Compliance with court directions and consideration of employment regularization in accordance with relevant judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT

VISHWAJITH SHETTY,J. - This intra court appeal is filed challenging the order dtd. 3/3/2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.15481/2019.

2. Heard the learned Additional Government Advocate and also perused the material available on record.

3. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are, the first respondent was appointed as a Bill Collector with the Gram Panchayath under a resolution dtd. 19/7/1994. Subsequently, the Gram Panchayath was merged with the Town Municipality and ever since the merger, the first respondent continued in employment with the second respondent - Municipality. The first respondent had made a request for regularization of service, which was rejected and therefore, he had approached this Court in W.P.No.37937/2011 which was disposed of on 9/4/2012 and the matter was remanded with a direction to consider the case of the first respondent afresh. The prayer of first respondent for regularization was once again rejected by the competent authority and challenging the same, he had approached this Court in W.P.No.39882/2012 which was disposed of by this Court on 8/11/2012 and the matter was once again remanded with a direction to consider the case of the first respondent for regularization in accordance with law and in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. M.L.Kesari,AIR 2010 SC 2587. The prayer of first respondent for regularization was rejected for the third time by the competent authority and challenging the same he had approached this Court in W.P.No.15481/2019 which was disposed off by the learned Single Judge vide the order impugned with a direction to first and third respondents in the writ petition to consider the case of the first respondent herein afresh. Being aggrieved by the same, respondents Nos.1 and 2 in the writ petition have preferred this intra court appeal.

4. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the appointment of first respondent was not against a sanctioned post and therefore, his case cannot be considered for regularization. She submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and erred in disposing the writ petition with a direction to the appellants to consider the case of the first respondent for regularization.

5. The first respondent was appointed as a Bill Collector in the year 1994 with the Gram Panchayath and after merger of the Gram Panchayath with third respondent - Town Municipality, his service was continued with the third respondent and since his prayer for regularization was rejected he had approached this Court in W.P.No.37937/2011 which was disposed of by this Court on 9/4/2012 and in paragraph No.3 of the said order it was observed as follows:

" A reading of the impugned endorsement do no specify the reasons for rejecting the request of the petitioner for regularization. The material on record discloses that petitioner had put in service of more than 17 years without any break. In terms of the law declared by the Apex Court in Umadevi's case (AIR 2006 SC 1806) and subsequently clarified in State of Karnataka vs. M.L.Kesari (AIR 2010 SC 2587), the services of the petitioner are to be regularized. Further the respondent Government issued several orders from time to time regularizing the services of similary situated employees. While issuing the impugned endorsement the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court and the Government Orders are not taken into consideration".

6. Further, in operative portion of the order at paragraph (iii) it was observed as under:

"(iii) The matter is remanded to the respondents for reconsideration in accordance with the test laid down by the Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. M.L.Kesari (AIR 2010 SC 2587) and also in the Government Orders, as expeditiously as possible and in any even not later than three months from the date of receipt of copy of thi