SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 1590

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
Suraj Govindaraj, J.
Shri. Kaleemulla K.I, S/O. Imam Hussain K And Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Karnataka, Represented By Its Principal Secretary, Department Scholl Education And Literacy(Higher Education) And Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No.104502 of 2025 (S-REG)
Decided On : 12-08-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri. Upadhye Aravind Devendre, Advocate)
For the Respondent:Sri. Sharad V. Magadum, Aga, Anoop G. Deshpande, Advocate

Petitioners may continue service without additional qualifications while their regularization is considered, and must be allowed to participate in the recruitment process.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, and 21 - Petitioners sought to quash a notification regarding guest lecturer appointments as illegal and arbitrary, claiming violation of constitutional rights. Petitioners contend that they should not be required to meet additional qualifications and seek regularization of their services based on their lengthy service. (Paras 1-3)

(B) Recruitment process - Court clarified that petitioners may participate in the recruitment process but emphasized the need for the respondents to consider the petitioners' representation for regularization before proceeding with recruitment. (Paras 3-4)

(C) Court's order - Petitioners' request for regularization was partly allowed, directing consideration of their representation within four weeks while ensuring their current positions remain secure during recruitment. (Paras 4-5)

Findings of Court:
Petitioners are permitted to participate in the recruitment process if their services are not regularized, without displacing them from their current posts.

Issues: Legality of the notification and the petitioners' additional qualification requirements were central issues.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioners should be allowed to continue their service and participate in the upcoming recruitment process while their request for regularization is assessed.

Result: Writ petition partly allowed.

Table of Content
1. petitioners seek to quash notification and regularize services. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court notes that petitioners can participate in recruitment process. (Para 3)
3. contentions regarding regularization must be addressed before recruitment. (Para 4)

ORDER :

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.

1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

A) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order quashing the notification bearing no. KaShiE/NEVI-1/AUA/28/2025-26 dated 25.06.2025 at Annexure-Bf issued by the 2nd respondent as the same is illegal, arbitrary and violation of article 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

B)Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to allow the petitioner continue their service in respective colleges without insisting the additional qualifications. And declare that the action of the respondents no.1,2 and 4 to 13 in calling for fresh notification for the appointment of guest lecturers for the next ensuing years are contrary to the law declared in MANISH GUPTA AND ANOTHER VS. PRESIDENT JAN BHAGIDARI SAMITHI (ANNEXURE-BG).

C)Direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners by considering the lengthy of services served in the same department and grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

2. The petitioners claim to be the guest lecturers and claim to be aggrieved by a circular which has been issued for appointment of guest lecturers for the ensuing year.

3. The process for recruitment has been taken up by the respondents. It would always be permissible for the petitioners to also participate in the said process and if they are successful, to be appointed to such post of guest lecturers. The appointment process cannot be stopped at the instance of the petitioners.

4. The petitioners contended that they have also submitted a representation for regularization of the services of the petitioners. If that be so, it would be required for the respondents to pass necessary orders thereon prior to the recruitment process. As such, I pass the following:

ORDER

i. Writ petition is partly allowed.

ii. The representation submitted by the petitioners for regularization is directed to be considered by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

iii. If the services of the petitioners are not regularized they were permitted to participate in the recruitment process in terms of the notification dated 25.06.2025 issued by respondent No.2 at Annexure-BF.

iv. Needless to say that until the said recruitment process is completed the petitioners are not to be disturbed from their current post.

v. Further needless to say in the event of the petitioners being successful and being appointed as guest lecturers, they cannot be disturbed.

vi. Pending I.A. stand disposed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top