JUDGMENT

R. Devdas, J. - The writ petitioners in these batch of writ petitions are seeking a direction to the respondent- Authorities to regularize their services for having worked on a temporary basis continuously till date for nearly 30 years without the aid of any interim orders passed by any Court of law or Tribunal.

2. It is contended that the petitioners were taken on service with respect to available vacant posts. It is therefore contended that the petitioners were entitled for regularization in terms of the directions issued by the Hon ble Apex Court in paragraph-53 in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka And Others Vs. Uma Devi (3) and Others,2006 ILR(Kar) 2607 .

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that some of the employees of the respondent- Corporation had approached this Court in W.P.No.22957-22978/1989 seeking for continuation of their service and regularization based on a Government order dated 29.11.1989. Having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of The Dharwad District P.W.D. Literate Daily Wages Employees Association and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, this Court disposed of W.P.Nos.22957-22978/1989 by order dated 16.03.1990 directing the respondents to examine the case of each one of the petitioners either for their continuation or what further relief should be given by way of regularisation or emoluments or any other work condition as directed in the aforesaid order of the Hon ble Supreme Court. Consequent thereto, the respondent-Corporation issued an order dated 24.11.1995 based on the resolution of Mysore City Council to consider 217 daily wage workers for basic minimum salary and also decided to take action for regularization of their services. Learned Counsel points out from Annexure 1 which is annexed to the order dated 24.11.1995, to submit that the names of the petitioners find place in the said list of 217 daily wage workers.

4. Learned Counsel further submits that the case of the petitioners was recommended by the Commissioner of the respondent-Corporation to the Deputy Commissioner, by way of a communication dated 21.12.2015, wherein the Commissioner had clearly held that 173 daily wage workers which includes 30 C group workers and 143 D group workers had completed service of more than ten years and they were appointed towards vacant posts. The learned Counsel submits that this recommendation was made by the Commissioner of the Corporation having regard to the directions given by a Division Bench of this Court while disposing of W.A.No.45/2013 and connected matters, by order dated 13.11.2013. The learned Counsel points out from the order of the Division Bench that the grounds for rejecting the claim of regularization in service, as briefly enumerated could not be sustained by the learned Government Advocate on the basis of any material on record. It was also held that even after clear directions of this Court in W.P.Nos.32357- 32366/1999, it was too late in the day for the appellant herein to contend that employees concerned had failed to prove that there were no vacant posts at the time when they were initially appointed on temporary basis. The learned Counsel further submits that in terms of the directions given by the Division Bench the case of the petitioners therein have been considered by the respondent- Corporation. It is therefore submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that similar orders are required to be passed in these writ petitions also.

5. As regards the other prayer made by the petitioners seeking change of date of birth in the service register, the same cannot be accepted in view of the fact that there is no service register maintained with respect to the petitioners as on date. It is also an admitted fact that a Division Bench of this Court in a recent decision pertaining to the very same Corporation, in W.A.No.434/2020, by order dated 25.08.2020, has held that the documents relied upon by the petitioner i.e., SSLC marks card wa