- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON9BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

AND

THE HON9BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

WRIT APPEAL NO.2238/2018 (S-REG)

C/W

WRIT PETITION NO.22107/2019 (S-REG)

IN WA NO.2238/2018:

BETWEEN:

1.

THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL &

SESSIONS JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT,

BENGALURU 3 560 001.

2.

THE REGISTRAR,

CITY CIVIL COURT,

BENGALURU 3 560 001.

&APPELLANTS

(BY SMT. H. VANI, AGA)

AND:

SMT. N. LATHA,

W/O SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR,

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

R/AT NO.214, 8KAMALA NILAYA9,

4^TH CROSS, NEAR SHRI VENKATARAMANA

SWAMY TEMPLE, SARJAPURA ROAD,

AGARA,

BENGALURU 3 560 102.

&RESPONDENT

- 2 -

(BY SRI. K. RAGHAVENDRA RAO, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF

THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO (i) SET

ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 25.07.2017

PASSED IN WP NO.39331/2013 (S-REG) BY THE LEARNED

SINGLE JUDGE (ii) ALLOW THE WA IN WP NO.39331/2013

AS PRAYED FOR.

IN WP NO.22107/2019

BETWEEN:

SMT. N. LATHA,

W/O SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR,

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

R/AT NO.214, 8KAMALA NILAYA9,

4^TH CROSS, NEAR SHRI VENKATARAMANA

SWAMY TEMPLE, SARJAPURA ROAD,

AGARA,

BENGALURU 3 560 102.

PETITIONER

(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA RAO. K. ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL &

SESSIONS JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT,

BENGALURU 3 560 001.

2.

THE REGISTRAR,

CITY CIVIL COURT,

BENGALURU 3 560 001.

&RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. H. VANI, AGA)

- 3 -

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES

226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING

TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE

JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON9BLE COURT

IN WRIT PETITION NO.39331/2013 (S-REG) DATED

25.07.2017 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A, ALLOW THIS WRIT

PETITION WITH COSTS.

THIS WRIT APPEAL AND WRIT PETITION COMING ON

FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J.,

DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

J U D G M E N T

In this appeal, the legality and correctness of the

order dated 25.07.2017 passed by the learned Single

Judge in W.P.No.39331/2013 is assailed by the

Prl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, City Civil Court,

Bengaluru.

2.

Learned Additional Government Advocate

appearing for the appellants submitted that the

learned Single Judge had directed consideration of the

case of the respondent herein for regularization of her

services in the post of Typist-copyist.

- 4 -

3.

By

Order

No.ADM-I(A)/890/2019:

Bengaluru dated 12.12.2019, the respondent was

regularized in the cadre of Typist-copyist by modifying

the earlier order bearing No.ADM-I(A)/835/2013:

Bangalore dated 27.08.2013. In view of the order

dated 12.12.2019, on merits the appeal would not call

for any further consideration.

4.

Learned Additional Government Advocate

however further submitted that subsequent to the

issuance of order dated 12.12.2019, order dated

27.12.2019 was also passed by the appellants keeping

the order dated 12.12.2019 in abeyance. This was on

account of interim stay of the order of the learned

Single Judge granted by a co-ordinate bench in this

appeal on 17.12.2019. That is how order No.ADM-

I(A)/929/2019: Bengaluru dated 27.12.2019 was

issued keeping the order dated 12.12.2019 referred to

above in abeyance, until disposal of this writ appeal.

- 5 -

5.

Learned Additional Government Advocate

appearing for the appellants submitted that in view of

the order dated 12.12.2019 being passed by the

appellants, appropriate order may be made in this

appeal.

6.

By way of response, learned counsel for the

respondent submitted that the earlier, order dated

27.08.2013 has been modified and the regularization

of the respondent has now been made in the cadre of

Typist-copyist instead of Process-server. In fact the

respondent was appointed as Typist-copyist and not

as a Process-server. Therefore she ought to have been

regularized in the cadre of Typist-copyist. Now that

the order dated 27.08.2013 has been modified, by

issuance of o