Long-serving employees performing essential duties are entitled to regularization and equal pay, regardless of initial irregularities in their appointments.

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

The petitioners are at the doors of this Court, yet again, calling in question the endorsement dated 31.07.2021 and a subsequent resolution dated 11.09.2022 passed by the second respondent-Commissioner of Collegiate Education, rejecting the claim of these petitioners for regularization of their services.

2. Heard Sri Aravind D. Kulkarni, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Sharad V. Magadum, learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 3 and Sri V.M. Sheelavant, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

3. The petitioners are all working in the cadre of Assistant Professors in the fourth respondent-Institution. The facts concerning the entry into the Institution of the petitioners need not be gone into great detail as these very petitioners were before this Court in W.P.Nos.110831-110838/2015 which comes to be disposed on 10^th April, 2019. The facts narrated therein if paraphrased to the subject order would suffice. The Coordinate Bench has held as follows :

All these petitioners being fully qualified and eligible having been selected and appointed as lecturers in the respective discipline by the fourth respondent – Veershaiva Vidyavardhaka Sanga are before this Court, in substance for a direction to regularize their services with approval of the official respondents and to pay to them the salary in the pay scales admissible to the posts in question regardless of the text of their prayers in the pleadings.

2. After service of notice, official respondent Nos.1 to 3 have entered appearance through the learned Additional Government Advocate, Shri A.R. Rodrigues; fourth respondent – Veershaiva Vidyavardhaka Sanga has entered appearance through its panel counsel Shri V.M.Sheelavat, who has filed a brief Statement of Objections virtually supporting the case of the petitioners.

3. Learned Senior Counsel Shri V. Laxminarayana appearing for the petitioners submits that all these petitioners admittedly possessing prescribed educational qualification had faced selection process and thereafter are appointed as lecturers against the existing vacancies in the posts since more than a decade ago and some of them have been serving for more than 15 years without spotless Service Records; they have been discharging their duties of the post to the full satisfaction of all; the answering respondents have to consider the proposal of the Management for approval of their appointment for the Grant in Aid; answering respondents are not justified in raising objections that in the matter of their appointment the reservations & roster were not followed in view of the Government Order dated 05.02.2015, which dilutes such a rigor.

4. Shri V. Laxminarayana further submits that the decision of the Apex Court in the case ofSecretary, State of Karnataka and Ors vs. Umadevi and Ors . [(2006) 4 SCC 1] having been explained in the subsequent decisions in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Ors. vs. the State of Jharkhand and Ors. [AIR 2018 SC 3589] and in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors. etc., in SLP(C) Nos.37798-37799 of 2013, disposed off on08th January 2019 the official respondents are not justified in not approving the appointment of petitioners on regularization of their services by the fourth respondent – Veershaiva Vidyavardhaka Sanga, which the Sanga is agreeable to do as is coming out from it’s Statement of Objections.

5. Shri V. Laxminarayana submits that there is no qualitative and quantitative difference between the discharge of duties of a Teacher in Private Institutions and a teacher of a Government Institutions inasmuch as both they do, the very same job; if all petitioners are appointed after selection to the existing vacancies of the sanctioned Posts, then they cannot be paid, salary lesser than