Smt. N. Latha vs State of Karnataka and Others

H.N. Nagamohan Das, J.—Petitioners are working in respondent No. 3 - Industrial Tribunal on contract basis from the year 1996. The request of the petitioners for regularization was rejected by issuing an endorsement in the year 2002. The petitioners being aggrieved by the same approached this Court in W.P. Nos. 46249/2002 and 44777/2002. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.08.2010 set aside the endorsement and remanded the matter to the respondents to reconsider the matter and the operative portion reads as under:

In the result and for the above reasons, the Writ Petitions are allowed-in-part. The impugned endorsement are set aside. The Respondent-appointing authority is directed to reconsider the matter and if vacancies are available, pass an order regularizing the services of the petitioners as per law taking note of continuous past service rendered by them.

On remand from this Court the respondents have now issued the impugned endorsement dated 01.02.2012 again rejecting the request of the petitioners. Hence, these writ petitions.

Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers.

It is not in dispute that on earlier occasion this Court in W.P. Nos. W.P. Nos. 46249/2002 and 44777/2002 held that the petitioners are appointed on contract basis against existing vacancies and the same had become final. On the face of it the petitioners are continuously working from the year 1996 and we are now in the year 2013. In the impugned endorsement it is not stated that the petitioners do not possess the requisite qualification. Further this Court while remanding the matter directed the respondents to find out whether there are vacancies as on today and if there are vacancies to regularize the services of the petitioners. A reading of the impugned order specifies that the respondents have not considered whether there are vacancies or not. Therefore the impugned order is contrary to the directions issued by this Court.

The Supreme Court while explaining the scope of Umadevi''s case in the case of State of Karnataka and Others Vs. M.L. Kesari and Others, laid down the following conditions for regularization of an employee.

i. The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of this interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years.

ii. The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular.

It is obligatory on the part of the respondents to consider the case of petitioners as per the law declared by the Apex Court in M.L. Kesari''s case and also the directions issued by this Court in earlier writ petition in W.P. Nos. 46249/2002 and 44777/2002. For the reasons stated above, the following;

ORDER

i. Writ petitions are hereby allowed.

ii. The impugned endorsement dated 01.02.2012 is hereby quashed.

iii. The matter is remanded to respondent No. 5 for fresh consideration in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and in any event not later than four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.