORDER OF CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioners are before this Court under Article– 226 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 01.06.2023, in O.A.No.170/00441/2021, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench (for short ‘CAT’) where under the petitioners challenge to the order dated 30.07.2021, bearing No.31/I/2019-SI (A)/217 (Annexure-A9), requesting to regularize their services on completion of 10 years service is rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Rajaram.T, for the petitioners and Sri.Jayakara Shetty.H, learned counsel for - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25812-DB WP No. 22903 of 2023 respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners joined third respondent – Doordarshan on 16.02.1993 (Annexure-A1) as Cameraman Grade-II on adhoc basis. Thereafter, vide an order dated 31.12.2013 (Annexure-A4), the petitioners services were regularized as Cameraman Grade-II. Thereafter, under a ‘speaking order’ dated 30.07.2021 (Annexure-A9), the petitioners request to regularize their services with retrospective effect date i.e., the date of completion of 10 years of services, was rejected. 4. Learned counsel Sri.Rajaram would contend that the petitioners who were initially appointed on adhoc basis in the year 1993, completed 10 years of service during 2003 and on completion of 10 years of service, they are entitled to be placed in a common seniority list of Cameraman Grade-II, from the date of completion of ten years. He places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25812-DB WP No. 22903 of 2023 Apex Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS vs. UMADEVI AND OTHERS1 and also on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SRI.P.JUNJAPPA Vs. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND OTHERS, in WRIT PETITION NO.6238 OF 2020, dated 17.03.2025, to contend that the petitioners are entitled for regularization of service on completion of 10 years of service. 5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Jayakara Shetty.H, would support the judgment passed by the CAT and contend that the petitioners were appointed on adhoc basis on 16.02.1993. The petitioners had participated in the selection process initiated by UPSC in the year 1995 for Cameraman Grade-II and the petitioners failed to qualify, however, they were continued on adhoc basis in Doordarshan. Subsequently, taking note of the petitioners’ service, they were regularized into service on 31.12.2013. He further submits that they have no right to seek 1 (2006) 4 SCC 1 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25812-DB WP No. 22903 of 2023 regularization from a particular date, as such, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. The petitioners were appointed as Cameraman Grade-II on adhoc basis on 16.02.1993. The respondent – Doordarshan taking note of the service of the petitioners by order dated 31.12.2013 (Annexure-A4) regularized the services of the petitioners as Cameraman Grade-II. It is settled position of law that, no daily-wage or adhoc employee could seek regularization of service as a matter of right. In the instant case, taking note of the services of the petitioners, the respondent – Doordarshan authorities regularized the services of the employees by order dated 31.12.2013 and the petitioners cannot seek regularization from an earlier date instead of the said date. 7. The decision relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of UMADEVI supra would not assist the case of the petitioners. In the aforesaid case, regularization of an irregularly appointed person is prohibited. However, at paragraph No.53 of the judgment - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25812-DB WP No. 22903 of 2023 of the UMADEVI’s case the Hon’ble Apex Court as an exception permitted regularization of daily-wagers as one time measure, who are working as on the said date. 8. In the case of JUNJAPPA supra the Coordinate Bench of this Court taking note of the fact that the petitioner’s service has not been regularized even after 30 years of service, directed the respondent – State authorities to consider petitioner's case for regularization in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS VS M.L. KESARI & OTHERS2. The judgment in the case of JUNJAPPA supra would also not assist the petitioners’ case since the petitioners are regularized on 31.12.2013 and they would not be entitled for retrospective regularization. 2 2010 (9) SCC 247 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25812-DB WP No. 22903 of 2023 9. With the above observations, the writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44