Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24250

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.R.Krishna Kumar, J
Mohana M. J. – Appellant
Versus
Managing Director, Govt. Tool Room And Training Center – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 14359 OF 2022 (S-RES)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V.S. Naik
For the Respondents: N. Amaresh

State entities cannot use contractual nomenclature to indefinitely deny regularization to employees who have performed perennial, integral, and sanctioned duties for over a decade. Such conduct is arbitrary, violates constitutional equality, and fails the standard required of a model employer.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Employment law - Service law - Regularization of contract employees - Termination of services - Petitioners, engaged on contract basis against sanctioned posts for over a decade, challenged the refusal to regularize their services - Held, the refusal to regularize long-serving employees performing perennial functions is arbitrary, violates the mandate of equality, and fails to serve as a model employer. (Paras 5, 7 and 8)

(B) Service Law - Regularization - Distinction between illegal and irregular appointments - The principle that temporary or contractual labels cannot be used to perpetuate precariousness and sidestep fair engagement practices where work is perennial - The State is a Constitutional employer and cannot rely on contractual nomenclature to defeat legitimate claims for service stability and fair pay. (Paras 5, 6 and 7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were initially appointed against sanctioned posts on a contractual basis. Having provided continuous service for over a decade, their repeated representations for regularization were refused by the respondent, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court pertaining to the prohibition of back-door entry. The petitioners challenged these endorsements, claiming the nature of their work was perennial and that they fulfilled all criteria for regularization.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the petitioners had rendered continuous service for over a decade on sanctioned posts. It concluded that the functions performed were perennial and integral to the organization. The refusal to regularize was held to be a mechanical application of law without considering the substantive rights of the employees.

Issues: The main issues were whether the long-term contractual engagement of employees against sanctioned posts for perennial duties warrants regularization and whether the reliance on contract status can justify the denial of permanent absorption and equal pay.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that contractual stipulations cannot override constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 16, and 21. When employees are engaged against sanctioned posts and perform duties integral to the institution for over a decade, the State has an obligation as a model employer to provide fair and stable employment. Mechanical denial of regularization using labels like 'contractual' or 'ad-hoc' while work continues to be necessary is arbitrary and unsustainable.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. petitioners' long-tenure contractual employment history (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. misapplication of umadevi to deny regularisation for perennial work (Para 5 , 6)
3. direction to regularise employees in perennial sanctioned posts (Para 7 , 8)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE (1) IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING REF NO.GTTC/AADALITHA/HI/01/2022-03 DTD 30.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-N, (2) IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING REF NO.GTTC/AADALITHA/HI/01/2022-03 DTD 30.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-P, (3) IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING REF NO.GTTC/AADALITHA/HI/01/2022-03 DTD 30.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-Q, (4) IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING REF NO.GTTC/AADALITHA/HI/01/2022-03 DTD 30.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-R, (5) IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING REF NO.GTTC/AADALITHA/HI/01/2022-03 DTD 30.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-S, (6) IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING REF NO.GTTC/AADALITHA/HI/01/2022-03 DTD 30.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-T, (7) IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING REF NO.GTTC/AADALITHA/HI/01/2022-03 DTD 30.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 7TH PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-V, (8) IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING REF NO.GTTC/AADALITHA/HI/01/2022-03 DTD 30.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 8TH PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-W, (9) IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING REF NO.GTTC/AADALITHA/HI/01/2022-03 DTD 30.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 9TH PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-X, (10) IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING REF NO.GTTC/AADALITHA/HI/01/2022-03 DTD 30.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 10TH PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-Y, (11) IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING REF NO.GTTC/AADALITHA/HI/01/2022-03 DTD 30.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 11TH PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-Z, (12) IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING REF NO.GTTC/AADALITHA/HI/01/2022-03 DTD 30.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 12TH PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE AA, (13) IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING REF NO.GTTC/AADALITHA/HI/01/2022-03 DTD 30.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 13TH PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE AB, (14) IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING REF NO.GTTC/AADALITHA/HI/01/2022-03 DTD 30.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 14TH PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE AC, SINCE THE SAME ARE UNJUST, ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

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

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioners seek the following reliefs:

“a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the (1) impugned endorsement bearing ref. No.GTTC/Aadalitha/Hi/01/2022-03 dated 30.06.2022 issued by the respondent to the 1st petitioner vide Annexure-N, (2) impugned endorsement bearing ref. No.GTTC/Aadalitha/Hi/01/2022-03 dated 30.06.2022 issued by the respondent to the 2nd petitioner vide Annexure-P, (3) impugned endorsement bearing ref. No.GTTC/Aadalitha/Hi/01/2022-03 dated 30.06.2022 issued by the respondent to the 3rd petitioner vide Annexure-Q, (4) impugned endorsement bearing ref. No.GTTC/Aadalitha/Hi/01/2022-03 dated 30.06.2022 issued by the respondent to the 4th petitioner vide Annexure-R, (5) impugned endorsement bearing ref. No.GTTC/Aadalitha/Hi/01/2022-03 dated 30.06.2022 issued by the respondent to the 5th petitioner vide Annexure-S, (6) impugned endorsement bearing ref. No.GTTC/Aadalitha/Hi/01/2022-03 dated 30.06.2022 issued by the respondent to the 6th petitioner vide Annexure-T, (7) impugned endorsement bearing ref. No.GTTC/Aadalitha/Hi/01/2022-03 dated 30.06.2022 issued by the respondent to the 7th petitioner vide Annexure-V, (8) impugned endorsement bearing ref. No.GTTC/Aadalitha/Hi/01/2022-03 dated 30.06.2022 issued by the responden

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24250

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAS.R.Krishna Kumar, JMohana M. J. – AppellantVersusManaging Director, Govt. Tool Room And Training Center – RespondentWRIT PETITION NO. 14359 OF 2022 (S-RES)

State entities cannot use contractual nomenclature to indefinitely deny regularization to employees who have performed perennial, integral, and sanctioned duties for over a decade. Such conduct is arbitrary, violates constitutional equality, and fails the standard required of a model employer.

Cases Referred (2)

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.R.Krishna Kumar, J
Mohana M. J. – Appellant
Versus
Managing Director, Govt. Tool Room And Training Center – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 14359 OF 2022 (S-RES)