- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13895-DB WA No. 100642 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. WRIT APPEAL NO.100642 OF 2025 (S-REG) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES VIDYA NAGAR, HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD-590001, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. IRAWWA ANNIGERI D/O. GURAPPA ANNIGERI AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC. STAFF NURSE/NURSING OFFICER, KARNATAKA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, VIDYA NAGAR, HUBLI-590001. 2. SMT. MEENAXI DODDAMANI D/O. SEDEPPA DODDAMANI AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. STAFF NURSE/NURSING OFFICER, KARANTAKA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, VIDYA NAGAR, HUBLI-590001. 3. SMT. SULOCHANA INDIRANI D/O. JOHN INDIRANNI AGE: 53 YEARS, Digitally signed by BHARATHI H M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.10.29 13:20:44 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13895-DB WA No. 100642 of 2025 OCC. STAFF NURSE/NURSING OFFICER, KARANTAKA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES VIDYA NAGAR, HUBLI-590001. 4. SMT. LATTAMMA N. D/O. NAGENDRAPPA AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC. STAFF NURSE/NURSING OFFICER, KARANTAKA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, VIDYA NAGAR, HUBLI-590001. 5. SMT. MANJULA M. MULIMANI AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC. STAFF NURSE/NURSING OFFICER, KARANTAKA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES VIDYA NAGAR, HUBLI-590001. 6. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (MEDICAL EDUCATION) M.S. BUILDING, BANGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAMACHANDRA MALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, PRL. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R6) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL, BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21/02/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.106939/2024 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE SAID WRIT PETITION MAY KINDLY BE DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13895-DB WA No. 100642 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) IA No.4/2025 is filed for filing additional documents is allowed and the documents are taken on record. This writ appeal by the respondent No.2 before the learned single judge filed under Section 4 of Karnataka High Court Act,1961 is directed against the order dated 21.02.2025 in Writ Petition No.106939/2024 wherein learned single judge allowed the writ petition of respondents and directed the appellants as follows: “ii. The impugned endorsement dated 23.07.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-H stands quashed. iii. The cases of the petitioners shall now merit reconsideration at the hands of the respondents bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the aforesaid order within 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order." - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13895-DB WA No. 100642 of 2025 2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Aravind D. Kulkarni for appellant, learned counsel Sri.Ramachandra Mali, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri.G.K.Hiregoudar, Prl. Government Advocate for respondent No.6 and perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. The respondent Nos.1 to 5 were initially appointed on ad-hoc basis in pursuance to the recruitment Notification dated 15.03.2013(Annexure-C). Their services were continued from time to time. Earlier they approached this Court praying for a direction to the appellant herein to absorb/regularize their services in their respective posts of para-medical staff. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to consider the representation given by the Association in the light of decision of Hon’ble Apex court and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible. 4. In terms of the directions issued, the appellant issued endorsement dated 22.03.2019(Annexure-H) rejecting the request of the respondent Nos.1 to 5 stating - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13895-DB WA No. 100642 of 2025 that when the respondents were appointed on ad-hoc basis, procedure of merit cum roster was not followed and it was not a widely published notice. The said endorsement was the subject matter of present writ petition No.106939/2024. Learned single judge on consideration of the entire issue, placing reliance on the recent decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court has rightly directed the appellants herein to reconsider the issue of regularization/absorption bearing in mind the observations made during the course of the order. 5. Learned counsel Sri.Aravind Kulkarni appearing for the appellant would contend that the learned single judge has failed to take into notice certain facts and having failed to appreciate the fact that while appointing respondents, procedure laid down for direct recruitment has not been followed. Further, he submits that the appointment of respondent Nos.1 to 5 is a back door entry and they have not fulfilled the criteria for regularization, as such he would submit that the order passed by the learned single judge under appeal requires interference. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13895-DB WA No. 100642 of 2025 6. Learned counsel placing reliance on the additional documents produced along with application i.e., course completion certificate dated 22.11.2018 would submit that respondent No.1 was studying BSc., Nursing till 2015, as such, she could not have been appointed in the year 2013 itself. Thus, he would pray for allowing the writ appeal. 7. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Ramachandra Mali would submit that the learned single judge taking note of the entire facts and taking note of the fact that the respondent Nos.1 to 5 were appointed in pursuance to the recruitment notice dated 15.03.2013(Annexure-C), and as they were eligible while being appointed on ad-hoc or contract basis, rightly directed the appellants to reconsider the issue of regularization/absorption of respondent Nos.1 to 5. 8. Learned counsel Sri.Ramachandra Mali would submit that the learned single judge has placed reliance on - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13895-DB WA No. 100642 of 2025 the recent decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of regularization. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the writ appeal. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ appeal papers, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned single judge. Admittedly, the respondent Nos.1 to 5 were appointed as staff nurse on ad-hoc basis in pursuance to recruitment notice dated 15.03.2013(Annexure-C) notice inviting applications for appointment of staff nurse on contract basis, prescribed qualifications which reads as follows: “4) «zÁåºÀðvÉ ºÁUÀÆ C£ÀĨsÀªÀ:- C. ¦.AiÀÄÄ.¹ (10+2 CxÀªÁ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£ÁAvÀgÀ) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ fJ£ïJA CxÀªÁ r¥ÉÇèêÀiÁ E£ï £À¹AðUÀ 3 1/2 ªÀµÀð PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ ªÀiÁ£ÀåvÉ ¥ÀqÉzÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀiÁVgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ±ÀıÀÆæµÀPÀ ¥ÀjµÀwÛ£À°è £ÉÆÃAzÀt ªÀiÁr¹gÀĪÀ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. D. D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ°è L.¹.AiÀÄÄ, vÀÄvÀÄð aQvÁì «¨sÁUÀ J£ï.L.¹.AiÀÄÄ, ¦.L.¹.AiÀÄÄ, L.¹.¹.AiÀÄÄ, qÀAiÀiÁ°¸À¸ï, ¥ÉÆøïÖ D¥ÀgÉÃnªï ªÁqïð ºÁUÀÆ D¥ÀgÉõÀ£ï xÉÃlgÀUÀ¼À°è PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¹zÀ C£ÀĨsÀ£À PÀ¤µÀ× 2 ªÀµÀð EgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. E. PÀ¤µÀ× 300 ºÁ¹UÉUÀ½VAvÀ ºÉaÑUÉ ¸ÁªÀÄxÀåðªÀżÀî D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ°è PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¹zÀ C£ÀĨsÀªÀ EgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. F. ¸ÀÆPÀÛ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ zÉÆgÉAiÀÄ¢zÀÝ°è EvÀgÀ «¨sÁUÀUÀ¼À°è 2 ªÀµÀð C£ÀĨsÀªÀ«gÀĪÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀjUÀt¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.” - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13895-DB WA No. 100642 of 2025 10. The respondent Nos.1 to 5 were qualified with PUC and GNM or Diploma in Nursing 3 years course from institutions recognized by the Karnataka State Government. The qualification of BSc., Nursing was not a prescribed qualification in terms of notice inviting applications. First respondent was studying BSc., Nursing course. The course completion certificate indicates that the BSc., Nursing course was two years course and though, respondent No.1 had joined the course on 14.10.2008, she passed examination only in the year 2017 does not mean that the first respondent was studying BSc., Nursing till 2015. 11. Without the nursing staff, the hospital of the petitioner institution cannot be run. Though, there was necessity for appointment of staff nurses on regular basis, for the reasons best known to the appellant, it invited the application for appointment of staff nurse on contract basis. The notice inviting application dated 15.03.2013 also indicates the roster, against which the appointment is to be made. Therefore, the reasons stated in the endorsement - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13895-DB WA No. 100642 of 2025 rejecting the petitioners’ request for regularization has no basis. The learned single judge placing reliance on the recent decision of Hon’ble Apex Court wherein, it is observed that when a temporary employee or daily wager continued for a long period it is to be presumed that there is a need for services of such person on regular basis. When the learned single judge has passed reasoned order, we are not inclined to interfere with the learned single judge’s order. There is no merit in the writ appeal. 12. Accordingly, writ appeal stands rejected. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE HMB CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 28