Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 21680

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.R.Krishna Kumar, J
Raghavendra V. – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
WP No. 8346 of 2018

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V. Lakshminarayana, Sparsh Shetty, Shilpa Rani
For the Respondents: G. Ramesh Naik, B.L. Sanjeev

Constitutional employers cannot use outsourcing or temporary contractual labels to avoid regularizing employees performing inherently perennial and continuous functions. Such denial of permanent status after long-term service is arbitrary and violates the constitutional mandates of fairness and equal protection.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 21, 39D - Service Law - Regularization - Entitlement of outsourced employees - Employers, being constitutional entities, cannot use outsourcing as a tool to perpetuate permanent precariousness or to evade obligations toward perennial staff - Arbitrary denial of regular status for long-serving employees performing inherently continuous functions is violative of the equality mandate. (Paras 9, 10, 13, 18, 19)

(B) Service Law - Regularization - Distinction between illegal and irregular appointments - Prolonged, continuous service against sanctioned/perennial functions mandates fair consideration for regularization - Mechanical reliance on prior judicial precedents regarding backlog and procedural rules cannot justify exploitative, indefinite contractual labels when the nature of work is inherently permanent. (Paras 11, 14, 16, 20)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, employed as teaching staff in various grades through an outsourcing agency, challenged an order rejecting their claims for regularization. Despite having served for over 25 years and contending that their duties were perennial and central to the functioning of the establishments, the authorities declined to regularize them, citing their status as outsourced employees.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the respondent authorities act as constitutional employers and cannot balance budgets by exploiting labour. The work performed by the petitioners is recurring and essential. The court observed that labeling employees as outsourced or contractual is an arbitrary mechanism to avoid the duty to organize work on lawful, permanent lines and violates fundamental rights.

Issues: The main issues were whether employees engaged through an outsourcing agency for perennial duties are entitled to regularization and whether the state can rely on contractual labels to permanently deny service benefits to long-serving staff.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the nature of the work, rather than the initial mode of engagement or label, determines employment status. When duties are permanent and recurrent, the state must regularize services to uphold constitutional fairness and prevent arbitrary exploitation.

Result: Petition allowed. The impugned refusal of regularization is quashed, and respondents are directed to consider the petitioners for regularization upon completion of 10 years of service within a prescribed timeframe.

Table of Content
1. factual history regarding long-term outsourced teaching service. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments concerning regularization of outsourced employees. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. outsourcing cannot justify denying regularization for perennial tasks. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioners seek the following reliefs:

“a) Issue of Writ of Certiorari or any other writ quashing the Government Order dated: 07.09.2017 No.NAE 33 MNG 2017 passed by the Respondent No.3 produced as Annexure-B.

b) Issue a writ of mandamus, directing the Respondents to place the resolution of the Corporation dated 09.08.2016 vide Annexure-J before the Standing Committee of Education to be included in the schedule of employment and implement the said resolution and to take further steps in terms of Section 88 of the KMC Act of 1976.

c) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Corporation to regularize the services of the Petitioners on completion of 10 years of service on par with that of others.

d) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to pay equal pay for equal work as per the decision of the Hon’ble Court Apex Court in AIR 2016 SC 5176 in term of Articles 39D of the Constitution of India.

e) Issue a writ of mandamus to consider the cases of the Petitioners for regularization on par with that of others like – Revenue Department Social Security Employees as per the Government order dated 11.07.2017 and Morarji Desai School Teachers and Part-time Teachers Absorption Rules, 2010 .

f) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents not to discriminate in the matter of absorption and payment of salary.

g) Issue a writ of mandamus to the Respondent No.3 and the Government (R1 & 2) to consider the cases of the Petitioners on completion of 10 years of service in extending the security of tenure and further the case of the Petitioners should also be considered on completion of 3 years from quasi-permanent to permanent posts in terms of the Rule 40-A and 40-B KCSR Rules and also in terms of 5 of the Karnataka Temporary Service Rules of 1967 as amended and

h) Issue any appropriate a writ or order as deems fit by this Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:

The petitioners have been working as Nursery, Pre-Primary, Primary and High School Teachers in Corporation Schools run by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 - BBMP as teachers are recruited by outsourcing. The petitioners have been working as teachers as stated supra for more than 25 years as on today. The petitioners approached this Court in W.P.No.27420/2016 and connected matters seeking regularisation of their service and the said petition was disposed of by this Court vide final order dated 28.11.2016 issuing certain directions to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 - State and the BBMP. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite specific directions issued by this Court, in the aforesaid W.P.No.27420/2016 and connected matters, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 - State has once again rejected the claim of the petitioner for regularisation on the ground that the petitioners were employed through an outsourcing agency and as such, the petitioners are not entitled to regularisation. Aggrieved by the impugned endorsement/ communication/order at Annexure - B dated 07.09.2017 and seeking directions for their regularisation, petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition.

3. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 to 11-BBMP and perused the material on record.

4. Respondent No.4- the outsourcing agency has been served with notice of the petition and has chosen to remain unrepresented and has not contested the petition.

5. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and referring to the ma

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 21680

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAS.R.Krishna Kumar, JRaghavendra V. – AppellantVersusState of Karnataka – RespondentWP No. 8346 of 2018

Cases Referred (1)

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.R.Krishna Kumar, J
Raghavendra V. – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
WP No. 8346 of 2018