IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION NO.4539/2019 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
Dodda Arasaiah S/o Kalaiah Aged about 61 years Working as Driver, Town Municipal Council , Malavalli, Mandya District-571 403. R/at G.M.Beedi, Kudregunturayyana Thota, Malavalli, …Petitioner (By Sri Ranganatha S. Jois, Advocate) AND:
1. The Director of Municipal Administration in Karnataka, Vidhana Veedi Mini Towers 9th Floor Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi Bengaluru-560 001.
2. The Deputy Commissioner Mandya District Mandya-571 401.
3. Town Municipal Council Malavalli Town Malavalli-571 430.
(By Sri M.S.Prathima, AGA) …Respondents This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the R- 1 and R-2 to forthwith pass orders or regularization of the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.02.2005 on which date he completed 10 years of service and also to extend him the pay-scale attached to the post of Driver as revised from time to time and also increment payable and other service benefits and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R In the instant petition, petitioner has questioned the validity of Annexure-D by which grievance of the petitioner relating to regularization has been turned down on two counts namely he has not fulfilled the requisite qualification to hold the post of driver in terms of Karnataka Municipalities (Recruitment of Officers and Employees) Rules 2010, Schedule-II(See Rule 5) and further petitioner was not appointed against a sanctioned post.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that petitioner’s appointment was against the sanctioned post in view of Annexure ‘A’, the date on which the petitioner was appointed. Therefore, what remains is that whether petitioner fulfills the educational qualification to hold the post of driver. The petitioner has not produced any material to show other than what has been taken note of Rules 2010 cited supra.
3. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner, in the event of any lesser qualification as prescribed for the post of driver prior to Rules, 2010 i.e. as on 10.4.2006, the date on which Umadevi’s decision was rendered.
In such an event the concerned respondent is permitted to go through and pass suitable order and communicate such decision.
Sd/- JUDGE