Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 1360
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.
Sri. Suresh, S/o. Hanumantappa Jambagi – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Karnataka, Rep. By Its Secretary, Department Of Irrigation and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.106328 of 2014 (S-RES)
Decided On : 04-09-2025
For the Petitioner:Sri. P.G. Chikkanaragund, Advocate
For the Respondents:Sri. Ashok T. Kattimani, AGA, Sri. Girish Hiregoudar, Advocate, Sri. S.M. Tonne, Advocate, Sri. R.N. Misale And Sri. Sangram S. Kulkarni, Advocate.
The absence of justifiable grounds and failure to adhere to principles of natural justice rendered the withdrawal of service regularization unlawful, necessitating reconsideration of the effective date of regularization.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Regularization of service - The petitioner sought to quash an order recalling earlier regularization to Group 'C' and sought continuity in post - The court found that the impugned order lacked legal grounds and failed to consider the full history of the petitioner’s employment - The earlier regularization order was deemed valid, and the case was remitted for reconsideration regarding the effective date of regularization. (Paras 3, 6, 10, 12, 14)
(B) Employment Law - Principles of natural justice - No opportunity was provided to the petitioner before altering the regularization status, constituting a violation of fair process. (Paras 2, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was initially appointed as a daily wage employee in 1984, was regularized as a Literate Assistant in 1994, but faced a reduction to Group 'D' post by the respondents in a subsequent order, which prompted the legal challenge.
Findings of Court:
The previous regularization order was upheld, and the reasons for the withdrawal were deemed invalid; the case was directed to be reconsidered by the respondents regarding the effective date of regularization.
Issues: Whether the respondents' action to recall regularization was legally justified and whether the petitioner was entitled to regularization from his original appointment date.
Ratio Decidendi: The lack of a proper opportunity and justification for the withdrawal of regularization highlighted the deficiencies in the responding authority's procedure; the court emphasized adherence to procedural fairness and re-evaluating decisions impacting employment status.
Result: Petition allowed.
ORDER :
S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.
In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
“(a) Issue a writ of Certiorari quashing the order dated 26.04.2014 in noM.A.KA.NI.VRUTHA/C3/HUB/2013-14/240 passed by the 4th respondent vide ANNEXURE-J in the interest of justice and equity.
(b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant time bond scale to the petitioner from the date of regularization that is 02.05.1993 and continue the petitioner in the post of Literate Assistant in group C post in the interest of justice and equity.
(c) Pass any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case including award of cost in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of material on record will indicate that the petitioner was appointed to respondent Nos.3 and 4 on 13.01.1984, as a daily wages employee. On 02.09.1994, the services of the petitioner were regularized in the post/cadre of Literate Assistant with effect from 02.05.1993. In pursuance of the said regularization of the petitioner to Group ‘C’ post in the cadre of Literate Assistant in respondent Nos.3 and 4, the respondents issued a statement indicating that the salary payable in favour of the petitioner should be in consonance with Group ‘C’ post. Subsequently, respondent Nos.3 and 4 passed an order dated 22.03.1995, recalling its earlier order and absorbing the petitioner only to Group ‘D’ post and not against Group ‘C’ post.
4. Aggrieved by the said order dated 22.03.1995, the petitioner approached this Court in WP No.13686/2000, which was allowed and the matter remitted back to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 for re-consideration afresh in accordance with law.
5. The said order dated 22.03.1995, is reads as under:
“The services of the petitioner in the post of Group C was regularized by the 2nd respondent by order dated 2.9.1994 with effect from 2.5.1993. Thereafter, respondent-4 by his order dated 22.3.1995, produced as Annexure-D, modified the order of regularisation by regularising the services of the petitioner in the post of ‘barakooli’. This order is under challenge by the petitioner in this writ petition.
2.The reason assigned by respondent-4 for regularising the petitioner in the post of ‘barakooli’ by modifying the earlier order is that there is tampering of records regarding his original appointment. Whether, in fact, there is tampering of records or not is a matter to be decided after affording an opportunity to the petitioner. In the instant case, no opportunity appears to have been afforded to the petitioner before passing Annexure- D. Therefore, in my opinion, the matter requires reconsideration.
3.In the result, I pass the following order:-
i) Writ petition is allowed;
ii) The order dated 22.3.1995 passed by respondent-4 produced as Annexure-D is quashed;
iii) Matter is remitted to the respondents to reconsider the matter afresh after due notice to the petitioner.”
6. In pursuance of the said order dated 02.06.2000 passed by this Court in WP No.13686/2000, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 passed an order dated 20.12.2000, regularizing the appointment of the petitioner to the post of a Literate Assistant with effect from 02.06.2000 and not from the date of earlier/original appointment.
7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 20.12.2000, to the limited/restricted extent that it directed his appointment as a Literate Assistant from 02.06.2000 and not from 02.05.1993, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 01.04.2014, to the respondent No.4 seeking grant of time bond scale from the date of regularization.
8. It is the grievance of the petitioner that instead of considering the claim of the petitioner for regularization of appointment and payment as a Literate Assistant from the year 1993, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 instead pa
