HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 45056 OF 2016

O R D E R:

Petitioner challenges Memos dated 19.11.2014 and

17.08.2015 on the ground of being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the orders in Writ Petition No. 18254 of 1989, Writ Appeal No.1795 of 2013 and Writ Appeal No.1135 of 2014. A consequential direction is sought to respondents to regularize/absorb him as Junior Assistant/Typist from the date of initial appointment, duly considering his total length of service as clarified in the report dated 19.01.2000, with all consequential benefits.

2. The case of petitioner is that he was appointed in 1987 in respondent - State Board of Technical Education & Training (SBTET) as Junior Assistant/Typist on daily wage basis of Rs.15/- per day, which was enhanced from time to time. While in service, proceedings dated 17.06.1991 were issued by the 3^rd respondent proposing retrenchment of employees and certain employees were retrenched. Then, petitioner, along with others, filed Writ Petition No. 18254 of 1989 seeking regularization, as there were vacancies. By order dated 04.07.1991, this Court directed respondents to consider cases for regularization by taking into account the length of service, with relaxation for those who worked for five years or more, and to maintain seniority under Section 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short, ‘the Act’). Since positive orders were not granted, petitioner and others filed Writ Appeal No. 275 of 1992. The Division Bench, by order dated 31.01.1996, directed respondents to consider the eligibility of 55 persons for regularization under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994.

2.1. Despite such orders, respondents did not consider petitioner’s case. On 31.08.1991, his services were terminated but within a month, he was re-engaged and such artificial breaks were repeatedly given until 31.12.1997, only to deny him regularization. Meanwhile, services of 18 candidates were regularized. Petitioner therefore, made repeated representations seeking regularization in terms of Section 25(B) of the Act and G.O.Ms.No.212, pointing out that he had worked for long periods continuously except for artificial breaks. Respondents, however, continued filling-up higher posts through deputation and promotion, but did not absorb petitioner against available vacancies. Representations were made on 06.10.2008, 24.12.2008, 01.07.2011, 20.08.2011, 25.08.2011, and 08.09.2011 which were rejected by Memo dated 11.05.2012 on the ground of pendency of Writ Petition No. 21772 of 2001.

2.2. Petitioner and others again filed Writ Petition No. 19401 of 2012, wherein this Court directed that cases be considered under Section 25(H) of the Act in existing or future vacancies, with relaxation of age, and keeping in view G.O.Ms.No.212. Against this, Writ Appeal No. 1795 of 2013 was filed by respondents while Writ Appeal No.1135 of 2014 was filed by petitioner and others for clarifications. By the common judgment dated 08.08.2014, the Division Bench directed that entire service from inception must be counted under G.O.Ms.No.212, those qualifying should be taken into service forthwith without back wages, and those not qualifying should be re-engaged under Section 25(H) or given other benefits like retrospective regularization. Instead of implementing the above directions, respondents issued Memo dated 19.11.2014 impugned in this Writ Petition, stating that petitioner did not fulfil the conditions under G.O.Ms.No.212 and would only be considered for re-engagement. Challenging this, Contempt Case No. 1982 of 2014 was filed and the same was also closed after observing that reasons in the memo were not cogent, with a direction to furnish proper reasons. Thereafter, Memo dated 17.08.2015 which is also impugned was issued, showing the number of days petitioner had worked and again stating that he did not fulfil conditions as on the cut-off date 25.11.1993.

However, petitioner was also asked to give willingness vide Memo dated 24