THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 22.09.2025 ISSUED BY THE 4th RESPONDENT VIDE NO.EST(2) DKDC-13011(11)/57/2025E-810631/A1 HIS ENDORSEMENT (ANNEXURE-R) FAILING TO CONSIDER THE PRAYER OF THE PETITIONER FOR REGULARIZATION OF SERVICES AS PER THE DECISION OF APEX COURT IN SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS V/S UMADEVI CASE.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs;

(i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or writ of such nature quashing the endorsement dated 22.09.2025 issued by the 4th respondent vide No. EST (2) DKDC-13011(11)/57/2025E-810631/A1 his Endorsement (ANNEXURE-R) failing to consider the prayer of the petitioner for regularization of services as per the decision of Apex Court in Secretary State of Karnataka and others v/s Umadevi case.

(ii) Direct the 4th respondent Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada District to consider the representation dated 13.01.2025 (ANNEXURE-N) of the petitioner and regularize her services as per the law laid down in case of Umadevi and provide all service benefits.

(iii) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case, including the award of costs, in the interest of Justice and Equity.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondents and perused the materials on record.

3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that in addition to the petitioner, two other persons Smt.Sathyashankari and Smt.Gulabi were appointed pursuant to the very same Notification dated 13.08.1986 and they were working as clerks/typists for more than 38 years of service, as a result of which, they would be entitled to regularization.

3.1 It is submitted that the aforesaid Smt.Gulabi had approached this Court in WP.No.10600/2023, which allowed the petition and directed the concerned respondents to reconsider the claim of the said writ petitioner for regularization and as such, by invoking/applying the doctrine of parity, the petitioner who is identically/similarly situated to the aforesaid writ petitioner- Smt.Gulabi, would be entitled to the benefit of the very same order.

3.2 It is further submitted that the aforesaid order passed by this Court vide Annexure - M in W.P.No.10600/2023 has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1872/2024 dated 24.11.2025 and as such, the present petition also deserves to be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned AGA for the respondents-State submits that the petitioner is not entitled to seek regularization and the respondents were fully justified in issuing the impugned Endorsement, which does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition.

5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is an undisputed fact as borne out from the material on record that pursuant to the aforesaid Notification dated 13.08.1986 issued by the respondents, the petitioner along with Smt.Sathyashankari and Smt.Gulabi were appointed as clerks/typists and they continued the services for more than 38 years. When their requests for regularization was rejected by the respondents, who issued the impugned Endorsement dated 22.09.2025 and the request of the petitioner was not considered by the concerned respondents, the aforesaid Smt.Gulabi approached this Court in W.P.No.10600/2023, which was allowed by this Court and disposed of vide order at Annexure - M dated 23.04.2024 as hereunder:

"ORDER

The captioned writ petition is filed assailing the endorsement dated 16.02.2023 issued by respondent No.2 as per Annexure - T and the report sent by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-S.

2. In support o