- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:30-DB WA No. 100697 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI WRIT APPEAL NO. 100697 OF 2025 (S-REG) BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, ANANDARAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 009. … APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA) AND: 1. SHRI N.B. PUROHIT S/O BHIMACHARYA PUROHIT, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC. JUNIOR ENGINEER, V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2026.01.08 12:42:25 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:30-DB WA No. 100697 of 2025 WORKING AS JUNIOR ENGINEER, SUB-DIVISION-3, BAGALKOTE TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, (BTDA) BAGALKOTE, BAGALKOTE DISTRICT-587 101. 2. THE BAGALKOT TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REP. BY ITS CHIEF ENGINEER, BAGALKOT, KALBURGI DISTRICT-587 101. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RANGANATHA S. JOIS, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.Y. RODAGI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 (CP NO.23338/25) IS APPEARED THROUGH VC ) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.01.2025 IN W.P. NO.101845/2022, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:30-DB WA No. 100697 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN) Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.101845/2022, respondents No.1 and 2/State have preferred this writ appeal. 2. Respondent No.1 herein, who was the petitioner in writ petition, was initially appointed as a Junior Engineer on daily wages with appellant No.2 in the year 1986. His services were terminated in the year 1987. Respondent No.1 raised an industrial dispute and he was reinstated pursuant to the orders of the Labour Court as well as this Court passed in the year 1998. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to serve in appellant No.2-Organization till he attained the age of superannuation. 3. In the meanwhile, respondent no.1 has passed an order refusing to regularise the services of respondent no.1 herein. Aggrieved by the same, Writ Petition No.101845/2022 (S-REG) has been filed by respondent No.1 herein. 4. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition on the ground that services of similarly placed persons in other department of the State Government have been regularized by the State by virtue of the order passed by the Division Bench of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:30-DB WA No. 100697 of 2025 this Court in W.P.No.6285/2021. It is submitted that the said order was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court by the State and the same has been dismissed. 5. The present writ appeal is filed by the State on the ground that though respondent No.1 was appointed against the sanctioned post and that he has worked for more than 10 years on daily wage basis and that he has necessary qualification for being appointed to the said post, his services were terminated within a period of one year from the date of his appointment and that he continued to serve in respondent No.2-Organization only at the intervention of the orders passed by the Labour Court and this Court. 6. However, the appellant/State does not dispute the fact that respondent No.1 has been in service of appellant No.2 continuously from the year 1998 after the order of this Court, which the appellants have not challenged. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.1 is situated similar to the employees whose regularisation was challenged in Writ Petition No.6285/2021 and connected matters and the Division Bench of this Court has passed the order in favour of regularising the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:30-DB WA No. 100697 of 2025 services of similarly situated employees, which is said to have been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 7. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the decision passed in Writ Petition No.6285/2021 and has passed the impugned order. Admittedly, the impugned order is passed as per the ratio laid down in Writ Petition No.6285/2021. 8. The learned Additional Government Advocate is unable to show how respondent No.1 herein is situated differently from that of the persons in whose favour the aforementioned writ petition was disposed of. Under the circumstances, we do not see any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ appeal is hereby dismissed. 10. In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending applications, if any also stand dismissed. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE Sd/- (B. MURALIDHARA PAI) JUDGE CKK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 40