- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2392 WP No. 201156 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO.201156 OF 2022 (S-REG) BETWEEN: MADHULATHA W/O RAMESH DARGA, AGED 43 YEARS, OCC: OFFICE ASSISTANT R/O: H.NO.9-5-381/1, CHIDRI ROAD, RT NIVAS HOUSE, MILIND NAGAR, TQ. & DIST. BIDAR – 585 403. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. AMBIKA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GOURISH S. KHASHAMPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION BY ITS MANAGER, NANDI COLONY, LIC BUILDING, BIDAR RAILWAY STATION, BIDAR – 585 401. 2. THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION DIVISION OFFICE, JEEVAN PRAKASH, 1ST FLOOR, STATION ROAD, RAICHUR, KARNATAKA – 584 101. REP.BY SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. UDAY P. HONGUNTIKAR, ADVOCATE-ABSENT) Digitally signed by LUCYGRACE Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2392 WP No. 201156 of 2022 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE 2ND RESPONDENT ENDORSEMENT LETTER DATED 25.02.2022 AT ANNEXURE ‘W’ AND ISSUE WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIOENR VIDE V DATED 28.01.2022 RESPECTIVELY FOR THE REGULARIZATION OF THE PETITIONER SERVICE AT 1ST RESPONDENT OFFICE AS ASSISTANT IN THIS OFFICE, NOT TO BE DISTURBED TO THE PETITIONER AT THE SAME WORKING PLACE, AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) Heard Smt.Ambika S.Patil, learned counsel who is representing Sri.Gourish S.Khashampur, learned counsel on record for the petitioner. Though Sri.Uday P.Honguntikar, learned counsel is on record representing respondents, he failed to make his appearance. 2. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the endorsement dated 25.02.2022 which was issued by respondent No.2 and also - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2392 WP No. 201156 of 2022 a mandamus directing respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.01.2022. 3. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant in Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bidar, in the year 2007. The petitioner completed 14 years of continuous service. However, her services were not regularized. The petitioner, therefore, gave number of representations requesting respondents to consider her case and to regularize her services. However, respondents did not respond. The petitioner also brought to the notice of the respondents the decision that was rendered by this Court in W.P.No.201459/2021. Basing on the representation of the petitioner dated 27.01.2022, respondent No.2 addressed a letter to the petitioner stating that she is not eligible for appointment, however, no reasons in clear terms were assigned. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2392 WP No. 201156 of 2022 4. Records disclose that petitioner gave a representation for regularization of her services on 27.01.2022. The reply which is given by respondent No.2 on 25.02.2022 which reads as under: “This is in reply to your letter dated 27.01.2022 requesting necessary action as per the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench in Writ petition No.201459/2021. We have carefully gone through the order dated 10.01.2022 of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench in writ petition No.201459/2021. We write to inform you that you are not eligible for any appointment in our organization as per laid down recruitment procedure and in accordance with law.” 5. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, what is the recruitment procedure that is adopted and why the services of the petitioner cannot be regularized are not indicated in clear terms. The letter reveals that respondent No.2 just wanted to give a reply - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2392 WP No. 201156 of 2022 formally. However, as the reply does not indicate any reasons in clear terms, this Court considers desirable to direct respondent No.2 to reconsider the representation of the petitioner dated 27.01.2022 and look into the issue whether the services for the petitioner can be regularized or not and to pass appropriate orders to that effect strictly in accordance with law. 6. Thus, the writ petition is disposed of with the following: ORDER i. Respondent No.2-Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Raichur, is directed to reconsider the representation of the petitioner dated 27.01.2022 (28.01.2022) and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2392 WP No. 201156 of 2022 ii. The decision taken be communicated to the petitioner. Sd/- (Dr.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE VNR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38 CT:NI