IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.9930 OF 2014 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. B.M.PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE MADAIAH , BILL COLLECTOR, RAJA RAJESHWARINAGAR ZONE, BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU – 560 098.
RESIDENT OF NO.207, GANGANIDHI ROAD, 3RD MAIN, BRINDAVAN NAGAR, GAVIPURAM WEST, BENGALURU – 560 019.
(BY SRI. MUKKANNAPPA.S.B.,ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001 2 . THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.
3 . THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU - 560 002.
... PETITIONER 4 . THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, T.DASARAHALLI ZONE, BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE, BENGALURU – 560 057.
5 . THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, RAJA RAJASHWARI NAGAR ZONE, BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU - 560 098.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.V.RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
BY SRI. S.H.PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING DTS. 3.10.2013 ISSUED BY THE R- 3 VIDE ANNEXURE-N TO THE WRIT PETITION; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner who was appointed as Bill Collector vide order dated 30.07.1993 was initially working against non- sanctioned post; subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner vide O.M. dated 03.11.1994, a copy whereof is at Annexure-C sanctioned three posts and the petitioner continued against one of them; petitioner’s application seeking regularization of his service has been rejected vide impugned endorsement dated 30.10.2013 at Annexure-N extensively quoting various paragraphs of Apex Court decision in STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. UMA DEVI, AIR 2006 SC 1806. Aggrieved thereby, he is knocking at the doors of Writ Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the relevant paragraphs of the decision in Uma Devi having been acted upon, the impugned endorsement has been issued rejecting his claim for regularization; per contra, the learned panel counsel for the BBMP submits that the initial appointment itself being bad, petitioner is not entitled to seek regularization at all; even otherwise also, his case is hit by the ratio in Umadevi Case.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable and that the matter requires consideration afresh for the following reasons:
(a) the appointment of the petitioner pursuant to order dated 30.07.1993, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A is not in dispute; the posts of Bill Collector came to be sanctioned by the jurisdictional Authority vide order dated 03.11.1994, a copy whereof is at Annexure-C, is again not in dispute; the Service Register, a copy whereof is at Annexure-D prima facie shows petitioner being in continuance of service in the sanctioned post after the merger of the 110 villages, some of which did fall within geographical limits of Zilla Panchayath; these villages having merged in the BBMP, rights and liabilities of the petitioner and of the erstwhile employer namely the Zilla Panchayat would inhere in the respondent- BBMP;
(b) the BBMP having misconstrued the ratio laid down in Uma Devi’s Case has issued the endorsement, perhaps conveniently ignoring para 53 which reads as under:
“53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explainted in S.V.Narayanappa R.N. Nanjundappa and B.N.Nagarajan and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of all services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instumentalities should take steps to regularize 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 appointed who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wages are being now to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wages are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but no sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.”
These observations having been not adverted to, there is error apparent on the face of the record.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in part; the impugned endorsement is set at naught; matter is remitted to the respondent BBMP for considering afresh in accordance with law, and within a period of three months.
All contentions of the parties are kept open. No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE DS