IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION Nos.28646-28681 OF 2019(S-REG) Between:
1. Pavithra S W/o Nataraj B.N Aged about 31 years R/at No.77, 5th Cross Devegowda Block South Adugodi Bengaluru – 560 030.
2. Savitha S W/o Sathish T Aged about 38 years R/at No.228, 5th Main, 5th Cross, K.G.Nagar Near Bull Temple Road Bengaluru.
3. Shivaraju S S/o Siddappa Aged about 31 years R/at Palya, Palyam, Kollegal Chamarajnagar - 571 440.
4. Latha B.L W/o Hanumantharaju Aged about 30 years R/at Ward-2 Jyothinagara, Sira Tumakuru - 572 137.
5. K. Parvathamma D/o Krishnappa C/o Venkatappa Aged about 32 years R/at Subbanna Garden Near Uma Theater Chamarajpet Bengaluru-560 018.
6. Saroja K W/o Srinivas M Aged about 38 years R/at Vaishnavi Laundry Kanaka Nagar Water Tank Road Hosakote-562 114.
7. Siddaraju R. B S/o Boraiah B Aged about 31 years R/at.108, 3rd Block 31st Ward Rangrayara Doddi Ijoor post Ramanagara -562 159.
8. Prashanth Kumar G. V S/o Vasantha Raja Kumara G.V Aged about 39 years R/at No. 981, 1st floor 10th Main, R.V. Block Banashankari Bengaluru South Bengaluru-560 050.
9. Rajendra S/o Nanjaiah Aged about 38 years R/at Ambedkar Street Saragur, Chamarajanagar Chamarajanagar-571 117.
10. Shashikala N.S W/o Mahesh D.R.
Aged about 30 years R/at No.22/116, 2nd Cross Nagamuneshwara Layout Parappana Agrahara Bengaluru-560 100.
11. Rekha R.S D/o Sadashivaiah Aged about 28 years R/at Ramaghatta Puradakatte Post Handanakere Hobli Chikkanayakanahalli Tumkur-572 119.
12. Jailalitha D/o Raju H. B. Aged about 28 years R/at No. 47, Heggavadi Kundakere Post Terakanambi Hobli Gundlupet Taluk Chamarajanagar-571 111.
13. Padmakshi B.V. D/o Venkatappa Aged about 29 years R/at No. 28 Byatiganahatti Tarur, Tumakur - 572 125.
14. Anusha R D/o N. Ramangineya, W/o Andini Suni N Aged about 29 years R/at M.G. Road Uppar Colony, Gauribidanur Chikkaballapur - 561 208.
15. Shruthi S D/o Siddappa Aged about 28 years R/at Ward No.23 Bagavath Nagara Birur Post Kadur Taluk Chickmagalur District -577 116.
16. Tejashree R D/o Ramachandrappa N Aged about 30 years R/at A.V. Kottige Beerenahalli, Hiriyur Chitradurga - 577 599.
17. Indramma W/o Gopalakrishna K.S Aged about 29 years R/at No.19E Kurubarahalli Dharmapura Hobli Hiriyur Taluk Ikkanur Chitradurga District-577 557.
18. B. N. Soumya W/o Lokesh M.N C/o D. Nagaraj Aged about 28 years R/at G-83, 6th Cross Beeraiahana Vatara Gayathri Nagar Bengaluru-560 021.
19. Yashodamma M W/o Basavaraj S Chavan Aged about 30 years R/at 1155/1020/8 Behind Sri Marula Siddeshwara Temple G.S. Hospital M.G. Road Chickkaballapur.
20. Mamataz E D/o Ismail sab A Aged about 37 years R/at Hosayalanadu Yelanadu Chitradurga-577 598.
21. Sushila S D/o Siddaiah Aged about 38 years R/at M Kebbehundi Village Sosale Hobli T Narasipura Taluk Mysore - 571 110.
22. Swetha N S D/o N.C. Shivanna Aged about 30 years R/at Nagasandra Kunigal (Rural) Tumkur -572 134.
23. Siddagangamma G.H. W/o Thippeswamay K Aged about 39 years R/at Victoria Hospital Bengaluru North Bengaluru-560 002.
24. Bhargavi G D/o Gurappa Aged about 32 years R/at Behind Church Kamana Bavi Badavane Chitradurga - 577 501.
25. Suneeta M W/o Krishnappa T. G. Aged about 34 years R/at Thimmanahalli Kondenahalli Chikkaballapur - 562 103.
26. Veerabhadrappa V S/o Veeranna P Aged about 36 years Chattekamba Village Junjaragunte post Chalakere Taluk Chitradurga District.
27. Indramma K W/o Sudhakara K.N. Aged about 29 years R/o Kestur Village and Post Yelandur Taluk Chamarajanagar District-571 441.
28. Manasa G W/o Shanthakumar S.M. Aged about 30 years R/o Somagudda Post Challakere Taluk Chitradurga District.
29. Preethi B. S. W/o Prakash N Aged about 31 years R/o No.182, 7th Main 7th Cross, R.P.C. Layout Vijayanagara II Stage Bengaluru-560 040.
30. Tulasi M. M.
W/o Chikkanna Yadav Aged about 34 years R/o No.18/11-7 5th Cross, Near Rudrappa Garden Kasthuriba Nagar Bengaluru South.
31. Puttasiddamma W/o Suresha E Aged about 35 years R/o No.60/A Thorekadanahalli Malavalli Taluk Mandya District - 571 421.
32. Rajeshwari S W/o Yogesh. H. M. Aged about 30 years R/o No.5/4, 2nd floor, Arasu Nilaya Bear K.B.C. College Kodipalya, Kengeri Bengaluru -560 060.
33. Shruthi. M C/o. Jogiboraiah Aged about 29 years R/o. Parusharampura Valmiki Nagar Challakere Taluk Chitradurga District.
34. Mahadevamma M W/o. Ravikumar Aged about 31 years R/o. No.218 Ambedkar New Street Near Anganawadi Siddayyanapura Chamarajanagara District - 571 440.
35. Sunandamma M W/o Parameshwaraiah G. S. Aged about 29 years R/o. No.7, 3rd cross 3rd Main Road Sunnadaguddada Road Ranganathapura Kamakshi Palya Magadi Main Road Bengaluru North Taluk-560 079.
36. Meenakshi O D/o Mylarappa Aged about 33 years Residing at Vaddarapalya Mallathahalli Post Doddaballapura Taluk Bengaluru Rural District-561 203. ... Petitioners (By Sri Rajeswar P.N, Advocate) And 1. State of Karnataka By its Secretary Health & Family Welfare M.S.Building Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Bangalore Medical College & Research Institute (an autonomous Institution of Govt. of Karnataka) K.R.Road, Fort Bengaluru – 560 002.
Rep: by its Director & Dean. … Respondents (Smt. M.S.Prathima, AGA for R1) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondents to consider the petitioners’ representations dated 19.03.2019 and 22.03.2019 at Annexures-A and B respectively for regularization of their services, weightage and age relaxation and recommend the same to the Government as per the Order dated 25.02.2019 in W.P.Nos.3405-3431/2015 (S-
Res) and connected Writ Petitions filed by the similarly placed Staff Nurses and etc., These writ petitions coming on for ‘Preliminary Hearing’ this day, the Court passed the following:-
ORDER In the instant petitions, petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:-
(i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioners’ representations dated 19.03.2019 and 22.03.2019 at Annexures-A and B respectively for regularization of their services, weightage and age relaxation and recommend the same to the Government as per the order dated 25.02.2019 in W.P.Nos.3405-3431/2015 (S-Res) and connected Writ Petitions filed by the similarly placed Staff Nurses;
(ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus not to terminate the services of the petitioners as Stipendiary Nurses; and (iii) Pass such other order/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to pass under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The petitioners have not appraised this Court by producing any special Rules so as to extend the benefit of service weightage and age relaxation for the purpose of regularization.
3. Undisputedly, petitioners were appointed on different dates from 05.12.2008 to 08.02.2016. For the purpose of claiming relaxation, the decision of Constituted Bench in Umadevi’s case has to be taken into consideration. In Umadevi’s case, as one-time- measure, relaxation was permitted with specific conditions. One of the conditions is that as on 10.04.2006, one must have completed 10 years of service. In the present petitions, none of them have fulfilled the condition of 10 years as on 10.4.2006 so as to respondent undertakes one-time regularization. This issue has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the latest decision reported in (2019) 4 SCC 290 in the case of Union of India and Others v.
Central Administrative Tribunal and Others at para Nos.18 to 20 which read as under:-
“18. It is of relevance to consider the directions rendered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Umadevi (3). P.K.Balasubramanyan, J., speaking for the Court, held thus: (SCC p. 42, para 53) “53. … In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.”
(emphasis in original) 19. The directions issued in Umadevi (3) have been considered by subsequent Benches of this Court. In State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, a two-Judge Bench of this Court held that the “one-time measure” prescribed in Umadevi (3) must be considered as concluded only when all employees who were entitled for regularisation under Umadevi (3), had been considered. R.V.Raveendran, J., who wrote the opinion of the Court, held: (M.L. Kesari case, SCC pp.250-51, paras 9-11) “9. The term “one-time measure” has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi(3), each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularise their services.
10. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi (3), cases of several daily- wage/ad hoc/casual employees were still pending before courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one- time regularisation process. On the other hand, some government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of the decision in Umadevi (3), will not lose their right to be considered for regularisation, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six-month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi (3) has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily-wage/ad hoc/casual employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10.04.2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi (3), but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi (3), the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one-time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of Umadevi (3), are so considered.
11. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi (3) is twofold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi (3) was rendered, are considered for regularization in view of their long service. Second is to ensure that the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the practice of employing persons on daily-wage/ad hoc/casual basis for long periods and then periodically regularise them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years, thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 10-4-2006 [the date of decision in Umadevi (3)] without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regularisation. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularisation within six months of the decision in Umadevi (3) or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularisation in terms of the above directions in Umadevi (3) as a one-time measure.”
(emphasis supplied) 20. The judgment of this Court in Umadevi (3) does not preclude the claims of employees who seek regularisation after the exercise has been undertaken with respect to some employees, provided that the said employees have completed the years of service as mandated by Umadevi (3). The ruling casts an obligation on the State and its instrumentalities to grant a fair opportunity of regularisation to all such employees which are entitled according to the mandate under Umadevi (3) and ensure that the benefit is not conferred on a limited few. The subsequent regularisation of employees who have completed the requisite period of service is to be considered as a continuation of the one-time exercise.”
4. Thus, the petitioners have not made out a case for seeking regularization. Recently, this Court in the case of Smt.Preethi Bhandage & Others v. State of Karnataka & Others in W.P.Nos.35139- 35214/2017 dated 28.06.2019, elaborately discussed relating to the status of temporary/contract employees.
5. In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncement, petitioners are not entitled for regularization. In the event, respondent framed any Special Recruitment Rules or going for regular recruitment to the post of Staff Nurse, petitioners’ grievance relating to giving weightage and age relaxation may be taken note of.
With the above said observations, petitions stand dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE PYR