- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29527 WP No. 32309 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 32309 OF 2016 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN: A.V.JAYAPRAKASH, S/O. A.M.VISHWANATH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, DRIVER, TOKEN NO.2208, K.S.R.T.C., RAMANAGARA DEPOT, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHEKAR L., ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC, RAMANAGARA DIVISION, RAMANAGARA-578201. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RENUKA H.R., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29527 WP No. 32309 of 2016 ORAL ORDER Sri.L.Shekar, counsel for the petitioner and Smt.H.R.Renuka, counsel for the respondent, appeared in person. 2. This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ or orders in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned endorsement dated 10.03.2016 passed by the respondent vide Annexure-A and (ii) Issue a writ or order in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to bring the petitioner on probation w.e.f. the date of initial appointment or from 22.10.1993, i.e., one year from the date of publication of the select list by paying all consequential benefits therefrom, and (iii) Pass such other order as to costs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 3. The short facts are these: The Corporation invited applications for the post of driver through advertisement No.1/1992 dated 03.01.1992. It is stated that the petitioner applied for the said post of Driver. As per the advertisement, there were a total of 250 vacant driver - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29527 WP No. 32309 of 2016 positions available in the respondent Corporation. It is said that the petitioner and others were selected based on the said selection list. However, the Corporation brought 82 members on probation in 1993, and the petitioner was placed on probation only in 2000. Hence, the petitioner filed a detailed representation on 24.11.2014, informing the Corporation that the selection was made according to C and R Regulation, 1982, and that, according to the Regulation, the selection list was valid for only one year, after which the authority must appoint all candidates from the list regularly. Therefore, he requested the Corporation to consider his case for regularization from 1992. When the Corporation did not take any steps to consider his case, he filed a writ petition No.35062/2015. This Court, by order dated 07.09.2015, disposed of the writ petition, directing the Corporation to consider the representation in accordance with the law. The petitioner states that the Corporation, instead of considering the petitioner's representation in accordance with the law and strictly in terms of C and R Regulation, 1982, arbitrarily and without application of mind issued an - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29527 WP No. 32309 of 2016 endorsement on 10.03.2016. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Counsel for the petitioner, in presenting his argument, strenuously urged that the endorsement issued by the Corporation vide Annexure-A is contrary to Advertisement No.1 of 1992 as well as the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations of 1982. He submitted that the petitioner’s initial appointment was pursuant to Advertisement No.1/1992 dated 03.01.1992, yet he was not placed on probation until the year 2000. It was vehemently contended on behalf of the petitioner that this amounts to a violation of Regulation 9(6). Therefore, it was submitted that the endorsement is liable to be quashed and that the petitioner ought to have been placed on probation with effect from 22.10.1993. By way of reply, counsel for the respondent drew the Court’s attention to the affidavit filed by the Corporation on 15.02.2024, contending that although Advertisement No.1/1992 invited applications for 102 driver posts, a ban on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29527 WP No. 32309 of 2016 fresh recruitment prevented the Corporation from proceeding further. She further submitted that due to an acute shortfall of crew in various divisions, the Corporation temporarily recruited drivers. The petitioner’s name appeared at Sl. No.217 in a list of 250 candidates, while only 82 posts were filled. Since his name was far down the list, he was not selected. The petitioner was working as a badli employee on a temporary basis, performing duties in place of a regular employee during their absence. Subsequently, he was placed on probation for two years commencing from 10.02.2000, which he accepted without challenge. Counsel also argued that there is an inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. Urging other contentions, she submitted that the petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard the arguments and perused the records with care. 6. The point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to be placed on probation with effect from 22.10.1993. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29527 WP No. 32309 of 2016 7. It is undisputed that Advertisement No.1/1992, inviting applications from eligible candidates for 102 driver posts, was issued on 03.01.1992. However, due to the ban imposed by the State Government on fresh recruitment, the Corporation could not proceed further with the selection process. In view of the acute shortfall of crew in various divisions, the Corporation resorted to temporary recruitment of drivers. The petitioner’s name was found at Sl. No.217 in a list of 250 candidates, while only 82 posts were filled. Since his name was far down the list, he was not selected. The contention regarding the alleged violation of Regulation 9(6) is untenable, for the reason is self-evident. The said regulation has no application to the list of 250 employees who were appointed temporarily. Moreover, to assert any right under the said regulation, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to establish that his name had been included in the selection list issued pursuant to Advertisement No. 1/1992. The notification issued in 1992 stood merged with the order dated 11.08.1992, under which the Corporation prescribed a specific procedure for temporary appointments. Pursuant thereto, the selection of employees was carried out strictly in accordance - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29527 WP No. 32309 of 2016 with the applicable regulations and by operating the roster points. It is the case of the petitioner that he be placed on probation with effect from 22.10.1993, i.e., one year from the date of publication of the select list, together with all consequential benefits. This relief, however, cannot be acceded to. The writ court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, is not competent to adjudicate disputed questions of fact, and the claim sought by the petitioner necessarily involves such adjudication. Hence, the relief prayed for is liable to be rejected. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had been engaged as a badli employee, temporarily discharging the duties of regular employees during their absence. Subsequently, he was placed on probation for a period of two years with effect from 10.02.2000, which was accepted by him without demur or challenge. In the light of the foregoing, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it stands dismissed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29527 WP No. 32309 of 2016 Because of dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18