THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.6536 of 2016

ORDER:

The petitioner seeks the regularization of his services as an Attender in the 3^rdrespondent-College, a position he has held since his appointment on 03.07.1991. It is his case that he was initially appointed on 03.07.1991, against an existing aided vacancy, and while he performs the duties of this aided post, his salary has always been paid from the College's Corpus fund rather than the government's grant-in-aid, resulting in payment of meagre wages, paid into his bank account with Corporation Bank opened on 22.12.1991, and he was also enrolled in the Employees' Provident Fund scheme on 08.01.1992. It is stated that a separate writ petition, W.P. No. 11009 of 2014, was filed by him and 10 other employees seeking better wages, which is pending, but distinct from the current plea for regularization.

1.1 The petitioner contends that for 24 years, no communication was ever sent to him by the first or second respondents stating that his services would not be regularized. This prolonged silence, coupled with his continuous service in a sanctioned post, fostered a genuine and legitimate expectation that his position would eventually be made permanent. He states that the respondent college appointed him out of compulsion because the first and second respondents failed to fill the vacant aided posts. The petitioner alleges that the government's inaction has resulted in non-payment of aided salaries earmarked for the post he has occupied for over two decades.

1.2 Petitioner further states that though the respondent contends that his initial appointment was made by the respondent college without following the proper procedure or obtaining prior permission from the government authorities, such an irregularity constitutes a curable irregularity, not an incurable illegality, especially after 24 years of uninterrupted service. He further contends that his cause of action is continuous, renewed day-by-day due to the government's failure to implement the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, and in State of Karnataka vs. M.L. Kesari, 2(2010) 9 SCC 247

1.3 In support of his case, the petitioner refers to W.P. No. 19090 of

2011, where a similarly situated attender appointed on 05.08.1992, was granted regularization, and this decision was upheld by the Division Bench in W.A.No.1393 of 2012 and ultimately confirmed by the Supreme Court, as the SLP No.29508 of 2013 filed by the State has been dismissed on 28.10.2014.It is also stated that while this specific order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court carried a rider that it should not be cited as precedent, the petitioner argues that the underlying principles of the Umadevi and M.L. Kesari judgments still squarely apply to his situation. He concludes by passionately appealing for justice, emphasizing that at 54 years of age, he has dedicated his entire youth to the institution, and therefore seeks a direction to regularize his services with effect from 03.07.1991, with all consequential benefits.

2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a counter affidavit, contending that the petitioner has no legal or contractual relationship with the government and that his employment is a private matter between him and the third respondent college, which also runs unaided sections. It is contended that the petitioner's claim of being appointed to an aided vacancy is entirely unsubstantiated, as he has filed no material evidence to prove it, and they deny any obligation to regularize his service.

2.1 The respondents contend that G.O.Ms.No.1119, Education, dated 18.12.1976, mandates a specific selection process for non-teaching

posts in private aided colleges, and this process requires the management to constitute a Selection Committee that includes a representative of the Director of Higher Education, who must be informed 15 days in advance and whose presence is necessary for the quorum. Furthermore, the pos