The recognition of associations representing government employees is an administrative action dependent on the exigencies of the situation and not regulated by statutory provisions.

( 1 ) PETITIONER is an association claiming to have been formed by the technical employees of the Seri-Culture Department, Government of Karnataka. It is the claim of the petitioner that this association had been granted recognition by the Government as per its proceedings dated 6. 12. 1999 (copy at Annexure E) subject to imposing as many as 21 conditions. Petitioner claims that the Association is functioning within the parameters indicated by Government Order dated 6. 12. 1999 and has memberships of more than 5500 employees of the Seri-Culture Department.

( 2 ) PETITIONER is now aggrieved by the subsequent Government Order dated 6. 3. 2000 (copy at Annexure F) whereby the Government has cancelled the recognition that had been accorded in favour of the petitioner association as per its earlier order dated 6. 12. 1999. with immediate effect. It is such cancellation of recognition to the petitioner association which has given cause to the petitioner to approach this Court praying for quashing of this notification under Annexure F and for such other direction to be issued to respondents 1 and 2 as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.

( 3 ) SRI Gopi Prakash, learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the impugned order is one passed in utter violation of principle of natural justice, that the petitioner association had not even given an opportunity before the recognition given to it was cancelled subsequently, that the petitioner had not even given any clue that the Government is going to take such action that even when the petitioner association has not violated any of the conditions imposed by the Government while granting recognition and in such circumstances there is no justification for the cancellation of the recognition that had been granted in favour of the petitioner association.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that it was after the concerted efforts on the part of the petitioner association for more than two years Government had recognised the petitioner association and it was highly improper and unjustified that the Government even within a period of three months from the date of passing the earlier order should not have unilaterally withdrawn the recognition. Learned Counsel submits that such withdrawal is detriment of as many as 5500 employees of the Department who are members of the petitioner association and whose grievance are espoused by the petitioner association.

( 5 ) IT is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that though the impugned order does recite that the Secretary of the petitioner association had met the officers of the Government pursuant to a meeting that had been called for by the Government to explore the possibilities of reducing to only one association in the Department and depending all other associations factually the representation of the petitioner association has neither been apprised of any such meeting nor had given their consent for forming certain association representing all sections of the employees of the Seri-Culture Department. Learned Counsel submits that this is not the correct version of the true state of affairs.

( 6 ) STATEMENT of objections has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. It is asserted that the writ petition is not tenable, that as a consequence of granting recognition to the petitioner association vide Government Order dated 6. 12. 1999 there were many conflicts that had arisen amongst the members of different associations, that several associations had accused the petitioner association of giving false and incorrect information to the Government for the purpose of securing recognition, that many of the employees and the other cadres of the department of Seri. Culture had indicated that they are not members of the petitioner association as indicated by them but they are members of some other associations and had sought for de-recognition of the petitioner association which had led to friction

Click Here to Read the rest of this document