- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8553 WP No.32232/2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.32232/2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI KIRAN KUMAR Y R S/O REVANNA SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, WORKED AS CHILD PROTECTION OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CHILD PROTECTION UNIT, J H PATEL LAYOUT, SHAMANOOR ROAD, DAVANAGERE - 577 004 (NOW ILLEGALLY REMOVED FROM SERVICE), R/AT NEAR DURGAMBIKA TEMPLE 2ND CROSS, A K COLONY, SHAMANOOR, DAVANAGERE - 577 004 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJESH SHETTIGARA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, M S BUILDINGS, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8553 WP No.32232/2024 DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001 2. PLANNING DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF CHILD PROTECTION, 3RD FLOOR, VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWER, M S BUILDINGS, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND PRESIDENT, THE DISTRICT CHILD PROTECTION UNIT, HARIHARA ROAD, DAVANAGERE - 577 002 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE, DAVANAGERE -577 002 5. DISTRICT CHILD PROTECTION OFFICER OFFICE OF DISTRICT CHILD PROTECTION OFFICER, J H PATEL LAYOUT, SHAMANOOR ROAD, DAVANAGERE - 577 004 6. SMT PRATHIBHA M H D/O DR M HANUMANTHAPPA MAJOR, WORKING AS CHILD PROTECTION OFFICER OFFICE OF DISTRICT CHILD PROTECTION UNIT, J H PATEL LAYOUT, SHAMANOOR ROAD, DAVANAGERE - 577 004 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8553 WP No.32232/2024 7. M/S SUSTAINABLE SKILL CAPITAL LTD., A OUT SOURCE AGENCY, OFFICE AT NO. 201, 2ND FLOOR, MOTA CHAMBERS, MILLERS ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 052 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERNED … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKARA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 11.10.2022 BEARING NO.JI.MA.RA.GHA/DA/SI.HI.BA/2022-23/201 ISSUED BY THE R-5, DISTRICT CHILD PROTECTION OFFICER, DAVANAGERE, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AS THE SAID ORDER IS PASSED WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND IN UTTER VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE; (B) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE R-5, DISTRICT CHILD PROTECTION OFFICER, DAVANAGERE TO IMPLEMENT THE LETTER DATED 17.02.2023 BEARING NO. NO.JI.MA.RA.GHA/DA/HO. GHU.C/JI.SA/MA/2022- 23/371 ISSUED BY THE R-5 TO R-2 (ANNEXURE-Q) AND OTHER CONCERNED AUTHORITIES TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER IN HER ORIGINAL POST AS CHILD PROTECTION OFFICER WITH FULL BACK WAGES AND CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS FROM THE DATE OF REMOVAL TILL HE IS REINSTATE IN PLACE OF THE R-6 (C) DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO REMOVE FROM SERVICE OF R-6 WHO HAS BEEN APPOINTED IN PLACE OF THE PETITIONER AND GIVE APPROPRIATE DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8553 WP No.32232/2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner was working as a Child Protection Officer with the Child Protection Unit, Davanagere. The petitioner has called in question the fifth respondent's order dated 11.10.2022 terminating him from service alleging that this is without affording an opportunity of hearing or holding a departmental enquiry. The learned counsel relies upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1367/2021 to contend that even an employee on contract cannot be removed in a manner that would be stigmatic. 2. Mr. Aditya Diwakara, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the first to fifth respondents, argues that this Court may not grant any indulgence to the petitioner because he was engaged through a service provider and that the contract with the service provider has come to an end - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8553 WP No.32232/2024 on 30.06.2022. The learned Additional Government Advocate has placed on record documents to support the same. In reply, Mr. Rajesh Shettigar submits that his instructions are that the contract has been continued with the direction to the contractor to take on Rolls the seventh respondent [M/s. Sustainable Skill Capital Ltd.] subject to orders of this Court. 3. This Court must first observe that the respondents cannot dispute that the petitioner was deputed by the concerned Seniors to visit the Anganvadi to ascertain the minor's residence and date of birth and that the petitioner has verified the details. The respondents also cannot dispute that as advised by those Seniors, the petitioner has filed Crime No.40/2022 and it is thereafter, at the instance of the family members of the minors, that proceedings in Crime No.41/2022 is registered against the petitioner and that in vindication of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8553 WP No.32232/2024 petitioner's report, the next FIR in Crime No.46/2022 is registered. 4. If these constitute the first set of circumstances that would be material, this Court must next refer to the indisputable fact that the proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.41/2022 is stayed by this Court in W.P.No.4801/2025. These circumstances persuade this Court to opine that the decision to terminate the petitioner's services is unjustified and there must be interference but the respondents' case is that the petitioner's tenure on contract has come to an end with the expiry of the contract with the service provider. 5. However, the petitioner's case is that the contract with the service provider [the seventh respondent] is continued and the sixth respondent, who is brought into his place is also continued under the same contract. These are the factual assertions - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8553 WP No.32232/2024 which must be ascertained. The third respondent [the President of the District Child Protection Unit] must consider whether the contract in favour of the seventh respondent is continued and whether the sixth respondent's continuance is as against the position that was held by the petitioner. The third respondent must also consider, even if the sixth respondent has continued against the petitioner's position, why the petitioner must not be accommodated if there is a vacancy otherwise. Hence, the following. ORDER [A] The petition is allowed-in-part declaring that the fifth respondent's decision to terminate the petitioner's appointment vide the impugned order dated 11.10.2022 is arbitrary and unreasonable. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8553 WP No.32232/2024 [B] The third respondent is called upon to examine the aspects as mentioned in the course of this order and communicate the decision to the petitioner within a period of four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. [C] The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file a certified copy of this order within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt thereof observing that if there is any failure to communicate the decision within the timelines now permitted, it should be open to the petitioner to make an application in the present proceedings. RB Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE