- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:142 WP No. 106110 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO.106110 OF 2024 (S-REG) BETWEEN: 1. SAKRAPPA S/O. SATHYAPPA HALLI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: DAILY WAGE WORKER, R/O: CHAPPARADAHALLI, SANDUR, DIST: BELLARY, KARNATAKA – 583 119. 2. UGRANARASIMHA S/O. SHANMUKAPPA, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: DAILY WAGE WORKER, R/O: SANDUR, DIST: BELLARY, KARNATAKA – 583 119. 3. HUSENSAB S/O. DHINSAB, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: DAILY WAGE WORKER, R/O: WARD NO.23, NANDHIHALLI, NEAR ANJANEYYA TEMPLE, SANDUR, DIST: BELLARY, KARNATAKA – 583 119. 4. N. MOHAN S/O. N. NARASAPPA, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: DAILY WAGE WORKER, R/O: HOUSE NO.176, 14TH WARD, BEHIND VISHAL THEATRE, SANDUR, DIST: BELLARY, KARNATAKA – 583 119. 5. B. HONNURSWAMY, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: DAILY WAGE WORKER, R/O: 103, WARD NO.4, AMBETHKAR COLONY, TARANAGAR, BALLARI, DIST: BELLARY, KARNATAKA – 583 119. 6. METI SURESH S/O. METI TIPPESWAMY, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: DAILY WAGE WORKER, VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.01.21 11:27:13 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:142 WP No. 106110 of 2024 R/O: 169/C, 2ND WARD, TARANAGAR, SANDUR, DIST: BELLARY, KARNATAKA – 583 119. 7. SHARANAPPA S/O. KOMARAPPA, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: DAILY WAGE WORKER, R/O: NO.27, WARD NO.12, HALLAD STREET, SANDUR, DIST: BELLARY, KARNATAKA – 583 119. 8. D. GANGADHAR S/O. D. NINGAPPA, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: DAILY WAGE WORKER, R/O: NO.39, WARD NO.1, TARANAGAR, SANDUR, DIST: BELLARY, KARNATAKA – 583 119. 9. CHANNAPPA S/O. SUNKAPPA, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: DAILY WAGE WORKER, R/O: 14TH WARD, OLD CHAPPARADAHALLI, SANDUR, DIST: BELLARY, KARNATAKA – 583 119. 10. MAILAPPA K. S/O. CHANNABASAPPA K., AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: DAILY WAGE WORKER, R/O: WARD NO.19, SMIORE COLONY, NEAR SRISAILA SCHOOL, SANDUR, DIST: BELLARY, KARNATAKA – 583 119. 11. YARRISWAMY S/O MAILAPPA AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: DAILY WAGE WORKER, R/O: WARD NO.4, HOUSE NO.356, KALER ONI, SANDUR, DIST: BELLARY, KARNATAKA-583119. 12. G. SATYAPPA S/O. BHIMANNA G., AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: DAILY WAGE WORKER, R/O: WARD NO.23, NANDHIHALLI, SANDUR, DIST: BELLARY, KARNATAKA – 583 119. 13. KUMARSWAMY N S/O. LATE MARAPPA N., AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: DAILY WAGE WORKER, R/O: SANDUR, DIST: BELLARY, KARNATAKA – 583 119. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:142 WP No. 106110 of 2024 14. GANGANNA S/O. LATE SIDDAPPA, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: DAILY WAGE WORKER, R/O: WARD NO.13, GOWLERU ONI, SANDUR, DIST: BELLARY, KARNATAKA – 583 119. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI NANDISH PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNDER SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, VIDHANA VEDI, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, KARNATAKA, VISHWESHWARAYYA PODIUM, BENGALURU – 560 001. 3. DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL, BALLARI – 583 119, REPRESENTED BY PROJECT DIRECTOR. 4. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SANDUR – 583 119, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF OFFICER. 5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BALLARI – 583 119. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3 AND R5; SRI RAGHAVENDRA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO. 4 BRG. NO. PU. SASAM/SIBBANDI/41/ DINAGULI/2019-20 DATED 30.08.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-F, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 5 TO REGULARIZE THE SERVICES OF THE PETITIONERS IN TERMS OF THE DECISION OF THE HON’BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. UMADEVI AND OTHERS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:142 WP No. 106110 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayer: A) Issue writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order passed by respondent no. 4 brg. No. Pu. SaSaM/Sibbandi/41/ Dinaguli/2019-20 dated 30.08.2019 vide Annexure-F, in the interest of justice and equity. B) Issue writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to 5 to regularize the services of the petitioners in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi and others, in the interest of justice and equity. c) Issue such other suitable order/s or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned HCGP for the respondents-State and the counsel appearing for respondent No.4. 3. The petitioners, who are 14 in number, are the ones who appear to have been left out or who did not knock at the doors of this Court, while the cases of others were considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:142 WP No. 106110 of 2024 W.P.No.147155/2020 c/w W.P.No.104815/2018, W.P.No.115153/2019 & W.P.No.103761/2021. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners in the subject petition are similarly placed like that of those petitioners which formed consideration of these cases, at the hands of the Coordinate Bench. 5. The Coordinate Bench considering the cases of the claim of these petitioners, has held as follows: “10. Law with regard to the regularization of employees is well settled. The principles enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Umadevi (supra) at paragraph 53 of the said judgment and further clarification given by the Apex Court in the case of M.L. Kesari (supra) have been consistently followed. 11. In Umadevi’s case (supra), paragraph No.53 reads as under: 53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. NARAYANAPPA and R. N. NANJUNDAPPA , and B.N. NAGARAJAN and referred to in paragraph 15 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:142 WP No. 106110 of 2024 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one - time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.” 12. In the case of M L Kesari (supra), th Apex Court at Paragraph Nos.9, 10 & 11, it is held as under: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:142 WP No. 106110 of 2024 “9. The term “one-time measure” has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi (3), each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, dailywage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularise their services. 10. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi(3) cases of several daily- wage/ad hoc/casual employees were still pending before courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one- time regularisation process. On the other hand, some government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of the decision in Umadevi (3) , will not lose their right to be considered for regularisation, merely because the onetime exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six-month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi (3) has expired. The one- - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:142 WP No. 106110 of 2024 time exercise should consider all daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10-4- 2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the onetime exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi (3), the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one-time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of Umadevi (3), are so considered. 11. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi (3) 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 (3) 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 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:142 WP No. 106110 of 2024 worked for more than ten years as on 10-4-2006 [the date of decision in Umadevi ] 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 or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularisation in terms of the above directions in Umadevi (3) as a one-time measure.” 13. In the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari and others, the Apex Court at paragraph Nos.7 & 7 it is held as under: “7. The purpose and intent of the decision in Umadevi (3) was therefore twofold, namely, to prevent irregular or illegal appointments in the future and secondly, to confer a benefit on those who had been irregularly appointed in the past. The fact that the State of Jharkhand continued with the irregular appointments for almost a decade after the decision in Umadevi (3) is a clear indication that it believes that it was all right to continue with irregular appointments, and whenever required, terminate the services of the irregularly appointed employees on the ground that they were irregularly appointed. This is nothing but a form of exploitation - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:142 WP No. 106110 of 2024 of the employees by not giving them the benefits of regularisation and by placing the sword of Damocles over their head. This is precisely what Umadevi (3) and Kesari sought to avoid. 8. If a strict and literal interpretation, forgetting the spirit of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi (3), is to be taken into consideration then no irregularly appointed employee of the State of Jharkhand could ever be regularised since that State came into existence only on 15-11-2000 and the cut-off date was fixed as 10-4-2006. In other words, in this manner the pernicious practice of indefinitely continuing irregularly appointed employees would be perpetuated contrary to the intent of the Constitution Bench.” 14. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioners were appointed by the Municipal Council, which was the appointing authority during the period between 1993 to 2004, at which, the petitioners’ claim to have been appointed to the post of ‘D’ group employees. There is also no dispute of the fact that the petitioners continued to serve till the impugned communications were issued in the year 2019, relieving them from their services upon the instructions/directions issued by the Deputy Commissioner. Thus, the petitioners have served more than 10 years. 15. This Court by order dated 10.07.2024, had sought for clarification from the counsel representing the respondent- authorities as to; whether the entry of the petitioners into their - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:142 WP No. 106110 of 2024 employment, was against the sanctioned posts and whether the same was in accordance with the applicable Rules or whether their appointments were irregular or illegal? 16. Today, counsel for the respondents also fairly submit that as on the date the petitioners claim to be have been appointed, the Appointing Authority were Municipal Council. However, they hasten to add, that their appointments were not against the sanctioned posts. Having said that, they are unable to point out as to the number of sanctioned posts that were available during the said period. This being the factual aspect of the matter, requires consideration at the hands of respondentauthorities referring to the records for the relevant period. 17. Length of service of the petitioner not being in dispute, the only question which may have to be ascertained by the respondent-authorities is whether all the petitioners were appointed against the sanctioned posts or only some of them. If the authorities on availability of records are able to come to the conclusion that the appointment of the petitioners were made against the sanctioned posts, they may also have to ascertain the number of sanctioned posts then available. They may thereafter consider their request for regularization. 18. With the above observation, these petitions are disposed off with the following directions: (i) The respondent-Deputy Commissioner to verify the records with regard to the number of sanctioned posts which were available on the dates of appointment of - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:142 WP No. 106110 of 2024 the petitioner and then initiate process of consideration of the cases of the petitioners individually as against the said sanctioned posts and pass such appropriate orders keeping in mind the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Umadevi (supra) at paragraph 53 of the said judgment, clarified in case of M L Kesari (supra). (ii) It is made clear that the aforesaid process shall be completed within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (iii) The claim of the petitioners in W.P.No.147155/2022 and W.P.No.104815/2018 for reinstatement would be considered only thereafter by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner. (iv) It is also further made clear that if the petitioners in W.P.No.115153/2019 & W.P.No.103761/2021 have not been relieved as on the said date, no precipitative orders shall be passed till the determination of their cases as directed hereinabove. The Court hopes that necessary assistance / instructions in these matters will be given by the office of the learned AAG to the Deputy Commissioner to interpret - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:142 WP No. 106110 of 2024 and implement the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Umadevi & M.L. Kesari (supra) to the facts concerning the cases at hand. ORDER ON ‘BEING SPOKEN TO’ 1. This matter is taken up for being spoken to upon the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Counsel for the respondents referred to AnnexureR5 produced along with the statement of objection filed by the respondent-State Government which is a purported notification bearing number VNE 150 TMT 94 dated 10.02.1995, in terms of which, the State Government has purportedly delegated certain powers of the Municipal Council and Municipal Corporations, to the Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner. Referring to the same, counsel of the respondents submit that the power to appoint Group ‘D’ employees in the Municipal Council and Municipal Corporations have been delegated to the Deputy Commissioner, who is required to make such appointment with the prior permission of the Government. Thus, it is contended that, when the matter was disposed of on 15.07.2024, the respondents’ counsel could not bring this point for consideration before this Court. Hence, the matter was moved for being spoken to. 3. Counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, submits that, the said notification which is produced at Annexure-R5 has never been gazetted, as required to be published under the provisions of sub-Section (16) of - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:142 WP No. 106110 of 2024 Section 2 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act of 1964’) in terms of which, a notification means, a notification published in the official gazette. That, until and unless it is published in official gazette it has no force of law. She also relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Agricultural University Vs.Ashok Kumar Prasad and Ors., passed in Civil Appeal No.6937/2004, dated 30.11.2009 in support of her aforesaid submission. Thus, according to the counsel for the petitioners, the said Annexure- R5 is merely a draft and has never seen the daylight as required under the Act. As such, she submits, the same has no legal effect and the same is non est in the eyes of law. 4. Further referring to section 388 of the Act, 1964 she submits that even for the sake of argument, it is accepted that, the said notification was issued in exercise of power under Section 388 of the Act, 1964 as shown thereunder, no powers as stated in the said notification could be delegated inasmuch as Section 388 of the Act, itself do not contemplate delegation of such power. Thus, she submits that the said notification cannot be given credence in the eyes of law. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-Authorities is unable to point out, if the said notification at Annexure-R5 was published, as required under the law. 6. Heard further. 7. Since, while disposing of the writ petition, this Court taking into consideration submissions made by the - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:142 WP No. 106110 of 2024 counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents, had observed that the petitioners herein, were appointed between the year 1993 and 2004 by the competent authority and issued directions to consider their case, the subsequent submission now made regarding delegation of powers, may also be required to be considered by the respondent-Authorities. Accordingly, the further direction is issued as under: (i) While considering the request of the petitioner for regularisation as directed, the respondent-authority, shall pass specific order with regard to the said notification, that is, whether the said notification has been published or not in the official gazette as required under Section 2(16) of the Act, 1964; (ii) If it is found that, the said notification was not gazetted, as required under the Act, the respondent authorities shall proceed further as if the appointment of the petitioners were made by the competent appointing authority, namely the Municipal Council.” - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:142 WP No. 106110 of 2024 6. In the light of the petitioners being similarly placed, relief to them cannot be denied on this score that they did not knock at the doors of this Court. Therefore the petitioners become entitled to the same relief if they are similarly placed. The petition is thus allowed in the same terms on what the Coordinate Bench has directed in the aforesaid petitions. 7. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KGK/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39