Regularization of services must be based on qualifications required at the time of appointment, and subsequent changes in rules cannot be applied retroactively to deny established rights.

ORDER :

ASHOK S.KINAGI, J.

The petitioner filed this petition seeking the following relief:

“issue writ of certiorari by quashing the impugned endorsement dtd: 19-06-2023 passed by The Respondent No.2 in No:ZIPAMCHI/Aa(15)/CR-01/2006-07 dtd: 19-06-2023 as per vide Annexure-X and to pass necessary orders regularizing the services of the petitioner from the date on which he had become eligible for regularization in the post held by him and to grant all service benefits attached to the said posts and etc., and pass such other orders as deems fit by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice and equity.”

2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows:

2.1. The petitioner was initially appointed on a daily wage basis as a Driver vide official memorandum dated 28.06.1988. The petitioner was relieved from service on 30.09.2018 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner submitted a representation on 12.09.2006 for regularisation of his service. The case of the petitioner was forwarded for the grant of minimum pay under Annexure-C communication dated 18.09.2006 to respondent No.2. Thereafter, under Annexure-D the letter dated 17.07.2007, minimum pay was granted to the petitioner. The petitioner's case was also recommended for regularisation under Annexure-F dated 20.11.2007. An endorsement was issued on 17.07.2018 vide Annexure-U. A month prior to the retirement, the respondents have declined to regularise the services of the petitioner on the ground that the prescribed minimum qualification for the post of Driver is PUC and that the petitioner has passed only 7^th standard. The petitioner further contends that, the qualification prescribed in the corresponding posts in other departments was pass in 7^th standard referring to the Karnataka Education Departments Services (Department of Public Instruction) (Recruitment) Rules, 1967 (‘Rules of 1967’ for short). It is contended that, the endorsement dated 17.07.2018 requires to be quashed directing respondent No.2 to re-consider the case of the petitioner in the light of educational qualification prescribed for the post of Driver as of the date of appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the endorsement dated 17.07.2018, filed a writ petition in WP No.36440 of 2018. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 01.12.2022 and directed the respondents to re-consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation of his service as a Driver, taking note of the qualification of the petitioner as of the date of his appointment in 1988 and pass appropriate order within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Respondent No.2 issued the impugned endorsement dated 19.06.2023 vide Annexure-X by reiterating the averments of the endorsement issued on 17.07.2018. The petitioner, aggrieved by the impugned endorsement dated 19.06.2023, filed this writ petition.

3. Respondent No.2 has filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the memorandum of writ petition and contented that, the petitioner was appointed on the daily wage basis and it is against the sanctioned post. It is also contented that, the petitioner did not have educational qualification for the post of Driver. It is contented that, the educational qualification prescribed for the post of Driver is passing PUC. It is contended that, the petitioner has not passed the PUC and the petitioner's services are not entitled to the regularisation in view of th