Long-standing service and fulfillment of criteria establish entitlement for regularization under service law, preventing arbitrary denial of rights.

ORDER :

M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.

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

a. “A writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned Government order No.NAE/118/MLR/2023 dated. 26-01-2024 passed by the 1st respondent vide ANNEXURE-N.

b. A writ in the nature of Mandamus directs the Respondents No.1 to regularize the service of the petitioner with all consequential benefits in the light of the proposal dated 26.06.2013 made by the 2^nd respondent under no. POUNIL/SIBBANDI/ABHI/CR/18/13-14 vide ANNEXURE-‘F’.

c. Any other writ or direction from this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. Heard Sri H. M. Dharigond, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned HCGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

3. The brief facts germane to the case are as follows:

4. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer under the respondent-authority on 09.01.1990 on a daily-wage basis against a sanctioned vacant post. It transpires that the petitioner has been working continuously from 09.01.1990 till date. However, his services have not been regularised despite several representations submitted by him. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court in the present petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri H.M. Dharigund, submits that the petitioner has been working against a sanctioned vacant post, albeit on daily wages, and is entitled to regularisation upon completion of 10 years of service. The non-consideration of the petitioner’s case for regularisation is contrary to law, is the submission of the learned counsel.

6. Learned HCGP, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner was not appointed against a sanctioned vacant post and therefore does not fall within the ambit of the circulars issued by the State pursuant to the judgment of the Apex Court in STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS VS. UMA DEVI (3) & OTHERS, (2006) 4 SCC 1 . Hence, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to regularisation. She further submits that the impugned endorsement rejecting the petitioner’s claim is in accordance with law and does not warrant interference.

7. Learned HCGP would further submit that there are no documents to demonstrate the date on which the petitioner joined employment, and due to the absence of such records, even the fact of the petitioner’s service is doubtful. Therefore, the learned HCGP submits that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.

9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was appointed on 09.01.1990 and has completed more than 10 years of service. The Apex Court, while considering the issue of regularisation in UMA DEVI, held that employees who had not completed 10 years of service as on the date of the judgment would not be entitled to regularisation. The judgment was rendered on 10.04.2006. Therefore, the petitioner had indeed completed 10 years of service prior to the judgment in UMA DEVI, having been appointed on 09.01.1990 and having completed 10 years of service by 09.01.2000.

10. The State Government, after the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of UMA DEVI, issued a circular dated 26.05.2006, prescribing the conditions for consideration of cases for regularisation. This circular was followed by a Government Order dated 13.11.2006, wherein the