Regularization of employees with irregular appointments who have served for a significant duration is constitutionally mandated when they fulfill essential duties, emphasizing equity and justice in public employment.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this court seeking the following prayer:

A. A writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or direction in the nature of the writ to quash the Government order No. HFW 43 CGS 2013 Bengaluru dated 6.1.2022, passed by the first respondent, the copy of which has been produced herewith and marked as Annexure A.

B. Direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner with effect from 5.5.2005, the date on which the petitioner has completed his ten years of service and to grant all the consequential benefits and also to pay all the arrears of the wages.

C. Any other writ or direction in the nature of writ which this Hon’ble court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner along with cost of this petition in the ends of justice and equity.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 6 and 8 and the counsel appearing for respondent No.9.

3. The petitioner is appointed as a driver in the District Blindness Control Society, Raichur, a society run by the Government of Karnataka. The claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been working since 1995 and continues to work even today. Therefore, the petitioner has put in 30 years of service. In the interregnum, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court in Writ Petition No.77167 of 2013 seeking stay of the orders of termination. The interim order was granted and finally the writ petition comes to be disposed directing the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization. The result of the direction for consideration is the impugned endorsement which rejects the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner approaches this Court now in the subject petition and an interim order again is granted not to terminate the petitioner and therefore the petitioner, as on today, has admittedly completed 30 years of service.

4. The learned counsel Sri. J.S. Shetty appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was though appointed on daily wage basis, by following the procedure as necessary in law, has continued to work for the last 30 years and today the petitioner cannot be shown the doors without regularizing, as he would be left in the lurch. He is now 53 years old.

5. The learned HCGP would refute the submissions to contend that the petitioner's appointment was itself irregular and could not be considered for regularisation. Apart from the fact that it was irregular, it was litigus as well, as the petitioner was sought to be terminated in the year 2013 and the termination was protected by an interim order granted by this Court which finally disposes the petition seeking consideration of the case of the petitioner for regularisation. In that light, the learned HCGP seeks dismissal of the petition.

6. The afore narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner getting appointed on 05.05.1995 as a driver in the said society is a matter of record. The petitioner was not appointed in thin air but was following certain procedure. Though the procedure was not in accordance with law or the appointment was not against a sanctioned post, the petitioner nonetheless was appointed as per the order of the Mission Director of the Blindness Control Society. The petitioner then after about 18 years of service was sought to be terminated on the strength of the fact that the petitioner had to come through an outsourced agency and could not be continued. This was stayed at the hands of this Court and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court allows