- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:859 WP No. 106610 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO.106610 OF 2024 (S-REG) BETWEEN: ERANNA S/O. CHANDRAHEKARAYYA KAVDIMATH, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE IN MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, R/O: KAVALOOR ONI, KOPPAL, TQ AND DIST: KOPPAL – 583 231. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR BALAGERIMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MINOR IRRIGATION AND GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, DEPARTMENT OF MINOR IRRIGATION AND GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT, VIJAYPURA – 184 120. 3. THE SUPERINDEANT ENGINEER, DEPARTMENT OF MINOR IRRIGATION AND GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT, KALBURGI CIRCLE KALBURGI – 585 211. VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.01.21 12:19:16 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:859 WP No. 106610 of 2024 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DEPARTMENT OF MINOR IRRIGATION AND GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT KOPPAL – 583 231, DIST: KOPPAL. 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, THE DEPARTMENT OF MINOR IRRIGATION AND GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT, KOPPAL-583 231, DIST: KOPPAL. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 TO R5;) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDR ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 02/08/2024 BEARING NO.SAM.SAKAANIE/SANI AND AMAA/UV/KOO/DIXI/2024-25/558 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT/THE AEE KOPPAL PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G. A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO REGULARIZE THE SERVICE OF PETITIONER AS ON THE DATE ELIGIBLE AND TO GIVE ALL THE BENEFITS IN TERMS OF THE REPRESENTATION VIDE ANNEXURE-E DATED 24/6/2024 AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:859 WP No. 106610 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before the Court, calling in question, the impugned endorsement, dated 02.08.2024 by which, the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his services is turned down by the State. 2. Heard the learned counsel Shri Vijaykumar Balagerimath appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Kirtilatha R.Patil, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent – State. 3. The petitioner is appointed on daily wages in the respondent / Department of Minor Irrigation on 13.02.2014, the list is drawn of persons who had completed 10 years of service and in the list the petitioner figures at Sl. No.321. It transpires that, similarly placed persons knocked at the doors of the Court seeking regularization, which reach the Apex Court in the judgment of MALATHI DAS (RETIRED) NOW P.B. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:859 WP No. 106610 of 2024 MAHISHY AND OTHERS VS. SURESH AND OTHERS1. The Apex Court directs regularisation of 74 persons who are before the Apex Court pursuant to the direction of the Apex Court it transpires that in the very same Department certain employees who were juniors to the petitioners have been regularised. The petitioner’s case is not considered and an endorsement is issued that the petitioner is not entitled for such regularization. 4. The statement of objections are filed in the case at hand in which the contention of the state inter alia is as follows: “4. It is respectfully submitted that, the order passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3338/2014 is applicable only to the Petitioners who have approached the Hon'ble Court and there is no specific order in the said order to regularize the service of similarly placed persons. Hence the order relied by the petitioner is not applicable to the petitioner. It is submitted that Annexure-C was passed in respect of the petitioners who have approached the court.” 1 (2014) 13 SCC 249 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:859 WP No. 106610 of 2024 5. It is the case of the State again inter alia that there is no specific order passed by any Court to regularise the services of the petitioner or any similarly situated persons as obtaining in Civil Appeal quoted supra. It is not in dispute that, the petitioner is an appointee like the others, who had knocked at the doors of the Apex Court has also like others who are regularised pursuant to the order passed by the Apex Court. 6. The petitioner appears to have been picked and chosen for a differential treatment which smacks arbitrariness on the part of the State as similarly placed persons have to be accorded similar belief not that everyone should not knocked at the doors of this Court as the State can bear the brunt of litigation and not an employee for driving every employee to this Court seeking the very same relief. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to direct the State to consider the case of the petitioner In strict consonance with what the Court has held in MALATHI DAS (supra) and what the State itself has done - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:859 WP No. 106610 of 2024 in terms of the Government Order dated 27.04.2015 (Annexure-C) which was pursuant to the order passed by the Apex Court. 7. In that light, the petition deserves to succeed. The endorsement dated 13.02.2014 stands quashed. Mandamus issues to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order within an outer limit of two months, if not earlier. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits that would flow from such consideration. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE VNP / CT: ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57