Sri. Chandra Singh vs The State of Karnataka, The Director General and The Principal

Writ petitioner had been appointed as an Assistant Cook on 22.6.1991 at the District Training Institute Hostel, Gowripet, Kolar. Though there was no post of Assistant Cook, he had been taken as a temporary hand on some remuneration which was also enhanced from time to time. The petitioner on such appointment had been continued indefinitely. It appears, the petitioner had also approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal by filing an application seeking for issue of directions to the State Government to regularize the services of the petitioner. The petitioner''s case was examined by the Tribunal and as the Tribunal found that the cases involving similar questions and similar issues are pending before the Supreme Court at the instance of the State Government in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, the matter can abide by the outcome of the same and till then, it directed the State Government that the petitioner''s temporary or adhoc appointment to be continued.

Thereafter Supreme Court rendered its decision in Uma Devi''s case (supra) and it is the case of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there were directions issued by the Supreme Court to the State Government to consider the cases of those temporary hands, who had been appointed to the existing vacant posts and had been continued for many number of years and their appointments were all prior to cut off date and not beyond the year 2004. The petitioner again represented to the State Government seeking regularization of services but that having not been done by the State Government even as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Uma Devi''s case (Supra), again approached the Tribunal seeking for directions by the State Government to regularize the services by filing Application No. 5518/2008.

The Tribunal which looked into the case of the petitioner, yet again noticed that the petitioner does not necessarily fit into the formula which had been evolved by the Supreme Court in Uma Devi''s case (supra) and therefore, declined to issue directions for regularization as per the impugned order dated 5th January, 2012.

It is aggrieved by this order, the present writ petition. While it is contended in the writ petition that the Tribunal should not have rejected the application and that it should have issued directions to the State Government to regularize the services of the petitioner''s also for having rendered more than 22 years in that post etc., it is submitted by Sri Satish M. Doddamani, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner apprehends that his services will now be terminated at this point of time only to the accommodate another temporary hand and no regular appointment has been made etc. He also submits that the petitioner though will not be entitled for seeking regularization, but nevertheless he should not be disturbed in his present work only to be replaced by another temporary hand; that as and when the regular person, is appointed to the post in accordance with the Cadre Recruitment Rules, perhaps, he may be terminated but not before that. It is also submitted that the State Government may atleast consider the prayer of the petitioner to this extent.

Notice had been issued to the respondents who are represented by Smt. S. Susheela, learned Additional Government Advocate. Both Counsel for petitioner and respondents being present and making submissions, we have heard for disposal though the petition has come up only for Preliminary Hearing.

Smt. Susheela, The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that while regularization, is not possible in so far as the request of the petitioner to consider his retention till regular incumbent is appointed to the post of Cook is concerned it is only a supplementary submission that whether it is being done or not, it is not within the knowledge of the Counsel and if that is so, it is open for the petitioner to make a representation to the State Government.

It is also submitted that there is an enactment made by the State Government by the name Daily Wage Workers Welfare Scheme under which enactment certain benefits are sought to be given to such persons, if not benefit of regularization, and it is open to the petitioner to represent to the Government, if he is otherwise eligible under the enactment.

While the prayer sought for regularization cannot be given to the petitioner in this writ petition, it is open to the petitioner to represent to the Government whether to continue him on temporary appointment till the incumbent is appointed or to examine his case under the new enactment to provide some protection to the daily wage workers. It is a matter up to the choice of the petitioner and if so, the State Government may consider such representation on merits and as per law and if there is no other incumbent, to retain the petitioner till regular incumbent is appointed and if the petitioner services are useful and otherwise the petitioner''s conduct etc., does entitle for continuing his service, it is open to the State Government to consider the representation for retention till such time as a regular incumbent is appointed.

Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.