IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 100080 OF 2017 (S-REG)

BETWEEN:

DR. V.P. SUNAGAR

S/O. PANCHALINGAPPA,

AGE 43 YEARS,

OCC: TEACHING ASSISTANT,

DEPT. OF POLITICAL SCIENCE,

KARNATAK ARTS COLLEGE,

DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR GUNJALLI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

REP. BY ITS PRLF. SECRETARY,

RAKESH S DEPT. OF EDUCATION (HIGHER),

HARIHAR

M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU.

DRAigKitEaSlHy sSig HnAedR IbHyAR

LKD+ oaa0 crt5ena 3: ta 0 i 2toa0 nk2 :a 5 H D.1 igh2 ha.1 rCw2 o a1 ud4 r t :B3 oe4 fn:1c3h

2. THE REGISTRAR,

KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY,

DHARWAD.

3. THE PRINCIPAL,

KARNATAK ARTS COLLEGE,

DHARWAD.

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP FRO R1; SRI. GIRISH HULAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

RESPONDENT NO.3 - SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRYAING TO:

“WHEREFORE IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND: I. ISSUE A WRIT OR DIRECTION IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE 2^ND RESPONDENTS TO ABSORB/REGULARIZE THE PETITIONER (TEACHING ASSISTANT) AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN 3^RD RESPONDENT COLLEGE FROM WHICH DATE SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS WERE ABSORBED I.E., ON 21/5/2011 WITH CONTINUITY OF HIS SERVICE.

II. ISSUE SUCH OTHER WRIT OR ORDER AND DIRECTIONS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

III. QUASHING THE REJECTION OF REPRESENTATIONS DATED 11/3/2012 AND 6/5/2015 BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT IN NO/KU-LC/2011-12/6729 AND NO.KU-LC/2015-16/581 RESPECTIVELY VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND J IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.”

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRL. HEARING B-GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORAL ORDER

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

seeking for regularization of his services. The said petitions come to be disposed on 25.02.2011 directing consideration of the cases of those petitioners for regularisation. It transpires that on 21.05.2011, two of the persons who had been appointed as guest lecturers along with the petitioner were regularised. This becomes the subject matter of another writ petition in Writ Petition No.63939 of 2011 seeking quashment of the communication/order that had been rejected pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.63264-278/2009. Likewise, the case of the petitioner is also turned down and another representation dated 05.01.2015 also comes to be rejected. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he is working as a guest lecturer even today. In that light, he is entitled to be considered for regularisation in the least. The endorsement that is issued rejecting the claim of the petitioner, takes the service of the petitioner only upto 2011 and then rejects it. Therefore, there is an error, is his submission.

5. Learned counsel Shri Girish Hulamani though would defend the order impugned by contending that petitioner is a guest lecturer, which is on an annual basis, it is only with a break and re-appointing him as guest lecturer. Therefore, he cannot claim regularisation as a matter of right.

6. Learned HCGP would also toe the lines of the learned counsel Shri Girish Hulamani in the seeking rejection of the petition. Learned HCGP while toeing the lines of the counsel appearing for the third respondent would submit that the petitioner was appointed as a guest lecturer only to teach on hourly basis and has been continued in the same manner till date.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner joining as guest lecturer in the third respondent – College and working till today as a guest lecturer is an admitted fact. There