ORDER

The petitioner is a non-teaching staff serving at respondent No.2 – residential school. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking regularization of his service with respondent No.2 as per Annexure-H dated

06.05.2023.

2. Petitioner is before this Court feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.05.2023 vide Annexure-H, wherein respondent No.2 wrote a letter to the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Bengaluru to submit recommendation to regularize 10 employees including the petitioner.

3. In identical cases, in batch of writ petitions bearing W.P.No.7047/2023 and connected matters, this Court taking note of the statement made by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 that non-teaching staffs are paid equal pay, has disposed of the writ petitions. Mandamus is issued to the respondents not to replace the non-teaching staffs by another set of ad-hoc staff unless vacant sanctioned posts are filled through proper recruitment process. This Court in batch of petitions at paras 13 to 15 has held as under:

“13. The insistence on regular appointments of teachers/lecturers aligns with the broader objectives of institutional stability, academic continuity, and the welfare of the teaching staff. The Supreme Court's stance against replacing temporary employees with other temporary employees underscores the importance of transitioning towards a more stable and permanent workforce. Moreover, the fulfillment of approximately 2353 vacant posts represents a significant step in addressing the long-standing issue of understaffing, and it would be incongruous to fill these positions with temporary appointments while qualified and experienced temporary lecturers are available for regularization. The respondents, given the substantial number of vacancies, should prioritize the regularization of the existing temporary/ad- hoc/guest lecturers or teachers. This approach not only adheres to established legal principles but also serves the institutional interest by fostering stability, academic continuity, and the well-being of the teaching staff.

14. In light of these considerations, it is imperative for the respondents to recognize the tenure and contributions of the petitioners and refrain from arbitrary termination or replacement practices. Failure to do so would not only violate the legitimate rights of the petitioners but also undermine the principles of equity and justice that form the bedrock of our legal system.

15. The records reveal that though there are

8831 sanctioned posts of teachers, only 3613 are appointed as permanent teachers and vide Recruitment Notification, 2859 teachers are selected by the Selection Authority (KPSC). Therefore, there are still substantial posts vacant. If sanctioned posts are vacant and against the sanctioned posts, guest Teachers/Lecturers who are serving cannot be disturbed and the respondent-KREIS is bound to continue the services of those guest Teachers/Lecturers who are rendering the services against sanctioned posts till those vacant posts are filled by appropriate recruitment process.”

4. In the light of observations made supra, the respondents cannot terminate the services of the petitioner on the ground that their status is on contract based employment. The respondents shall not terminate the services of the petitioner at the expiration of contract term. The petitioner shall not be relieved till the sanctioned vacant posts are filled by following recruitment process in accordance with law. Petitioner could not have been replaced by another set of temporary employees.

5. Despite being contract employees, the petitioner possesses certain rights and protections that safeguard him from arbitrary displacement or replacement.

His employment status, through contractual, does not negate his entitlement to fair treatment and protection by this Court.

6. With these above observations, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The writ petition is allowed in part;

(ii) The reli