IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.52194-52343/2015 c/w W.P. No.52958/2015 & W.P. Nos.52959-53011/2015 WRIT PETITION No. 54568/2015 (S-RES) IN WRIT PETITION Nos. 52194 - 52343/ 2015 BETWEEN :
1. RAMACHANDRAPPA B D S/O DODDAIAH B V, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER, BANGALORE EAST, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.
2. S VENKATESHA S/O SRINIVASAMURTHY M, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER, CHINTHAMANI, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125.
3. REVANAPPA T MADDER S/O TIRAKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER HIREKERUU, HAVERI DISTRICT-581109 4. VINAYAKA GOVINDA BHOVI S/O GOVINDA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER NARGUND, GADAG DISTRICT-582207.
5. HANUMANTHAPPA DASAR S/O MOHANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER GADAG, GADAG DISTRICT-582 101.
6. PRAKASH B S/O LATE BALANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.
7. GOPAL S/O RAMU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER CHITTAPUR, GULBARGA DISTRICT-585211 8. ANAND KUMAR S/O IRANNA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER SHORAPUR, GULBURGA DISTRICT-585 224.
9. VASUDEV B S/O BASAVANAYAK K, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER,HONNALLI, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577217.
10. THIMMESHI N S/O NAGENDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER,JAGALOORU, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577513.
11. GOVINDARAJU G S/O GIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER HARAPANAHALLI, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-583131 12. SIDDAMUNIYAPPA M S/O MARAYYA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER HOSKOTE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 114.
13. ASLAM PASHA M S/O MOHAMED ADM, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER VIRAJPETE, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 218.
14. VENKATESHA S/O MUNITHIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER ANEKAL, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-562 106.
15. SAGAR SHANDAGE S/O SHANKAR SHANDAGE, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.
16. BHANUPRAKASH H.D. S/O THIMMAPPA H.K., AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER SOMAVARPETE KODAGU, DISTRICT-571 236.
17. PRAKASH RATHOD S/O KHEMU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER BAGALKOTE BAGALKOTE, DISTRICT-587 101.
18. LOKESH K HALIWANA S/O KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER RANIBENNUR, HAVERI DISTRICT-581115.
19. MEHABUBA BASHA S/O IMAMASAB NADAF, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER MUNDARGI, GADAG DISTRICT-582 118.
20. VIJAYANAND S/O RAGUNATH BHURE, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER BHALKI, BIDAR DISTRICT-585 328.
21. KUMAR NAIK S/O SHIVA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER SIRA, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 137.
22. JITENDRA M S/O K. MOHAN, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER CHIKKAMAGALORE, CHIKKAMAGALORE DISTRICT-577 101.
23. N.R.RAJESHA S/O N.K.RAMKRISHNAYYA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER KUNIGAL, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 130.
24. S.K.NARAYANA S/O KRISHNAMURTHY S.K., AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER SIRA, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 137.
25. RAMALINGEGOWDA S S/O SOMEGOWDA.M, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER RAMANAGARA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 117.
26. HARISHA M S/O MUDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER CHANNAPATNA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 160.
27. SATEESH.S S/O SIDDALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER MAGADI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 120.
28. SHANKARAMURTHY K.B. S/O BASAVALINGAPPA.B, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER ARSIKERE, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 103.
29. SHERKHAN S/O RASEEDMIYAN, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER BASAVAKALYAN, BIDAR DISTRICT-585 437.
30. RASOOL S/O LATE RAJAHUSENSAB, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER LINGASAGOORU, RAICHUR DISTRICT-584 122.
31. NARASAPPA S/O SIDDALINGAYYA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFICER DEVDURGA, RAICHUR DISTRICT – 584111.
32. PALAKSHA M R S/O RENUKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER CHANNARAYAPATNA, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573116.
33. IRAPPA PATTAR S/O SUVARN PATTAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER ATHANI BELGAUM, DISTRICT – 591304.
34. RAMESH KRISHNA KURBAR S/O KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER BAILHONGAL, BELGAUM DISTRICT – 591102.
35. SHRIDHAR BHARATH PIPARE S/O BHARATH YASHWANTH PIPARE, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER KHANAPUR, BELGAUM DISTRICT – 591302.
36. K S UMESHA S/O SUBRAMANYA K L, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT- 562117.
37. IRFAN HAWALDAR S/O MUGUTASAP HAWALDAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER BELGUM, BELGUM DISTRICT – 590001.
38. ASHOK ASHI S/O BASAVANNI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER SAUNDATTI, BELGAUM DISTRICT – 591126.
39. MANJULA F HAMMINAVAR D/O FAKIR M HAMMINAVAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER SAUNDATTI, BELGAUM DISTRICT – 591126.
40. SHIVANAND N KALLUR S/O NIJALINGAPPA KALLUR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER, GOKAK BELGUM DISTRICT – 591307.
41. SHANUR MEERASAB NADAF S/O MEERASAB PEERSAB NADAF, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER HUKKERI, BELGUM DISTRICT – 591309.
42. MURGESH AINAPURE S/O BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER CHIKKODI, BELGUM DISTRICT – 591201.
43. SUDHA T L D/O LAXMAN T H, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER TARIKERE, CHIKKAMAGALORE DISTRICT – 577228.
44. SRINIVAS S/O TIPPANNA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER BIDAR, BIDAR DISTRICT – 585401.
45. AVITH V S/O VAIKUNTAPPA N, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER MUDIGERE, CHIKKAMAGALORE DISTRICT – 577550.
46. TIPPANNA S/O DYAMANNA BADNI, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER SAVANURU, HAVERI DISTRICT- 581118.
47. SHARANAKUMAR S/O KANDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER SHAHAPUR, GULBURGA DISTRICT-585101.
48. S JYOTHI LAKSHMI D/O S N SUBRAMANYA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT – 577427.
49. RAJENDRA PRASAD R S/O A B RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER SAGRA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT – 577401.
50. SRI RAMA S/O KESHAVAMURTHY G R, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER SHIKARIPUR, SHIMOGA DISTRICT – 577427.
51. GOUDRA NAGARAJA S/O GOUDRA KALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER KUDLIGE, BALLARI DISTRICT-583218.
52. SARFARAJ S/O GAIBUSAB SUDI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER YALABURGA, KOPPAL DISTRICT – 583236.
53. UMESH S/O NAGAPPA BARADDI, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER GANGAVATHI, KOPPLA DISTRICT – 583227.
54. MAHANTESH MAGADUM S/O APPASAHEB, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER HUKKERI, BELGUM DISTRICT-578327.
55. SHASHIKUMAR H S S/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER SRIRANGAPATNA, MANDYA DISTRICT-571438.
56. NAGENDRA B M S/O MALLIKARJUNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571430.
57. THRILOCHANA KUMARA Y P S/O PUTTARAJU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER MANDYA, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571401.
58. GIRISHA Y HUTAGI S/O YASHWANTH A HUTAGI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER ATHANI, BELGUM DISTRICT-57187.
59. MANJAPPA M S/O MAHADEVAPPA POOJAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER HOSANAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577427.
60. HANUMANTAPPA N S/O NAGARAJAPPA H, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER BYADAGI, HAVERI DISTRICT – 581106.
61. ZAHEERABBASALI NADAF S/O HASAN SAB R.NADAF, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER SIRAHATTI, GADAG DISTRICT-591304.
62. GURURAJ S/O SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFICER AURAD, BIDAR DISTRICT-585226.
63. MANJUNATH S/O MALLESHAPA HUGAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER KOPPAL, KOPPAL DISTRICT-583231.
64. PRASHANTH G NAIK S/O GANAPATHI G NAIK, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER KARAVARA, UTTARAKANNADA DISTRICT-581301.
65. SAVITHA K D/O M.GANESH RAI, AGEDA BOUT 31 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER BANTWAL, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574211.
66. PRASHANTH K S/O KORAGAPPA POOJARI, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER BELTHANGADY, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT 574214.
67. PRADEEPA H S S/O SWAMY H C, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER HOSANAGARA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT.
68. KALLAPPA S/O GURAPPA GURIKAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER KUSHTAGI, KOPAL DISTRICT-583277.
69. HADAPADA GURURAJA S/O JAMBANNA.H., AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER SANDUR, BELLARI DISTRICT-583112.
70. CHETHAN KUMAR B S/O BASAVANYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER TIRTHALLI, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577432.
71. PRASHANTH S/O DIGAMBAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFCER, DHARWAD, DHARWAD DISTRICT-580001.
72. ULLAGADDI MALLIKARJUN GADIGEPPA S/O ULLAGADDI GADIGEPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER KALAGHATAGI, DHARWAD DISTRICT-581204.
73. SHIVANGOOD B PATIL S/O BABUGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER SINDAGI, BIJAPUR DISTRICT-586117.
74. SHIDDALINGESHWAR B KALYANA SHETTI S/O BALACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER BIJAPUR, BIJAPUR DISTRICT-58041.
75. PARASAPPA GUDADINNI S/O DURGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER BASAVANABAGEVADI, BIJAPUR DISTRICT-586 203.
76. DILIP KUMAR C S S/O SHIVAPPA C M, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER K R PETE, MANDYA DISTRICT-571812.
77. U MOHAMMED SIRAJ S/O U ABBUBHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574325.
78. HEMANTHA K S/O SHEKAR POOJARI, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER MANGLORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574233.
79. T SHIVAKUMARA S/O D TIPPERUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER MOLAKALMURU, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-582526.
80. SRINIVASA T S/O SANNATHIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-57291.
81. JINAGOWDA TERDALI S/O NINGAPPA TERDALI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER CHIKKODI, BELGUM DISTRICT-58131.
82. SANTOSH M S/O MAHESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER HUBLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT-56191.
83. SAGARAPPA S/O MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER CHAKOTTI, DHARWAD DISTRICT-568191.
84. HAJARATASAB S/O IMAMSAB, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER KUNDGOL, DHARWAD DISTRICT-56918.
85. SHARMUDDIN S/O ALLAUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER SHORAPUR, YADGIR DISTRICT-585224.
86. MOHAMMED RASOOL S/O GULAMSAB, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER SINDHANURU, RAICHUR DISTRICT-584101.
87. SHABBIR AHMED S/O SHAHED PATEL, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER SHORAPUR, GULBARGA DISTRICT-58128.
88. PRAVEENA KUMAR M N S/O NAGARAJAPPA M R, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER HOLALKERE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-57171.
89. MANJUNATHA T C S/O CHANDRAPPA T, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER HONNALLI, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-527118.
90. GOVINALA KOTRESHA S/O HANUMAPPA G, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER KUDLGI, BALLARI DISTRICT-581718.
91. A.C. ONKARAMURTHY S/O CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER KOPPA, CHIKKAMAGALORE DISTRICT-58118.
92. SRINIVASAMURTHY.R S/O RAJANNA.R, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER SRINGERI, CHIKKAMAGALORE DISTRICT-57118.
93. UMASHANKAR. B.G. S/O GURUMURTHY B.S, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER KADUR, CHIKKAMAGALORE DISTRICT-572312.
94. SHIVARAJ S/O BHEMANNA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER AURAD, BIDAR DISTRICT.
95. KESHAVAMURTHY.P PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER HOLENARSIPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT.
96. NAGARAJU.A.P S/O PUTTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER ALUR, HASSAN DISTRICT-572311.
97. JALALAPPA A.K S/O MUKKANNA A K, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER SIRAGUPPA, BALLARI DISTRICT-583121.
98. MOHANA R.
S/O RUDROJI RAO, AGED ABOTU 36 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER SHIMOGA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-587121.
99. SANJEEV HUNASHYAL S/O SHIVALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER RAMDURGA, BELGUM DISTRICT-58131.
100. LAXMAN S/O LALU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER CHINCHOLI, GULBARGA DISTRICT-561171.
101. MAHESHA.C.N S/O NAGRAJU, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER MALVALI, MANDYA DISTRICT-573127.
102. ROBIN S/O SUDHAKAR SUTAR, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER GULBARGA, GULBARGA DISTRICT-58131.
103. RAJU.K.R S/O RAMIAH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER KUNIGAL, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572130.
104. KUMARA S/O MADAIAH, AGED ABOTU 38 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER MANDYA, MANDYA DISTRICT-573121.
105. M. KUMARA S/O MARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER MADDUR, MANDYA DISTRICT-581311.
106. H K KUMARA S/O KRISHNA S, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER NAGAMANGALA, MANDYA DISTRICT-581311.
107. P S KANTHARAJU S/O SUBRAMANYA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER PANDAVAPURA, MANDYA DISTRICT-571311.
108. SHADAKSHARI B H S/O HANUMANTHAPPA B K, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER N R PURA, CHIKKAMAGALORE DISTRICT-587612.
109. SYED SAMEER M A S/O ATHAULLAH M, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER CHIKKAMAGALORE, CHIKKAMAGALORE DISTRICT-58761.
110. D N KRISHNAMURTHY S/O NARSAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER TARIKERE, CHIKKAMAGALORE DISTRICT-58723.
111. KUMAR DAMBAL S/O BASAVANNAPPA DAMBAL, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER HAVERI, HAVERI DISTRICT – 581101.
112. KISHORE KUMAR G S/O G K ANJANAYYA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER RAICHUR, RAICHUR DISTRICT-581171.
113. K T RAGHAVENDRA S/O K G THIMMAYYA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER MADHUGIRI, TUMKUR DISTRICT-562218.
114. SHIVAPRASSANNA Y R S/O RENUKARADYA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER KORATAGERE, TUMKUR DISTRICT-562208.
115. RAVIKUMAR J R S/O RAMKRISHNAYYA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER KANAKPURA, RAMNAGARA DISTRICT-562218.
116. K S BASARIKATTI S/O SULTHAN SAB, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER HANGAL, HAVERI DISTRICT – 581202.
117. B C HULAGUR S/O CHANNABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER SHIGGAON, HAVERI DISTRICT – 581205.
118. KUMARA NAYAKA N S/O NAGANAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER K R NAGARA, MYSORE DISTRICT-572101.
119. SOMASHEKARA H A S/O ANNAYYA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS TALUK NODAL OFFICER PERIYAPATNA, MYSORE DISTRICT-52101.
120. PRADEEPA H R S/O RUDRA NAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER BELUR, HASSAN DISTRICT-57818.
121. CHIDANANDA M S/O MANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER HASSAN, HASSAN DISTRICT-573134.
122. RAJESHA M K S/O KALLESHAPPA M M, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER SAKALESHPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT-573134.
123. MANJU M S/O MAHESHWARA GOWDA N, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER CHANNAGIRI, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-578181.
124. NARENDRA A E EAROBALAIH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER TUMKUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101.
125. VIRUPAKSHAPPA BADIGER S/O CHANNABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER CHANNAGIRI, AVANAGERE DISTRICT-573101.
126. BASAVANAGOWDA M S/O JAGADEESHWARA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFICER HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, BALLARI DISTRICT-58131.
127. MALLANAGOUDAR SIDDESH S/O KAREGOUDA M, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER BALLARI, BALLARI DISTRICT-581311.
128. MAHESH B M S/O KOTRAIAH B M S, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER HOSPETE, BALLARI DISTRICT-581211.
129. PRATAP NAIK S/O JANARDHAN NAIK AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER SIRSI, UTTARKANNADA DISTRICT-582261.
130. BASAVARAJ SHANKRAPPA NADUR S/O SHANKRAPPA B NADUR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER SIDDAPUR, UTTARKANNADA DISTRICT-581205.
131. POORNIMA D/O KALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER SORABA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-581711.
132. GIRISHA K M S/O MUKUNDA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER SAGARA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-57121.
133. GIRISHA Y HUTAGI S/O YASHWANTH A HUTAGI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER ATHANI, BELGUM DISTRICT-581227.
134. MANJAPPA M S/O MAHADEVAPPA POOJAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER HOSANAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT -577427.
135. MANJULA W/O UDAYA H S, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, TALUK NADAL OFFICER ARAKALGUD, HASSAN DISTRICT-573201.
136. DINESH KUMAR B S/O CHINKRANAIK, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER BELTHANGADI, DAKSHIN KANNADA DISTRICT-574109.
137. PRAKASHA P S/O PUTTANAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER H D KOTE, MYSORE DISTRICT-571114.
138. LOKESHA M S S/O SIDDARAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER HUNSUR, MYSORE DISTRICT-571105.
139. GIRISHA C B S/O BASAVANNA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER MYSORE, MYSORE DISTRICT-570025.
140. SHASHIKUMAR C R S/O RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER NANJANGUDU, MYSORE DISTRICT-571602.
141. KUMARA P S/O PUTTARAJA NAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER T NARASIPURA, MYSORE DISTRICT-571124.
142. RAMESH C S/O LATE CHIKKANAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER MYSORE MYSORE DISTRICT-570025.
143. RAGAVENDRA S KAMATH S/O SATHYAVAN KAMATH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER KUMUTA, UTTARAKANNADA DISTRICT-581343.
144. PRATHAP NAIK S/O JANARADHAR NAIK, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER SIRASI, UTTARAKANNADA DISTRICT-581 343.
145. DIGAMBAR S BANDARI S/O SHIVAPPA BHANDARI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER BHATKAL, UTTARAKANNADA DISTRICT-581320.
146. AMART F PATIL S/O FAKEERA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER HALIYALA, UTTARAKANNADA DISTRICT-581329 147. VEERESH MAHADEV NAIK S/O M N NAIK, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER JOIDA, UTTARAKANNADA DISTRICT-581329.
148. JAGADEESH M R S/O RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER YALLAPURA, UTTARAKANNADA DISTRICT-581343 149. MAHANTHESH K HOSPET S/O KALAVEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER HANGAL, HAVERI DISTRICT-581202.
150. SREEDHAR B C S/O CHANDRAPPA B K, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER DAVANAGERE, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577002. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI V. LAKSHMINARAYANA, SENIOR ADV. FOR SRI A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOUSING DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR RAJIV GANDHI RURAL HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED, NO.1234, NORTH BLOCK, I FLOOR, 4TH MAIN, I.T. PARK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010, (A GOVT. OF KARNATAKA ENTERPRISE).
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA, BAGALKOTE DISTRICT, BAGALKOTE-587101.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, BELAGAVI-590001.
6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560036.
7. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560026.
8. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA, BIDAR DISTRICT, BIDAR-585401.
9. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT, CHAMARAJANAGAR-577101.
10. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPUR-562101.
11. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101.
12. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA-577501.
13. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, DAKSHINA KANNADA-560016.
14. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE-577001.
15. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA, DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD-580001.
16. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA, GADAG DISTRICT, GADAG-582101.
17. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN-573201.
18. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI-585101.
19. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA KALABURAGAI DISTRICT, KALABURAGAI .
20. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA KODAGU DISTRICT, KODAGU-571201.
21. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563101.
22. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL-583231.
23. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571401.
24. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE HABITITE CENTER, C/O CORPORATION, MYSORE-570001.
25. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA RAICHUR DISTRICT, RAICHUR-584101.
26. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA-571511.
27. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
28. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR-572101.
29. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI-576101.
30. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA U K DISTRICT, UTTAR KANNADA-581401.
31. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT, VIJAYAPURA.
32. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA YADGIRI DISTRICT, YADGIRI-585201.
33. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE HABITATE CENTRE, C/O.R.G.R.H.C.L.
BANGALORE-560010. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S. M. CHANDRASHEKAR, SENIOR ADV. FOR SMT. M. SUMANA BALIGA, ADV. FOR R3 TO R7, R10 TO R22 R25, R26, R28 TO R33;
SRI E. S. INDRESH, AGA FOR R1,R2,R4 AND R32) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE RELIEVING LETTER/NEW ORDER OF CONTRACT VIDE ANNEXURE-O & P DATED 17.11.2015 & DATED NIL RESPECTIVELY ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION AT ANNEXURE-U TO U3, OF THE PETITIONERS FOR REGULARIZATION ABSORPTION IN THE RESPONDENT NO.3 CORPORATION, AS PER ARTICLE 174 OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE CORPORATION AND ETC.
IN W. P. No. 52958/2015 & W. P. Nos. 52959 - 53011/2015 BETWEEN:
1. SANTHOSH KUMAR S/O RAGHAVA NAYAK, AGED ABOT 31 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER SULLIA, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT – 574239.
2. CHANDRAPPA C S/O CHANNARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU, RURAL DISTRICT.
3. RAMAKRISHNA H R S/O HONNAVARA RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 561203.
4. SUDHIR AINAPUR S/O NAGAKUMAR AINPUR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER SEDAM, KALBURGI DISTRICT – 585224.
5. GOUTAM S/O SHIVARAM, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER KALBURGI, KALBURGI DISTRICT – 585103.
6. LOKESHA K S/O P M KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER CHITRADURGA, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577521.
7. MANJUNATHAGOWDA M N S/O R NALLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER KOLAR, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563101.
8. CHANDRAKALA BAI D/O SATHYANARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER CHIKKABALLAPURA, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 562104.
9. ANAND BATHAGUNAKI S/O BASANNA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER MANVI, RAICHUR DISTRICT.
10. GOPAL S/O SHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER SINDHANUR, RAICHUR DISTRICT – 584108.
11. NARENDRA NAYAK S/O HANUMANTHARAYA NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER SINDHANUR, RAICHUR DISTRICT – 584108.
12. MALLIKARJUNA K S/O MAHADEVAPPA KALKERI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER YADGIRI, YADGIRI DISTRICT – 585202.
13. T A NIRMALA D/O LAKSHMI ANDANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572218.
14. CHANDRASHEKAR G V S/O G VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER HARAPANAHALLI, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 583131.
15. N. RAVIKUMAR S/O NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER CHAMARAJANAGARA, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT – 571128.
16. B SHIVAPRAKASH S/O T S BASAVANNA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER KOLLEGALA, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT – 571128.
17. ASHOK S/O SHEKARA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER UDUPI, UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 010.
18. RUKKODARA D E S/O ERAKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER, TIPTUR TUMKUR – 572214.
19. SHANKAR NAIK S/O ROOP SING, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER LINGASAGURU, RAICHUR DISTRICT.
20. JAGADISH N S/O NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER TUMKUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572101.
21. PUTTARAJU K S/O KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER TURUVEKERE, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572227.
22. KUMARA M N S/O NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER PAVAGADA, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572227.
23. P T SATHISHA S/O THIMMAIAH, AGEDA BOUT 36 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER GUBBI, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572227.
24. RANGAPPA D G S/O GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER GUDIBANDE, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 561209.
25. SATHISH ANGADI S/O CHANDRAKANTHA ANGADI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER YALBURGA, KOPPALA DISTRICT – 583236.
26. NEELESH M PATIL S/O MADHAVARAO PATIL, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER HUMNABAD, BIDAR DISTRICT – 585330.
27. KESHAVA T N S/O NAREPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER MULUBAGILU, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT – 563101.
28. MANJUNATHA G S S/O SRINIVASA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER KOLAR, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563101.
29. SUBRAMANI T S/O TIPPAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER BANGARPETE, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563114.
30. SOMASUNDAR KUMAR B P S/O PEDDANNA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER BANGARAPETE, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563114.
31. MURULIDHARA S/O DODDAVENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER MALUR, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563130.
32. GANAPATHI BAJANTRI S/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER INDI, VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT – 586209.
33. BHARATH B PATIL S/O BASAVATHRAYA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER SINDAGI, VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT – 586128.
34. SIDDANNA S BIRADAR S/O SOMALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER BAGEWADI, VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT – 586203.
35. VEERAIAH NAGARALA MATA S/O NATARAJA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER MUDDEBIHALA, VIAJAYAPURA DISTRICT – 586212.
36. MOHAMED HUSSAIN S/O BAGAWAN, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER VIJAYAPURA, VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT – 586101.
37. BASAVANNEPPA BASAPPA KODLI S/O BASSAPPA KODLI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT – 591121.
38. RAJENDRA M S/O MOHAN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER BHADRAVATHI, SHIVMOGA DISTRICT – 577301.
39. RAVINDAR P SINGARE S/O PUNDALIKA RAO SINGARE, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER BASAVA KALYAN, BIDAR DISTRICT – 585401.
40. H S NAGENDRA S/O SATYANARAYAN RAO S, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER GOWRIBIDNUR, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT – 561208.
41. D R NAGESH S/O RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER SIDLAGATTA, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT – 562105.
42. PADMANABA V S/O VENKATARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER SRINIVASPURA, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563101.
43. GURUMURTHY M R S/O RAJANNA GOWDA M R, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER CHANNARAYAPATNA, HASSAN DISTRICT – 573116.
44. SOMASHEKAR C S/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER GANGAVATHI, KOPPAL DISTRICT – 583227.
45. B MANJUNATH S/O T C BASAVANNA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER YALANDUR, CHAMRAJANAGAR DISTRICT – 571313.
46. MADHU S/O SOMANAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER GUNDLEPET, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT – 571111.
47. SATHEESH KUMAR M S/O MAHADEVAPPA S, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER CHAMARAJANAGAR, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT – 571313.
48. SREEKANTAPPA B S/O BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER GUNDLEPET, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT – 577126.
49. PRADEEP K V S/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER SOMAVARPETE, KODAGU DISTRICT-571236.
50. BOJA POOJARY S/O SEENA POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER KUNDAPURA, UDUPI DISTRICT – 572601.
51. PRIYADARSHAN S/O PRAKASH SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER UDUPI, UDUPI DISTRICT – 576101.
52. JOHANVAZ S/O G P VAZ, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER THEERTHALLI, SHIMOGA DISTRICT – 577211.
53. MAHANTHESH NAYAK S/O KRISHNA NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER HOSADURGA, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577527.
54. SHIVRAJ PATIL AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER HIRIYUR, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577527. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI V. LAKSHMINARAYANA, SENIOR ADV. FOR SRI NAGARAJAPPA A., ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOUSING DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR RAJIV GANDHI RURAL HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED, NO.1234, NORTH BLOCK, I FLOOR, 4TH MAIN, I.T. PARK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010.
(A GOVT. OF KARNATAKA ENTERPRISE).
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, BELAGAVI-590 001.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU-561 203.
6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA, BIDAR DISTRICT, BIDAR-585 328.
7. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA, CHAMARAJANAGAR, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 313.
8. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPUR-563 125.
9. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA-577 527.
10. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574 109.
11. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE-577 513.
12. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA, KALABURAGI DISTRICT, KALABURAGI-585 211.
13. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563 114.
14. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA, KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL-583 236.
15. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA, RAICHUR DISTRICT, RAICHUR-584 108.
16. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA SHIMOGA, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 427.
17. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI-576 101.
18. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA, VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT, VIJAYAPURA-586 203.
19. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA, YADGIRI DISTRICT-585 202.
20. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 101.
21. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN -573 201.
22. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA, KODAGU DISTRICT, KODAGU -573 201. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S. M. CHANDRASHEKAR, SENIOR ADV. FOR SMT. SUMANA BALIGA M., ADV. FOR R-3 TO R-5 R-8 TO R-15 & R-17 TO R-22;
SRI E. S. INDRESH, AGA FOR R-1 R-2 & R-4) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE RELIEVING LETTER / NEW ORDER OF CONTRACT AT ANNEXURE-P & O DTD. NIL & DATED 17.11.2015 RESPECTIVELY ISSUED BY THE R-3 AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION AT ANNEXURE-Q TO Q2, OF THE PETITIONERS FOR REGULARIZATION/ ABSORPTION IN THE R-3 CORPORATION, AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER.
IN WRIT PETITION No. 54568/2015 BETWEEN:
SADHANA GANAPATHI BHAT D/O. GANAPATHI MAHADEV BHAT, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, TALUK NODAL OFFICER HONNAVAR, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT-581331. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI V. LAKSHMINARAYANA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOUSING DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR RAJIV GANDHI RURAL HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED, NO.1234, NORTH BLOCK, I FLOOR,4TH MAIN,I.T.PARK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010, (A GOVT.OF KARNATAKA ENTERPRISE).
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM-PRESIDENT, NIRMITI KENDRA, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT, UTTAR KANNADA-581 329. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S. M. CHANDRASEHKAR, SR. ADV. FOR SMT. SUMANABALIGA M., ADV. FOR R-3 AND R-4; SRI E. S. INDRESH, AGA FOR R-1 AND R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE RELIEVING LETTER / NEW ORDER OF CONTRACT AT ANNEXURE-P & P1 DATED 17.11.2015 AND DATED NIL RESPECTIVELY ISSUED BY THE R-3 AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION AT ANNEXURE-Q TO Q2, OF THE PETITIONER FOR REGULARIZATION / ABSORPTION IN THE RESPONDENT NO.3 CORPORATION AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 08.09.2017, AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R All these petitions arise out of similar facts, and raise identical legal issues, therefore, they are being decided by this common order.
2. The issue involved in the present case is whether the contractual employees working on the posts of Taluk Nodal Officers ("TNO", for short) under the Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation Limited ("the Corporation", for short) can claim the right to be absorbed or regularised in the service of the Corporation, or not ?
3. The facts of the case are being taken from Ramachandrappa B.D. and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others (W.P.Nos.52194-343/2015).
4. Having been appointed on contractual basis for a period of two years in the year 2011, perceiving the threat that their services may be terminated after the lapse of six years, the petitioners have approached this court. The petitioners are challenging the letter dated 17.11.2015, written by the Managing Director of the Corporation, (henceforth to be referred as "M.D. of the Corporation", for short) to the Nirmiti Kendra ("the Kendra", for short) of different districts, wherein the Kendras are directed to review the works of the TNOs, and to re-appoint them while imposing fresh conditions, and to enter into fresh contract by the end of November, 2015. The petitioners are also challenging the Pro-forma of the Relieving Letters about to be issued to the petitioners by the Kendra. They are also seeking the relief that their representations for regularisation or absorption should be considered by the Corporation in terms of Article 174 of Memorandum of Association of the Corporation. Consequently, they should be regularised or absorbed in the Corporation.
5. The facts of the case are that the Karnataka State being a Welfare State took upon itself to float various housing schemes for the economically weaker section of the society. Through different schemes, both the State and the Central Housing Schemes were to be implemented by the State of Karnataka. However, as the task of construction of houses for a large population was an arduous one, on 20.04.2000, the Government established the Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation Limited as a Public Sector Undertaking. The Corporation was assigned with the responsibility of implementing both the State and Central Housing Schemes. However, as the Corporation was short on manpower, it carried out its functions through the Kendras at the District level.
6. On 26.11.2009, the M. D. of the Corporation requested the Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Department of Housing, for appointment of a Special Officers for the purpose of implementing different housing schemes, at the Taluk level, by using the Global Positioning System ("GPS", for short). The said proposal was also discussed, on 19.12.2009, in the 41st Board Meeting of the Corporation, under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble the Chief Minister. It was felt that there were many lacunae in implementing the different housing schemes through the Gram Panchayath, and Taluk Panchayath. For, the members of the Gram Panchayath, and the Taluk Panchayath were neither selecting the right beneficiaries, nor reporting the progress of the construction of the houses correctly to the Corporation. Hence, it was imperative to create 176 posts of TNOs. The said proposal was eventually approved by the Department of Housing on 22.02.2010.
7. On 01.04.2010, the M. D. of the Corporation wrote to all the Deputy Commissioners-cum-Presidents of Zilla Nirimiti Kendra, and to all the Zilla Panchyath Chief Executive Officers ('CEO', for short) regarding the recruitment process for selecting the TNOs. According to the letter, the selection process was to consist of a written examination, and an interview. It was essential to prescribe the selection process as at the relevant time the Cadre and Recruitment Regulations ("the Regulations", for short) of the Corporation had not come into being.
8. Since the petitioners were eligible for the said post, they undertook the written examination.
9. Meanwhile, on 26.08.2010, the M. D. of the Corporation addressed a letter to the government for increasing the strength of the TNOs from 176 to 242 posts.
For, it was felt that where a Taluk has more than thirty-five Gram Panchayaths, instead of appointing one TNO, two TNOs should be appointed. The Government approved the said proposal on 27.08.2010.
10. While this process was undergoing, on 10.01.2011, the Regulations were published in the Official Gazette, and came to be known as "Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation Limited Services (Cadre & Recruitment) Regulations, 2010.
11. Meanwhile, the petitioners also faced the interview.
Eventually, they were appointed as TNOs between 05.04.2011, and 29.09.2011. According to their appointment letters, the appointment was purely contractual for a period of two years. During this period, their services could be terminated without any reasons, or without giving any notice. It was also made abundantly clear that the appointment does not provide any scope for permanent appointment. Moreover, the petitioners were entitled to an honorarium of Rs.10,500/- and a travelling allowance of Rs.1,500/-. Thus, they would receive Rs.12,000/- as lump sum. It was further clarified that they will not have any facility for contribution towards the Employees Provident Fund.
12. Subsequently, the petitioners services were continued for a period of one year from September, 2013. In order to evaluate their performance, on 29.10.2013, the M. D. of the Corporation directed the Deputy Commissioner- cum-President, Taluk of Nirmiti Kendra, and the CEOs of Zilla Panchayath to constitute a Committee as directed by the Government. Thereafter, by letter dated 06.01.2014, the Principal Secretary to the Government, Housing Department, informed the M. D. of the Corporation that the Government has agreed to extend the contractual employment from September, 2013 till March, 2014, with the approval of the Board of the Corporation. By letter dated 20.05.2014, the M. D. of the Corporation informed all the District DCs and the CEOs of all the Zilla Panchayaths that since the Code of Conduct was in force, the contract of the TNOs should be extended only till June, 2014. Thus, the petitioners services was extended till June, 2014.
13. On 18.08.2014, the Nodal Officers Welfare Association submitted a representation to the Principal Secretary, Department of Housing, claiming that their services should be regularised as they have been working for the last three years. However, the said representation went unheeded.
14. Even after June, 2014, the Government agreed to extend the services of the TNO's from July, 2014, to December, 2014, by its letter dated 11.11.2014. Subsequently also, by letter dated 12.01.2015, the Government agreed to extend their services from December, 2014, to March, 2015. Even thereafter, by letter dated 10.09.2015, the Government directed the M. D. of the Corporation to extend the tenure of TNOs for a further period of one year from 01.04.2015.
15. On 07.11.2015, the M. D. of the Corporation informed all the TNOs that their work would be reviewed for the period 2014-2015. On 06.11.2015, the Government approved a budget of Rs.2,400 Crores for construction of One Lakh houses every year in rural area, and construction of 50,000 houses in urban areas, for a period of two years. With the approval of the said budget, the petitioners were hopeful that their services would be continued for a further period of two years, as the construction of houses would be an ongoing process, and their services would be required for the different ongoing schemes. However, by letter dated 17.11.2016, the M. D. of the Corporation informed all the District Presidents of the Nirmiti Kendra for appointing fresh TNOs of each Taluk on contractual basis. The contracts were to be renewed if the TNOs were found to be suitable after appraising his performance. On the same day, the Chairman of the respective Nirmiti Kendra also issued Proforma Relieving Letters to the TNOs indicating the intention of the Kendra to end their services. Hence, these petitions before this Court.
16. With all the vehemence at his command, Mr. V. Lakshminarayana, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, has raised the following contentions before this Court:-
Firstly, in the absence of the Regulations, but considering the proposal made by the Corporation, on 22.02.2010, the Government had approved the creation of 176 posts of TNOs. Subsequently, the posts were increased to 242. In the absence of the Service Rules (the Regulations in the present case), the State Government can create a cadre of posts through an Executive Order. Thus, the Government had sanctioned the creation of 242 posts of TNOs. Hence, it had created a cadre of sanctioned posts.
Secondly, the Regulations came into force on 10.01.2011 when they were notified in the Government Gazette. Regulation 2 of the Regulations makes the Regulations applicable to all the posts in the Corporation, whether temporary, or permanent. Thus, the Regulations are applicable even to the petitioners who were hired temporarily on contractual basis.
Thirdly, Regulation 3 (x) of the Regulations defines the word "employee" as meaning “any person who is appointed in any service, or post, in connection with the affairs of the Corporation and whose name is included in the Corporation Salary Register”. Since the petitioners were appointed in the service of the Corporation, they are employees of the Corporation.
Fourthly, Regulation 5 of the Regulations imposes a duty upon the Corporation to examine permanent retention of those who are working on temporary posts "after a period of five years from the date of creation of post concerned, if found necessary". Since the petitioners were appointed on a temporary post, since the petitioners have been working for six years for the Corporation from the date of creation of the post, the Corporation was duty-bound to examine their permanent retention after the lapse of five years from the date of the creation of the posts. However, the Corporation has failed to do so. Instead, it is threatening to terminate the service of the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned letter, and the Proforma of the Relieving Letters are illegal.
Fifthly, Regulation 6 of the Regulations deals with different methods of recruitment. According to Regulation 6 (1) (e), an employee can be appointed on contractual basis.
Furthermore, Regulation 11 of the Regulations permits the Corporation to make an appointment to a post on contract basis of any person who satisfies the condition relating to the education qualifications, experience as prescribed for various posts in the schedule to these Regulations. The only bar this provision contains is that the appointment shall not continue beyond the period of three years at a time. However, this provision further states that such appointment may be continued as per the actual requirements. Therefore, the petitioners’ services could be continued “as per the actual requirement”. Since the construction of houses under the Central and State Schemes is a continuous process, the petitioners services should not only be continued, but also should be regularised or absorbed.
Sixthly, Regulation 14 (b) of the Regulations clearly states that those staff members who have worked on contractual basis for more than two years shall be considered for absorption. Therefore, the petitioners, who have worked for six years, have a right to be considered for absorption in the Corporation. Hence, the Corporation is not justified in trying to terminate the petitioners services, instead of absorbing them, or regularising their services.
Seventhly, Regulation 33 of the Regulations clearly states that the employees of the Corporation shall also be covered by other Rules and Regulations, such as the Karnataka Civil Service (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977 ("the Rules of 1977", for short). Therefore, their appointment would have to be read in consonance with the Rules of 1977.
Eighthly, according to the learned Senior Counsel, petitioners’ post is covered under Rule 2 (1) (a) of the Rules of 1977. Rule 8 of the Rules of 1977 begins with the words "in these Rules, unless the context otherwise requires". Therefore, the Rules of 1977 have to be read contextually. Rule 8 (7) of the Rules of 1977, defines the word "cadre" as being "strength of service, or part of service sanctioned as a separate unit". Since the posts on which the petitioners are working were sanctioned by the Government, the posts are part of the cadre. Moreover, Rule 8 (40) of the Rules of 1977 defines the work "quasi-permanent post" as meaning a temporary post, sanctioned initially for a period of not less than three years. Furthermore, Rule 8 (40-A) defines the term "quasi-permanent service" as meaning temporary service commencing from the date on which the Appointing Authority, being satisfied as to the suitability of the Government servant who has been in continuous service for more than three years, as to his age, qualification, work and character for employment in a quasi-permanent capacity, has issued a declaration to the effect and shall consist of periods of duty and leave (other than extraordinary leave) after that date. Since the petitioners have worked for six years, they have become quasi-permanent servants. Therefore, their services cannot be terminated by the Corporation. Hence, they are entitled either for absorption, or for regularisation of their service. Therefore, the impugned letter and the Proforma Relieving Letters should be set aside by this court. Most importantly, this court should direct the Corporation to regularise, or absorb the petitioners.
17. On the other hand, Mr. S. M. Chandrashekar, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-Corporation, has raised the following counter-arguments:-
Firstly, a distinction has to be made between "cadre posts" and "ex-cadre posts". Although the Government may have approved the creation of the post of TNOs, but the said posts were not included as a cadred post when the Regulations came into being on 10.01.2011. Therefore, the said post continue to be ex-cadre post. Relying on the cases of Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar and Others [(1988) 2 SCC 214], State of Maharashtra v. Purushotham and Others [ (1996) 9 SCC 266], State of Rajasthan and Others v. Jagadish Narain Chaturvedi [(2009) 12 SCC 49], the learned Senior Counsel has argued that the expression "cadre", means the strength of service or part of service sanctioned as a separate unit by the employer. Therefore, the word "cadre" is not synonymous with "service". Since the post of TNOs is not included in the Schedule attached to the Regulations, it is not part of a regular cadre as it is not borne on the strength of their service or part of their service sanctioned as a separate unit. Hence, it is an ex-cadre post and not a cadre post.
Secondly, relying on the case of Jagadish Narain Chaturvedi (supra), the learned Senior Counsel pleads that in order to become a member of a service, an employee must satisfy certain conditions, namely the appointment should be made in a substantive capacity, to a substantive vacancy, the appointment has to be made in accordance with the Rules, and within the quota prescribed for the source. Since the petitioners do not satisfy these essential conditions, they cannot claim that they are “members of service under the Corporation”.
Thirdly, and most importantly, according to the appointment letters, their appointment was a contractual one for a period of two years. In their appointment letters, it was made abundantly clear that their appointment would not give them right to seek permanency on the post of TNOs. Moreover, it was also stated that their services could be terminated without any notice. Furthermore, they were not placed under a regular pay-scale, but were entitled to merely an honorarium of Rs.12,000/- which was subsequently increased as the years rolled by. Thus, the petitioners are contractual employees working on an ex-cadre posts. Therefore, they are not covered by the Regulations.
Fourthly, the Regulation 2 (b) (iv) of the Regulations clearly states that "these Regulations shall not apply to persons employed casually, or on daily wages those subject to discharge without notice". Since the petitioners were employed on contractual basis, since their services can be discharged without any notice, they fall within the category mentioned in Regulation 2 (b) (iv) of the Regulations. Hence, they are outside the purview of the Regulations.
Fifthly, the interpretation given by Mr. Lakshminarayan, the learned Senior Counsel, is highly misplaced as the Regulations are inapplicable to the petitioners. Therefore, they cannot claim the benefit of Regulations 5, 11, 14, or 33 of the Regulations. Moreover, they cannot claim the benefit of the Rules of 1977. For, even Rule 2 (2) of the Rules of 1977 clearly states that the Rules will not be applicable to the contractual employees. Hence, the question of their becoming quasi-permanent, and seeking the benefit of absorption would not even arise in the present case.
Lastly, the learned Senior Counsel has strenuously argued that it is a settled position of law that contractual employees cannot claim regularisation, or absorption. For, from the very date of appointment, they are well aware that their appointment is a temporary one. Hence, they can neither claim a right under legitimate expectation, nor claim that equity is on their side. Thus, the Corporation is well justified in reviewing their performance, retaining those who are suitable for the post, and for recruiting fresh candidates for the said posts. Hence, the learned Senior Counsel has supported the impugned letter, and the Proforma Relieving Letters.
18. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned letter, and the Proforma Relieving Letters, and considered the case law cited at the Bar.
19. Mr. V. Lakshminarayana, the learned Senior Counsel, is certainly justified in claiming that the Government had initially sanctioned 176 posts of TNOs and subsequently increased the posts to 242. He is equally justified in pleading that the petitioners had taken a written examination, and faced an interview. Thus, they had undergone a selection process. However, despite their having undergone the selection process, the nature of appointment continues to be a contractual one. For, their appointment letter made it crystal clear that they were appointed only for a period of two years, that, too, on honorarium basis; most importantly, such an appointment would not permit them to seek permanency on the said posts. Therefore, from day one, they were very well aware that their appointment is a temporary one; with the efflux of time, the appointment would come to an end. Merely because their services were continued for a further period of six years, would not, and does not, change the nature of appointment from temporary appointment to a quasi- permanent one. Such continuation neither creates a legitimate expectation of being absorbed or regularised, nor bestows equity in their favour [Refer to Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1].
20. Despite the fact that the post of TNOs did exist on 10.01.2011, the said post was not included within the Regulations. For the said post was not reflected in the strength of the cadre under the Regulation which came into force from 10.01.2011. There is certainly a distinction between a "cadre post" and an "ex-cadre post". The former are those which are included in a Cadre & Recruitment Rules and are reflected in the strength of the Service. Such posts are generally enumerated in the Schedule attached to the Service Rules. The latter are those which may exist and may render service to an organisation, but are not included in the Service Rules. Therefore, while the “cadre posts” are covered by the Service Rules, the “ex-cadre posts” are not covered by the Service rules (in the present case, the Regulations) 21. In the case of Jagadish Narain Chaturvedi (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that in order to become "a member of a service", a candidate must satisfy four conditions, namely the appointment should be made in a substantive capacity, to a substantive vacancy, the appointment has to be made in accordance with the Rules, and within the quota prescribed for the source. However, in the present case, the petitioners were neither appointed against a substantive vacancy, nor their appointment was in a substantive capacity. They were, in fact, appointed against a temporary post, in a temporary capacity. Therefore, they cannot claim to be a member of service under the Regulations. Furthermore, although the petitioners may have been appointed to a post, but they are not appointed to a cadre or service. Hence, the learned Senior Counsel for petitioners is unjustified in claiming that the petitioners are covered by the Regulations.
22. Regulation 2 of the Regulations is as under:
(a) These regulations shall apply to,-
(i) the holders of all the posts in the Corporation whether temporary or permanent; and (ii) persons whose services are permanently transferred to or absorbed in the services of the Corporation from various Government and Public Sector Undertakings.
(b) These regulations shall not apply to:-
(iii) Persons deputed to the Corporation by the Central or State Government or other Statutory organizations or Local Bodies (iv) Persons employed casually or on daily wages those subject to discharge without notice.
(c) The Corporation shall be the authority competent to interpret these regulations and the decision of the Corporation shall be final.
(d) The Corporation by notification (with the prior approval of the State Government) exempt wholly or in part, from the operation of these regulations, the holders of any post or the holder of any class or category or posts in the Corporation.
23. A bare perusal of the said provision clearly reveals that it makes a distinction between cadre posts and ex-cadre posts. While the former are covered under Regulation 2 (a), the latter are covered under Regulation 2 (b) (iv) of the Regulations.
24. Keeping in mind that persons may be appointed on a casual basis, or on daily wages, and their services can be discharged without notice, Regulation 2 (b) (iv) of the Regulations clearly carves out an exception to Regulation 2 (a). According to Regulation 2 (b) (iv), the Regulations are not applicable to "persons employed casually, or on a daily wages though subject to discharge without notice". Of course, Mr. Lakshminarayan, the learned Senior Counsel has harped on the fact that the Regulations cover "the holders of all the posts in the Corporation whether temporary, or permanent". However, the word "posts" would be restricted to only those posts which are cadre posts. The said word cannot be extended to included the ex-cadre post, such as the posts of TNOs. Undoubtedly, a cadre post can be temporary, or permanent. But, merely because the petitioners are holding "temporary posts", they cannot claim to be included under Regulation 2 (a) of the Regulations as they are holders of ex-cadre posts. Therefore, the petitioners are not covered by the Regulations.
25. Since the petitioners are not covered by the Regulations, they cannot claim the benefit of Regulation 5 of the Regulations.
Regulation 5 is as under:
The permanent cadre strength of each class, category and grade of the Corporation Service shall be as specified in the Schedule. The necessity or otherwise for making permanent retention of the temporary posts will as a rule, be examined by the Corporation after a period of five years from the date of creation of post concerned, if found necessary.
The said provision is merely an enabling provision. For, it permits the Corporation to examine the permanent retention of the temporary employees who have served the Corporation for a period of five years, and above, from the date of the creation of the post. The said enabling provision does not bestow a right on petitioners to be absorbed or regularised merely because they have completed six years of service in the Corporation. Hence, reliance on Regulation 5 of the Regulations is misplaced.
26. Regulation 6 of the Regulations deals with method of recruitment. It clearly states that appointment to the posts in the Corporation shall be made by any of the following methods. One of the methods of appointment is through contract. However, the word "post" would have to be necessarily read as cadre post, and not as ex-cadre post. Thus, only those posts borne on the strength of the cadre, as reflected in the Schedule, would be included under Regulation 6 of the Regulations. For example, the posts of Attender and Drivers are cadre posts as they are reflected in the Schedule. Therefore, the Corporation would be free to hire Attender and/or Drivers on contractual basis under Regulation 6 of the Regulations.
27. This position of law is further fortified by Regulation 11 of the Regulations. Regulation 11 is as under :-
Notwithstanding anything contained in these regulations, the Corporation may if it considers necessary and expedient for reasons to be recorded in writing that it is in the interest of Corporation to do so, make appointment to a post on contract basis any person who satisfies the conditions relating to education qualifications, experience as prescribed for various posts in the schedule to these regulations, on such terms and conditions and for such period as may be necessary, but not exceeding three years at a time, and depending on the necessity such appointments may be continued as per actual requirement.
(Emphasis added) The pertinent words are "the Corporation may make appointment to a post on contract basis ... for various posts in the Schedule to these Regulations". (Emphasis added). Thus, persons may be appointed on contractual basis to the posts enumerated in the Schedule. However, as mentioned above, the posts of TNOs is not included in the Schedule. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim the benefit of Regulation 11 of the Regulations.
28. Regulation 14 of the Regulations deals with absorption. The relevant extract is as under :-
14 (a) The Managing Director shall be the authority for considering absorption of the services of the employees of the State Government or any Public Sector of the State or Central Government either working on deputation or otherwise in the interest of the services of the Corporation, provided the concerned employee gives a written option for absorption.
(b) All the staff who are working on contract basis in the corporation and who have put in at least two years of service shall be considered for absorption.
(c) Such absorption shall be effective from the date indicated in the order of absorption.
Thus, absorption is limited to those employees of the State Government, or any Public Sector of the State, or Central Government who is either been deputed, or otherwise is working for the Corporation, and has given a written option for absorption. Moreover, since the Regulations do not cover the cases of the petitioners, they cannot seek the benefit of Regulation 14 (b) of the Regulations. Hence, the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for petitioners that the petitioners have a right to be absorbed under Regulation 14 of the Regulations is clearly unsustainable.
29. Since the Regulations do not cover the petitioners, they cannot claim that they are covered by Regulation 33 of the Regulations, and thus are ipso facto covered under the Rules of 1977. Even Rule 2 (2) of the Rules of 1977, clearly states that the said Rules are inapplicable to contractual employees. Since the petitioners are contractual employees, obviously, the Rules of 1977, are inapplicable to them. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are deemed to have acquired the status of quasi-permanency under the Rules of 1977, is highly misplaced. Thus, the said contention is unacceptable.
30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly opined that contractual workers do not have a right to seek regularisation, or absorption (Refer to Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana [(1987) 4 SCC 634]; State of Gujarat v.
P. J. Kampavat [( 1992) 3 SCC 226]; Director, Institute of Management Development U. P. v. Pushpa Srivastava (Smt), [(1992) 4 SCC 33]; Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union v. Delhi Administration [ (1992) 4 SCC 99]; A. P. S.R.T.C. v. P. Chandra Sekhara Rao [(2006) 7 SCC 488]; Principal, Mehar Chand Polytechnic v. Anu Lamba [(2006) 7 SCC 161], and State of Karnataka v. Ganapathi Chaya Nayak [(2010) 3 SCC 115]. Therefore, the petitioners are unjustified in claiming that their services should either be absorbed, or regularised by the Corporation.
31. For the reasons stated above, this court does not find any merit in the present petitions. Therefore, the petitions are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Np/-