IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO.1882/2024 (S-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU 560001.

Digitally signed 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL by ARSHIFA ADMINISTRATION BAHAR KHANAM MINI TOWERS, 9TH FLOOR Location: Hi gh DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI Court Of Karnataka BENGALURU 560001.

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA 571 401.

…APPELLANTS (BY SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA)

AND:

1. K. DODDA ARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS S/O KALAIAH RETIRED DRIVER TOWN MUNCIPAL COUNCIL MALAVALLI, R/AT G.M. BEEDI KUDREGUNTURAYYANA THOTA MALAVALLI.

2. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL MALAVALLI TOWN MANDYA DISTRICT MALAVALLI 571 430.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RANGANATHA S. JOIS, ADV., FOR R1 SRI. G.M. ANANDA, ADV., FOR R2)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS. SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 14.09.2023 IN WRIT PETITION No.17413/2022 (S-RES) AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF/s AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

This writ appeal is filed by the State of Karnataka challenging the judgment dated 14.09.2023 passed in W.P.No.17413/2022 (S-RES), wherein the learned Single Judge, after considering the contentions of the parties, had found that the endorsement issued to the respondent No.1/writ petitioner rejecting his request for regularization as same was without merit and had directed the regularization and payment of consequential benefits to the writ petitioner.

2. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the respondent No.1 was not appointed against a sanctioned post and that he did not have the educational qualification for appointment to the post. It is submitted that the respondent No.1 did not have the qualification prescribed for the post of driver under the Karnataka Municipalities (Recruitment of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2010. It is, therefore, contended that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside and the writ petition is to be dismissed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, on the other hand, contends that there was no qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of driver as on the date when the respondent No.1 was appointed in the year 1995. It is further submitted that it has been clearly found in an earlier round of writ petition that respondent No.1 was appointed against a sanctioned post and that the said ground is not available to the appellants.

4. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the learned Single Judge has clearly found that in an earlier round of writ petitions, which had ended in Annexure-G - Judgment, it was clearly held that the appointment of writ petitioner was against a sanctioned post and that only question which was to be examined was whether the writ petitioner possesses the educational qualification to hold the post of a driver.

5. The learned Single Judge, after considering the entire contentions, had come to the specific conclusion that the writ petitioner had worked as a driver from 1995 to 2018, till he attained the age of superannuation. At the relevant time when he was appointed, there were no statutory rules which prescribed any educational qualification for the post of driver. On these findings it was found that the contentions raised in the endorsement could not be accepted.

6. Having considered the contentions advanced, we find no reasons to differ from the view taken by the learned