Long-serving employees in essential roles are entitled to consideration for regularization despite initial irregular appointments, ensuring fairness and adherence to constitutional principles.

ORDER :

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

I. A writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned endorsement dated 29.09.2015, bearing no.12123/DMA/DDWE/2015-16, vide Annexure-D, issued by the Respondent No. 3.

II. A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to 4 to regularise the petitioner service as per orders dated 30.03.2007 and 07.07.2007, orders bearing no. POUni/Sibbandi/Dinaguli/Sakrama/CR.No.84/06/07, vide Annexures - E, F, G, H and J, passed by the respondent No.3, as per Umadevi case, reported in AIR 2006 SC 1806 III. Issue any other writ or direction, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Hemanthkumar L. Havaragi, appearing for the petitioner, the learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and the learned counsel Sri. Sadiq N. Goodwala for respondent No.5.

3. Facts adumbrated are as follows.

4. The petitioner is appointed as a Sanitary Inspector in the Town Municipal Council, Athani pursuant to a resolution of the Council, owing to a vacancy that existed in the Municipality of the post of Sanitary Inspector. The petitioner works continuously for close to 18 years and then stakes a claim for regularisation of his employment in the said Municipality on the score that he has completed more than 10 years of service and is entitled to be regularised in the teeth of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi and others , (2006) 4 SCC 1 . The representation was not considered. Therefore, the petitioner approaches this Court in Writ Petition No.105276/2015. The writ petition comes to be disposed on 08.06.2015 with a direction to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Umadevi. It is replied by an endorsement contending that the petitioner has not completed 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006 and therefore, his case cannot be considered for regularisation of his services.

5. The learned counsel Sri. Hemanthkumar L. Havaragi for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has completed more than 28 years of service as on today. As on the date of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Umadevi, no doubt he had not completed 10 years of service, but it was close to 10 years of service. He would take this Court through the documents appended to the petition to demonstrate that in identical cases, where as on the date of the judgment in the case of Umadevi – 10.04.2006, several employees have been regularised, it is only the petitioner who is chosen for a discriminatory treatment is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

6. The Learned HCGP would defend the action of the State in denying the consideration of regularisation again solely on the score that the petitioner had not completed 10 years of service as on 10.04.2006, the date on which the judgment of the Apex Court in Umadevi was rendered. But the fact that the petitioner was appointed pursuant to a resolution of the Municipality owing to a vacancy in the cadre of Sanitary Inspector is not disputed. However, disputed but would seek dismissal of the petition contenting that the petitioner has no right to claim regularisation in the teeth of his appointment and non-completion of 10 years prior to the judgment in the case of Umadevi.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

8. The petitioner gets into employment with the Town Municipal Council, Athani by way of a resolution. The resolution re