1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.22172 OF 2017 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1 . MOHAN RATHOD S/O KHEMA RATHOD AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 9-5-741/1, BEHIND AIR FORCE SCHOOL COMPOUND ADARSHA COLONY BIDAR - 585 326. 2 . KRISHNA MURTHY S/O KANANAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS HIRIYUR CHITRADURGA - 577 501. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI.KARUMBAIAH T.A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU- 560 001. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2 2. 3. THE COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA RURAL WATER SUPPLY & SANITATION AGENCY 2ND FLOOR, 'E' BLOCK, KHB COLONY KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU- 560 009. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER BIDAR DISTRICT BIDAR - 585 401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIRANAGOUDA BIRADAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; PETITION AS AGAINST R3 IS DISMISSED V/O DATED 29.06.2018) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO Quash Annexure-C The Corrigendum Dated 19.04.2014 Bearing No. UÁæC¥À /56 UÁæ¤Ã¸À (2) 2013 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1. ALSO ANNEXURE-D THE G.O. DATED 26.02.2015 BEARING NO. UÁæC¥À 06 UÁæ¤Ã¸À (2) 2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 16.12.2024, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM C.A.V. ORDER Petitioners who were hired on individual consultancy basis to work as Assistant Technical Consultants based on 3 an agreement for consultancy services entered into with respondents, are assailing the corrigendum dated 19.04.2014 vide Annexure-"C" and also the Government Order dated 26.02.2015 as per Annexure-"D" issued by respondent No.1. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA. 3. Petitioners assailing the impugned corrigendum claim that they are entitled for regularization of their service in terms of Government order dated 4.3.2014. Reliance is placed on Clause 7 of the Government order. Petitioners assert that they have rendered service as Assistant Technical Consultants for almost six to seven years and therefore, claims that they are entitled for regularization of their service. 4 4. Before this Court proceeds to delve into the matter, this Court deems it fit to advert to the preamble of the agreement. "AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANCY SERVICES The agreement is made on this day, the 21st February 2012, between the Director, Karnataka Rural Water Supply & Sanitation Agency (KRWSSA) and Sri. Mohan Rathod whose services are procured on Individual consultancy basis to work as Assistant Technical Consultant in Zilla Panchayat Bidar District Support Unit, Bidar District. The terms and conditions of the agreement are as per the attached Letter of Agreement." 5. It would be also crucial to cull out para 5 of the agreement, which reads as under: "5. This agreement will become effective upon confirmation of this letter by you and will terminate on 20th February, 2013 or such other date as mutually agreed. However for discontinuing the assignment before closure of the agreement period intimation should be given in advance by not less than 30 days. If the consultant fails to give 5 intimation not less than 30 days, one month consultancy fee shall be deducted." 6. Upon a thorough examination of the submissions made by both parties and the documents placed on record, this Court finds that the petitioners were engaged purely on an individual consultancy basis for a specific purpose— namely, assisting in the implementation of a project undertaken by the respondents. The agreement clearly stipulates that their engagement was contractual in nature and contingent upon the requirements of the project. The language of the agreement leaves no room for ambiguity regarding the temporary nature of their appointment. It is well-established in law that consultancy or contractual engagements do not create a vested right to permanent absorption unless explicitly provided for in the terms of the contract or mandated by statutory provisions. In the present case, the petitioners' appointment was neither permanent nor regularized under any statutory framework, 6 nor was there any clause in the agreement conferring upon them the right to seek regularization. Given the settled legal position that individuals engaged on a contractual basis cannot claim parity with regular employees or seek absorption into permanent service, the petitioners’ demand for regularization is untenable and cannot be sustained in the absence of a legal or contractual basis. 7. Additionally, the records indicate that the petitioners were relieved from service in 2014 due to the conclusion of the project for which they were engaged. The cessation of their service was not arbitrary but rather a direct consequence of the project reaching its completion, thereby eliminating the need for their continued engagement. The respondents, being the implementing authority of the project, were well within their right to determine the manpower requirements based on the operational needs of the project. The petitioners were engaged strictly for a defined duration, and their 7 termination was in accordance with the terms agreed upon in the consultancy contract. The Court finds no procedural irregularity or legal infirmity in the manner in which their services were discontinued. Given the clear and limited scope of their engagement, the petitioners cannot assert any claim to indefinite continuation in service or seek relief on the grounds of legitimate expectation. Consequently, this Court finds no justifiable grounds to intervene in the matter or to grant the relief sought by the petitioners. 8. For the reasons stated supra, the petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE *alb/-