ORAL ORDER

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

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

II. Issue any other appropriate order/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in view of the above narrated facts and grounds to meet the end of justice.”

2. Heard Shri Chetan T.Limibikai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Girija S.Hiremath, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and Shri Y.Lakshmikant Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. The petitioner is appointed as a daily wage employee on 27.04.1995 describing him to be a literate assistant. Subsequently was appointed as a typist in the vacant sanctioned post with effect from 01.02.1996. In the light of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. UMADEVI (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1. the regularisation of several employees take place. The averment in the petition is that several of the employees were regularised by the State, who were similarly placed. The petitioner though continued to work as a typist right from 1996 did not find favour with the State for regularisation of his services, had to knock at the doors of this Court in Writ Petition No.106545 and 2024, which comes to be disposed directing consideration of a representation of the petitioner. The representation is met with the endorsement that is impugned in the subject petition. The impugned endorsement narrates that in terms of the cadre and recruitment rules, the petitioner could not have been appointed at all and no formal appointment order has been issued in favour of the petitioner, nonetheless, he has worked for 30 years now as a typist. The impugned endorsement reads as follows:

4. It is this that is called in question in the subject petition. If the dates and events are necessary to be noticed. On 27.04.1995 the petitioner is appointed on daily wage basis as a literary assistant and on 01.02.1996 as a typist. Even today in the year 2025 close to 30 years he works as a typist in respondent No.2. Respondent No.2, owing to the fact that the petitioner has been working for the last 30 years, has recommended the case of the petitioner for regularisation. Learned HCGP now comes up with the objections in support of the impugned order that there was no formal order passed by the petitioner and he was as on that day qualified or otherwise to hold the post of typist. As the learned HCGP takes this court through the impugned order which projects the method of recruitment to the post of typist. Admittedly the petitioner did not participate in any selection process for projection of a method of recruitment in the impugned order. It may be that the direct recruitment to the post of typist would necessitate the procedure to be followed. But the petitioner has been working as a typist for the last 30 years in respondent No.2. When this is not in dispute, projection of a qualification that has come about later, without even referring to the fact whether the petitioner did perform or not for the last 30 years in cadre of typist. The impugned endorsement does not hold water. Not holding water would lead to its obliteration. It is further germane to notice the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of DHARAM SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735 wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:

“8. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “ad-hocism” thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If “constraint” is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequenc