Upload
vodung
View
237
Download
11
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
WRIT PETITION Nos.47587-47591 OF 2012 (S-REG) C/W
WRIT PETITION Nos.47435-47448/2012, 47461-47498/2012 AND 8713-8742/2013
W.P.Nos.47587-47591/2012:
BETWEEN :
1. P.Rajesh, S/o.Purushotam, Aged about 28 years, R/at No.66, Nandini Layout, Bangalore – 560 096.
2. Manu, S/o.Karigowda, Aged about 29 years, No.K-21, II Cross, Kallahalli, Mandya – 571 40. 3. H.T.Keshavamurthy, S/o.Thammaiah H.M. Aged about 32 years,
Hebbalu Extension & Post, K.R.Nagara – 571 602, Mysore District. 4. T.H.Dinesh, S/o.Honappa, Aged about 35 years,
R
2
No.374C, Shivakrupa Near Lalitha Mahal Gate,
Siddarthanagar, Mysore. 5. Vijaya Raj Urs T.V.
S/o.Vishwanatha Raju, Aged about 30 years, ‘Nagashri’ 11th Cross, Subhashnagar, B.Katihalli Koppalu, Hassan – 573 201. ... Petitioners
(By Sri Jayakumar S.Patil, Senior Advocate for
Sri Reuben Jacob, Advocate) AND: 1. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Kaveri Bhavan, K.G.Road, Bangalore – 560 009, By its Managing Director. 2. The State of Karnataka, Department of Energy, Vikasa Soudha, Bangalore – 560 001, By its Secretary. 3. The Director, Administration and Human Resources Karnataka Power Transmission
Corporation Limited, Kaveri Bhavan, K.G.Road, Bangalore – 560 009. …Respondents
(By Sri S.S.Naganand, Senior Counsel for Sri S.Sriranga for R1 & R3:
Sri A.S.Ponnanna, Additional Advocate General for R2)
3
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the letter dated 15.11.2012 issued by the R2 in Annexure P and letter dated 19.11.2012, issued by the R3, in Annexure-Q and consequently, forebear the respondents from terminating or discontinuing the services of the petitioners, etc.
W.P.Nos.47435-47448/2012: BETWEEN : 1. Vinutha M.
W/o.Karthick S. Age: 28 years, # 30, NGO’s Colony, Rajendra Nagar, NR Mohalla, Mysore – 570 007.
2. Suma C.M.
W/o.Raghavendra N. Age: 28 years, # No.7, 3rd Cross, 1st Main, Behind Daisy Convent, Arvinda Nagar, Mysore – 570 023.
3. Sulthana Begum,
D/o.Abdul Salam, Age 29 years, # 786, 4th Stage, Kalyangiri, Mysore – 570 019.
4. Rajkumar E.Bijjaragi,
S/o.E.L.Bijjaragi, Age: 33 years, C/o.Dr.R.M.Honnutagi, Shanthiniketan Colony, Bagalkot Road, Bijapura – 586 103.
4
5. Shivanand D.Dashwanth, S/o.Lt.Danappa G.Dashavanth, Age: 36 years, Opp. to BLDEA Engg. College, Boy’s Hostel Gate, Mallikarjuna Nagar, Ashram Road, Bijapur – 586 103.
6. Ravikumar H.R.
S/o./Ramachandrappa, Age 30 years, # 132/1, 3rd Main, 9th Cross, TK Layout, Mysolre – 570 023.
7. Ramesh,
S/o.Annaiah, Age 28 years, # 75/C, Vishwakarma Colony, East of VAnigan Building, Gayathripuram, Mysore – 570 019.
8. Raghavendra S.
S/o.C.Singri Gowda, Age 32 years, RT Divisioin, Mysore Zone, KPTCL, FTS Compound, Mysore – 570 023.
9. Ayyappa M.B. S/o.Bheemaiah M.M. Age 29 years, No.87, KBL Layout, Nagaloka, Near Ring Road, Bannur Main Road, Mysore – 570 028.
5
10. V.Rudresh, S/o.Veerabhadraiah, Age 29 years, R.Yedehalli Dobbaspet (Post), Nelamangala (Tq.), Bangalore Rural (District).
11. Murali K.V.
S/o.Veerabhadraiah, Age 27 years, # LIG-59, E&F Block Vishwa Guru Marga, Ramakrishna Nagar, Mysore – 570 023.
12. Sanna Babu,
S/o.Braman, Age 28 years, Markandaiah Floor Mill, Near BN Temple, Gandhinagar Market, Bellary – 583 101.
13. Anil Kumar Savalasang,
S/o.Mallappa, Age 35 years, Near BLDE Hospital, Vidyanagar, Bijapur – 586 103.
14. Yogeesha U.
S/o.Late Shivarama Rao U. Age 29 years, ‘Akshatha”, Uddampady, Aivarnadu Post, Sullia Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District – 574 245. ... Petitioners
(By Sri B.V.Acharya, Senior Advocate for
Sri Vikas Rojipura, Advocate for M/s.Ravivarma Kumar Associates)
6
AND:
1. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Kaveri Bhavan, K.G.Road, Bangalore – 560 009.
2. The State of Karnataka, Represented by the Chief Secretary,
Department of Energy, Vikasa Soudha, Bangalore – 560 001. …Respondents
(By Sri S.S.Naganand, Senior Counsel for Sri S.Sriranga for R1: Sri A.S.Ponnanna, Additional Advocate General for R2)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the letter dated 15.11.2012 vide Annexure-R, dated 19.11.2012 in Annexure-S, forebear the respondents from terminating or discontinuing the services of the petitioners, etc.
W.P.Nos.47461-47498/2012:
BETWEEN : 1. Sri Gangadhara D.R.
S/o.Rangegowda, Aged about 38 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) TLM Section, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, TL & SS Division, Hassan.
2. Sri Range Gowda M. S/o.Marigowda, Aged about 35 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11, KV, Muss - Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Doddamogga, Arkalgud Taluk, Hassan.
7
3. Sri Praveen B.K. S/o.Late Kariyamma, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11, KV, Muss - Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Doddamogga, Arkalgud Taluk, Hassan.
4. Sri Puneeth Kumar M.N. S/o.Nataraj M.D. Aged about 25 years,
Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11, KV, Muss - Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Doddamogga, Arkalgud Taluk, Hassan.
5. Sri Ananda H.V. S/o.Venkatappa, Aged about 28 years,
Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11, KV, Muss - Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Doddamogga, Arkalgud Taluk, Hassan.
6. Kum.Vijayalakshmi A. D/o.Late Appajigowda, Aged about 29 years,
Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11, KV, Muss, TL & SS, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Rameshwarnagar, Hassan.
7. Sri Lakshmeeshaiah B.
S/o.Boregowda H. Aged about 28 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11 KV, MUSS, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited,
8
Kolala Hobli, Koratagere Taluk, Tumkur.
8. Kum.Shobha M.V.
D/o.Veerappa M.B. Aged about 29 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, TL & SS Division, Tumkur.
9. Kum.Smitha Swamy,
D/o.Veerappa M.B. Aged about 29 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Major Works, Tumkur.
10. Sri Mohammed Ifran,
S/o.Suban Sab, Aged about 28 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11 KV, MUSS, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, C.T.Kere, Tumkur.
11. Sri Basavaraju C.
S/o.Chikkanna, Aged about 35 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11 KV, MUSS, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Chelur, Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur.
12. Sri Pradeep T.
S/o.Thimmaiah, Aged about 28 years,
9
Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11 KV, MUSS- Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Kodigenahalli, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumkur District.
13. Kum.Hemalatha,
D/o.Gattishaiah, Aged about 30 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11 KV, MUSS, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District.
14. Kum.Jyothi A.R.
D/o.Ramakrisuhna Nayak, Aged about 32 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11 KV, MUSS, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Akkihebbal, K.R.Pet, Mandya District.
15. Sri Srirama,
S/o.Boranaika, Aged about 40 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11 KV, MUSS, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Saligrama, K.R.Nagara.
16. Sri Thontadarya M.
S/o.Murugendraiah M. Aged about 27 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11 KV, MUSS,
10
Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Hiriyur, Davanagere.
17. Sri Chandrashekara H.R.
S/o.Raghavendra Rao T. Aged about 25 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11 KV, MUSS, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Hebbal II Stage, Hebbal, Mysore.
18. Sri B.J.Manjunatha,
S/o.Jayaprakasha, Aged about 27 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11 KV, MUSS, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, K.R.Nagara, Mysore District.
19. Sri M.Suresha,
S/o.Mahadeva Nayak, Aged about 33 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11 KV, MUSS, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, K.R.Nagara, Mysore District.
20. Smt.Komala S.
D/o.N.Shivaram, Aged about 42 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11 KV, MUSS, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Hebbal IInd Stage, Hebbal, Mysore.
11
21. Sri Panesha Babu R, S/o.Basavaiah, aged about 35 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) Kollegala Sub Division, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, O & M – 3, CESC, Kollegal, Chamarajanagar District.
22. Smt.Mamatha P.S. D/o.Swamy H.C. Aged about 35 years,
Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11 KV, MUSS, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Periyapatna, TL & SS Division, Hootagally, Mysore District.
23. Sri Yogesh T.S. S/o.Sidduregowda H.P. Aged about 25 years,
Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) O & M Section-1, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Nanjangud Sub-Division-1, CESC, Nanjangud, Mysore District.
24. Sri Rama,
S/o.Venkategowda, Aged about 42 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11 KV, MUSS, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Saligrama, K.R.Nagara, Mysore District.
25. Sri Raghavendra H.A.
S/o.Appaji Gowda,
12
Aged about 23 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, OESC, O & M, Hootagally, Mysore District.
26. Smt.Shobharani K.P.
D/o.Puttegowda, Aged about 28 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, No.66/11 KV, MUSS, Rameshwara Nagar, TL & SS, Hassan.
27. Smt.Manjula M.
D/o.Munigangappa, Aged about 24 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, CESCOM, O & M, Sub-Division, Belur, Hassan District.
28. Smt.Abhinaya,
D/o.Rajegowda, Aged about 27 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, No.66/11 KV, MUSS, TL & SS, Belur, Hassan District.
29. Sri Girish B.N.
S/o.Nanjegowda B.R. Aged about 25 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, No.66/11 KV, MUSS, TL & SS, Belur, Hassan District.
13
30. Smt.Thejashwini V.S. D/o.Srinivasa, Aged about 25 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11 KV, MUSS, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Ramanathapura, Arkalgud Taluk, Hassan District.
31. Smt.Madhura K.S. W/o.Ramesh D.B.
Aged about 38 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11 KV, MUSS, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Ramanathapura, Arkalgud Taluk, Hassan District.
32. Smt.Asha K.C.
W/o.B.C.Chandrashekhar, Aged about 32 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical), O & M Division, CESCE, KPTCL, Holenarasaipura, Hassan District.
33. Sri Nagesh K.H.
S/o.Huchaiah, Aged about 30 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical), Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, O & M Division, CESCE, Mallipatna, Arkalgud Taluk, Hassan District – 573 130.
34. Sri Shridhara,
D/o.Boregowda, Aged about 28 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical),
14
66/11 KV, MUSS, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Shravanabelagola, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District – 573 316.
35. Sri Naveen Kumar J.K.
S/o.Krishna Gowda, Aged about 30 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical), 66/11 KV, MUSS, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Shravanabelagola, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District – 573 316.
36. Smt.Padmavathi R.
W/o.Dinesh M.R. Aged about 37 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical), 66/11 KV, MUSS, Didaga, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District – 573 316.
37. Kum.Deepika R.
D/o.Ramachandra, Aged about 24 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical), 66/11 KV, MUSS, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Shravanabelagola, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District – 573 316.
38. Smtr.K.S.Kavitha Bai,m
W/o.Anand, Aged about 27 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical),
15
66/11 KV, MUSS, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Shravanabelagola, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District. ... Petitioners
(By Sri M.S.Bhagwat, Advocate)
AND: 1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Energy, Vikasa Soudha, Bangalore.
2. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director,
Kaveri Bhavan, Bangalore – 560 009.
3. The Director (Admn. & HRD),
Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Kaveri Bhavan, Bangalore– 560 009. …Respondents
(By Sri A.S.Ponnanna, Additional Advocate General for R1:
Sri S.S.Naganand, Senior Counsel for Sri S.Sriranga for R2 & R3)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated 15.11.2012 issued by the R1 vide Annexure-A consequently quash the impugned endorsement dated 19.11.2012 issued by R2 vide Annexure-B to Br in so far as petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 are concerned, etc.
16
W.P.Nos.8713-8742/2013:
BETWEEN : 1. Santhosh L.
S/o.Lokesha Reddy L.P. Aged about 30 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 66/11 KV MUSS, Sahakaranagar MUSS, Bangalore – 560 092.
2. Manu K.S.
S/o.Shamsundar K. Aged about 29 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 66/11 KV MUSS, Austin Town, Bangalore – 560 047.
3. Raghavendra T.V.
S/o.Virupakshappa H, Aged about 29 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 66/11 KV MUSS, CESC Channarayapatna Sub-Division, Hassan District.
4. Santhosh B.Hadapad, S/o.Basappa Hadapad, Aged about 28 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) CECS Bagur, C.R.Patna Division, Hassan District. 5. Lokesh, S/o.Shivanna, Aged about 33 years,
17
Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 66/11, KV MUSS, Ramanagaram. 6. Sunanda H.Machakanur, D/o.Hanamappa L.Machakanur, Aged about 34 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 110 KV Station, Navanagar Hubli, Dharwad District. 7. Umashree Y.Nittur, D/o.Yallappa M.Nittur, Aged about 26 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) R.T.Division, KPTCL Hubli,
Dharwad District. 8. M.V.Savadatti, D/o./Veeranna Savadatti,
Aged about 29 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 220 KV, SRS, KPTCL, Hubli, Dharwad District.
9. Parameshwarappa
S/o.Late Basavalingappa M.C. Aged about 39 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 110/11KV MUSS, Gercemara, Arsikere.
10. Mallesha S.T.
S/o.Thippeswamy S. Aged about 29 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 66/11 KV MUSS, Kukkuwada, Davangere.
18
11. B.T.Dhananjaya, S/o.D.Thimmappa, Aged about 33 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) Thallak, MUSS, Davanagere Division, Davanagere.
12. Adarsh S.J. S/o.Jayaram S.C. Aged about 27 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 110/11 KV MUSS, Kumsi, Shimoga, Shimoga.
13. Jayakara B.
S/o.Gopal B. Aged about 38 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 110/11 KV MUSS, Halady, Kundapur Taluk, Udupi District.
14. Jagadesha N.
S/o.Nanjegowda, Aged about 30 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 66/11, KV MUSS, Iqqwlur, Channapatna Taluk, Ramanagaram District.
15. Malathesha G.R.
S/o.Rudrappa H.G. Aged about 29 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 66/11 KV MUSS, Kukkawada, Davanagere.
19
16. S.Subramani, S/o.Srinivasappa, Aged about 25 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 66/11, KV MUSS, Chintamani, TL & SS Kolar Division KPTCL, Kolar.
17. Kiran Kumar B.V. s/o.Late Vittal Rao B.N. aged about 40 years, working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 110/11KV, MUSS (KPTCL) Hunsegatta, Tiptur Sub-Division, Tumkur District.
18. Murugesh T. S/o.Shamsundar K. Aged about 29 years, Working as Junior Engine (Electrical) 66/11 KV MUSS, Nayakanahatty, 220 KV SRS & SS Division, Chitradurga.
19. Ashok S.Raiker, S/o.Shripad Raiker, Aged about 38 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 110 KV S/S Macle, Belgaum.
20. Md.Taher Ali, S/o.Md.Hussain, Aged about 35 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) O & M Hadgil Harili RSD Gescom, Gulbarga.
21. Digamber, S/o.Vithalrao, Aged about 30 years,
20
Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 110/11, KV S/S Habsikote, Bidar.
22. Sagar K.Dhumale, S/o.K.Dhumale, Aged about 31 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical,) 110/11 KV S/S Shorabue, TL & SSM Division, Bijapur.
24. Sudharani N.
D/o.C.N.Narasimha Murthy, Aged about 26 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 66/11 KV MUSS Brindavan, TL & SS Division, SRS Peenya, Bangalore.
25. Imtiyajalam, Kalaburgi,
S/o.Husensaheb, Aged about 35 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 110/11 KV MUSS Mamdapur, Bijapur.
26. Manjula B.C.
D/o.Chowdappa B.V. Aged about 28 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 66/1 KV MUSS M.Gollahally, Chickballapura.
27. B.D.Prakash,
S/o.Devegowda, Aged about 30 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 66/11 KV MUSS Beroor, Chennapatana Taluk, Ramanagar District.
21
28. Chandu, S/o.Late G.A.Chikkaboregowda, Aged about 30 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 66/11 KV Iggalur MUSS Chennapatna Taluk, Ramanagar District.
29. Mahesh S.Patil,
S/o.S.Patil, Aged about 32 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 110 KV MUSS Shahapur, Shahapur Taluk, Yadagiri District.
30. Balavant B.G.
S/o.Basavanappa, Aged about 33 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 110/33, 11 KV S/S Aland, Gulbarga District. ... Petitioners
(By Sri B.Roopesha and Sandeep M.K., Advocates)
AND: 1. State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Energy, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore – 560 001.
2. The Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director,
Kaveri Bhavan, Bangalore – 560 009.
22
3. The General Manager (Admn. & HRD), Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Kaveri Bhavan, Bangalore– 560 009. …Respondents
(By Sri A.S.Ponnanna, Additional Advocate General for R1:
Sri S.S.Naganand, Senior Counsel for Sri S.Sriranga for R2 & R3)
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the letter dated 15.11.2012 vide Annexure-R and letter dated 19.11.2012 in Annexure S and consequently forbear the respondents from terminating or discontinuing the services of the petitioners. Etc.
These writ petitions, coming on for hearing, this day, the Court
made the following:
O R D E R
All these petitions are clubbed, heard together and are being
disposed of by this common order, as the questions of facts and law
involved are the same.
2. W.P.Nos.47587-47591/2012 and W.P.Nos.47435-
47448/2012 are filed by the contract Assistant Engineers.
W.P.Nos.47461-47498/2012 and 8713-8742/2013 are filed by the
contract Junior Engineers. The petitioners have raised the
challenge to the communication, dated 15.11.2012 issued by the
Government to the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation
23
Limited (‘K.P.T.C.L.’ for short), rejecting the latter’s proposal for
regularizing the services of the petitioners. They have also
challenged the consequential endorsement, dated 19.11.2012 issued
by the Government calling upon the K.P.T.C.L. to terminate the
contractual appointments in question. The petitioners have sought
the order forbearing the respondents from terminating the services
of the petitioners and further for a direction to regularize and
absorb their services retrospectively from the date of their
appointment.
3. The facts of the case in brief are that the K.P.T.C.L. has
been appointing the Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers on
contract basis. The services of the contractual appointees of 2003,
2005 and 2006 batch were regularized. The present petitioners are
of 2007 batch. They took part in the recruitment process by
responding to the notification, dated 07.02.2007. The K.P.T.C.L.
held the written examination and conducted the interview. Further,
on satisfying itself that the petitioners are eligible and suitable for
holding the posts in question, it appointed them on 13.09.2007. It
24
is also to be noted that the KPTCL observed reservation and roster
norms. On the regularization of the contractual appointments of
the three earlier batches and on the same relief not being extended
to them, some of the petitioners filed W.P.Nos.21555-21605/2012
which came to be disposed of by this Court by its order, dated
04.10.2012 with a direction to the Government to take a decision in
the matter within two months. The Government was directed to
take a decision in the matter, as the K.P.T.C.L. had already passed a
resolution for regularizing the services of the contract Assistant
Engineers and Junior Engineers of 2007 batch and for obtaining the
approval of the Government for the same.
4. On the Government turning down the K.P.T.C.L.’s
proposal for the regularization of the petitioners’ services, these
petitions are filed.
5. Sri B.V.Acharya, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri
Vikas Rojipura appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.47435-
47448/2012 submits that the petitioners are appointed against the
sanctioned posts in accordance with the constitutional scheme for
25
the public appointments. He submits that the petitioners are not the
back-door entrants. They have taken part in the regular recruitment
process. He submits that the petitioners appeared for the written
examination and for the interview conducted by the K.P.T.C.L. It
is on the basis of their merit that they are selected for the posts in
question. He submits that there is no infraction of any rule in the
appointment of the petitioners. For all the practical purposes, they
are the regular recruitees. As the K.P.T.C.L. has shown the nature
of their appointment as on contract basis, they are facing the
vicissitudes.
6. Sri Acharya submits that even the Government vide its
letter, dated 14.02.2007 (Annexure-D in W.P.Nos.47435-448/2012)
has conveyed its approval for making the appointments of the
Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers on permanent basis. He
read out the following portion of the said communication:
“KPTCL and ESCOMs may consider the issue of
recruiting A.Es. and J.Es. on permanent basis instead of
contract basis if their services are required on permanent basis.”
26
7. In view of the said approval granted at the pre-recruitment
stage, the K.P.T.C.L. ought to have appointed the petitioners on
permanent basis, so submits the learned Senior Counsel. His
further submission on the approval aspect of the matter is that
there was no need for the K.P.T.C.L. to seek the nod of the
Government for regularizing the services of the petitioners. He
submits that neither the Cadre and Recruitment Rules nor any other
service regulations of K.P.T.C.L. prescribe the requirement of
taking the approval for regularizing the services of the employees of
K.P.T.C.L.
8. He submits that for regularizing the contractual
appointments of 2003, 2005 and 2006 batches, no approval from
the Government was ever sought; nor has the Government
objected to regularizing the services of the contractual appointees
of the said batches.
9. He submits that the Government has turned down the
K.P.T.C.L.s proposal for the regularization of services mainly on
27
the ground that the said regularization runs contrary to law declared
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SECRETARY, STATE OF
KARNATAKA AND OTHERS vs. UMA DEVI (3) AND
OTHERS reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. He submits that such a
perception is ill-founded, because the regularization of the services
of the contractual appointees of the earlier batches was challenged
in W.P.No.7425/2007. This Court by its order, dated 20.05.2010
(Annexure-J in W.P.Nos.47435-47448/2012) dismissed the writ
petition holding inter alia that the resolution for regularization is in
no way contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in UMA DEVI’s case (supra). He submits that the said
orders of the learned Single Judge were challenged before the
Division Bench and before the Hon’ble Apex Court but without
any rate of success. He submits that the regularization of the
services of the contractual appointees of 2005 and 2006 batches
itself was after 10.04.2006 on which date the Hon’ble Supreme
Court pronounced judgment in UMA DEVI’s case (supra). He
further submits that their initial appointments (of 2005 and 2006
28
batch) on contract basis itself was on 06.07.2006 and 23.11.2006,
that is long after the pronouncement of the order by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in UMA DEVI’s case (supra).
10. The learned Senior Counsel submits that in the impugned
order there is no reference to the regularization of the similarly
placed employees of the three batches. He submits that when the
petitioners are appointed in accordance with the constitutional
scheme, the judgment in Uma Devi’s case does not come in the
way of the regularization of their services. He relies on the Apex
Court’s judgment in the case of NIHAL SINGH AND
OTHERS v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS reported in
(2013) 14 SCC 65 to advance his submission that when the
petitioners’ appointments are neither illegal nor irregular and when
they are appointed against the sanctioned posts, they are entitled to
have their services regularized. Paragraph Nos. 23, 24 and 28 of the
said judgment, read out by him are extracted hereinbelow:
29
“23. Even going by the principles laid down in Umadevi
case, we are of the opinion that the State of Punjab cannot be
heard to say that the appellants are not entitled to be absorbed
into the services of the State on permanent basis as their
appointments were purely temporary and not against any
sanctioned posts created by the State.
24. In our opinion, the initial appointment of the appellants
can never be categorized as an irregular appointment. The initial
appointment of the appellants is made in accordance with the
statutory procedure contemplated under the Act. The decision to
resort to such a procedure was taken at the highest level of the
State by conscious choice as already noticed by us.
28. The abovementioned process clearly indicates it is not a
case where persons like the appellants were arbitrarily chosen to
the exclusion of other eligible candidates. It required all able-
bodied persons to be considered by the SSP who was charged with
the responsibility of selecting suitable candidates.”
11. Sri Vikas Rojipura, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners in W.P.Nos.47435-47448/2012 read out paragraph
Nos.3 and 6 of the decision in Uma Devi’s case (supra). They are
extracted hereinbelow:-
30
“3. A sovereign government, considering the economic situation in
the country and the work to be got done, is not precluded from making
temporary appointments or engaging workers on daily wages. Going by
a law newly enacted, The National Rural Employment Guarantee
Act, 2005, the object is to give employment to at least one member of
a family for hundred days in an year, on paying wages as fixed under
that Act. But, a regular process of recruitment or appointment has to
be resorted to, when regular vacancies in posts, at a particular point of
time, are to be filled up and the filling up of those vacancies cannot be
done in a haphazard manner or based on patronage or other
considerations. Regular appointment must be the rule.
……………………………
6. The power of a State as an employer is more limited than
that of a private employer inasmuch as it is subjected to constitutional
limitations and cannot be exercised arbitrarily (See Basu's Shorter
Constitution of India). Article 309 of the Constitution gives the
Government the power to frame rules for the purpose of laying down
the conditions of service and recruitment of persons to be appointed to
public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or
any of the States. That Article contemplates the drawing up of a
procedure and rules to regulate the recruitment and regulate the service
conditions of appointees appointed to public posts. It is well
acknowledged that because of this, the entire process of recruitment for
services is controlled by detailed procedure which specify the necessary
qualifications, the mode of appointment etc. If rules have been made
under Article 309 of the Constitution, then the Government can
31
make appointments only in accordance with the rules. The State is
meant to be a model employer. The Employment Exchanges
(Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 was enacted to
ensure equal opportunity for employment seekers. Though this Act
may not oblige an employer to employ only those persons who have
been sponsored by employment exchanges, it places an obligation on
the employer to notify the vacancies that may arise in the various
departments and for filling up of those vacancies, based on a procedure.
Normally, statutory rules are framed under the authority of law
governing employment. It is recognized that no government order,
notification or circular can be substituted for the statutory rules framed
under the authority of law. This is because, following any other course
could be disastrous inasmuch as it will deprive the security of tenure
and the right of equality conferred on civil servants under the
Constitutional scheme. It may even amount to negating the accepted
service jurisprudence. Therefore, when statutory rules are framed under
Article 309 of the Constitution which are exhaustive, the only fair
means to adopt is to make appointments based on the rules so
framed”.
12. Based on the above-extracted portions of the Apex
Court’s decision, it is the submission of Sri Vikas Rojipura that the
regular appointment must be a rule when the sanctioned posts are
indeed available. He submits that it is not known as to why the
32
petitioners were not appointed on regular basis even when they are
appointed against the sanctioned vacancies after holding the written
test and viva-voce. He submits that the procedure followed for
appointing the petitioners is not in violation of the constitutional
scheme. Nobody is to be deprived of any opportunity to take part
in the recruitment process. Even when the petitioners are selected
based on their merit, which itself is determined by holding the
competitive examination, they are made to suffer. Viewed in this
perspective, the petitioners are the victims and not the beneficiaries
of contractual appointments.
13. Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for Sri Reuben Jacob for the petitioners in
W.P.Nos.47587-47591/2012 submits that the delay in the
regularization of the services of the contractual appointees of 2007
batch is only on account of the pendency of the matter of
regularization of the contractual appointments made in 2003, 2005
and 2006. He submits that it is the nomenclature ‘contractual
appointment’ which has created all the problems, though the
33
petitioners are appointed in the same way as are the other
employees of the KPTCL.
14. He submits that the KPTCL’s Service Rules and
Regulations do not require the prior approval of the Government
for regularizing the services of its employees. He submits that out
of 338 contractual Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers, only
284 have stayed back in the service.
15. He sought to draw support from the Division Bench
judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of SACHIN
AMBADAS DAWALE AND OTHERS v. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER reported in 2014 (2)
Mh.L.J. 36, wherein it is held that the contractual appointees
cannot be deprived of the right of regular employment when their
entry in the service is not illegal or through the back-door.
Paragraph Nos. 19 and 22 of the said decision read out by him are
as follows:
34
“19. One more fact that needs to be taken into consideration
is that even according to the respondent - State there are more
than 5000 teaching posts which are still vacant and the
advertisement issued by the MPSC is only for 400 posts. It can,
thus, be clearly seen that even after the candidates who would be
selected through the selection process conducted by the MPSC are
available, more than 4500 posts will be vacant. It is, therefore,
clear that the petitioners' absorption would in no way affect the
candidates who would now be selected through the MPSC. It is,
thus, clear that the petitioners' continuation in service would not
adversely affect the fundamental right guaranteed under Article
16 to the citizens. We are of the considered view that the
respondent – State having extracted the work from the petitioners
for years together, the petitioners cannot be deprived of the right of
regular employment particularly when their entry can neither be
termed as "illegal" nor "back door".
22. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of
such of the petitioners and confer permanency on such petitioners
who have completed three years' service with technical breaks. The
respondents shall absorb the petitioners within a period of six
weeks. Needless to state that the petitioners who are in
continuous employment till 15.10.2013 shall be continued in
service as regular employees.
35
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct
that the petitioners shall be entitled to regular salary from 1st
November, 2013 and would not be entitled to claim any
monetary benefits for the past services rendered by them in spite of
their regularization. Needless to state that since the petitioners'
services are regularized, they shall be entitled to the continuity in
service for all other purposes except monetary purposes from the
date of their first appointment.”
16. Sri M.S.Bhagwat, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners in W.P.Nos.47461-47498/2012 submits that the
Government has already indicated its clearance to KPTCL to make
the appointments on regular basis. He read out the following
portion from the letter, dated 14.2.2007 (Annexure-F) issued by the
Government to the KPTCL:
“(B) III) KPTCL and ESCOMs may consider the issue of
recruiting AE’s and JE’s on permanent basis instead of contract
basis if their services are required on permanent basis.”
17. Sri Bhagwat also brings to my notice the resolution
passed by the Board of KPTCL on 29.12.2010 (Annexure-V). The
relevant portion reads as follows:
36
“Further, based on approval from Government of
Karnataka, the above Engineers have been recruited duly
following all the procedures and reservation policies of government.
Retention of such experienced engineers would become difficult if
they are not considered for regularization.
………………….
RESOLVED that the proposal to regularize the services of
Contract Assistant Engineers and Contract Junior Engineers
working in KPTCL and ESCOMs be and is hereby
recommended to Government for necessary approval.
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director (Admin and
HR)\, KPTCL be and is hereby authorized to address GoK
accordingly.”
18. He submits that the Cabinet itself has left the matter to
be decided by the KPTCL.
19. He also relies on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision
in the case of STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS v. PWD
EMPLOYEES UNION AND OTHERS reported in (2013) 12
SCC 417 and contends that the decision in Uma Devi’s case
(supra) is inapplicable to the persons whose initial recruitment
37
does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. Paragraph Nos.27
and 30 of the said decision read out by him are extracted
hereinbelow:
“23. The decisions in Umadevi and A. Umarani were
regarding the question concerning regularization of employees
entered by back door method or those who were illegally appointed
encouraging a political set up, in violation of Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution of India. We are of the opinion that both the
aforesaid decisions are not applicable in the present case i.e. to the
members of the respondent- Employees’ Union for the following
reasons:
(i) The Secretary, Forest and Environment Department of
the State of Gujarat by his order dated 3.5.2008 held that
initially the entry of the daily wagers do not suffer from any
illegality or irregularity but is in consonance with the provisions of
Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, the question of regularization
by removing procedural defects does not arise.
(ii) The Gujarat High Court by its judgment dated
29.10.2010 passed in PWD Employees Union v. State of
Gujarat while noticing the aforesaid stand taken by the State
also held that the nature of work described in the order dated
38
3.5.2008 shows that the daily wage-workers are engaged in the
work which is perennial in nature.
(iii) The case of A.Umarani related to regularization of
services of irregular appointees. In the said case this Court held
that:
“when appointments were made in contravention of mandatory provisions of the Act and statutory rules framed therein and in ignorance of essential qualifications, the same would be illegal and cannot be regularized by the State.
30. Considering, the facts and circumstances of the case, the
finding of the Gujarat High Court dated 29.10.2010 in PWD
Employees Union v. State of Gujarat and connected matters and
the fact that the said judgment is binding between the parties, we
are of the view that the appellants should be directed to grant the
benefit of the scheme as contained in the Resolution dated
17.10.1988 to all the daily-wage workers of the Forest and
Environment Department working for more than five years,
providing them the benefits as per our finding at para 29 above.
The appellants are directed accordingly. The judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge dated 29.10.2010 as affirmed
by the Division Bench by its order dated 28.2.2012 stands
modified to the extent above. The benefit should be granted to the
eligible daily-wage workers of the Forest and Environment
39
Department working for more than five years including those who
are performing work other than building maintenance and
repairing but they will be entitled for the consequential benefits
w.e.f. 29.10.2010 or subsequent date from which they are so
eligible within four months from the date of receipt/production of
the copy of this order. The appeals stand disposed of with the
aforesaid observation and directions to the appellant State and its
authorities. There shall be no separate orders as to costs.”
20. Sri S.S. Naganand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing
for Sri S.Sriranga for the respondent KPTCL submits that the
recruitment notification, dated 7.2.2007 (Annexure-A) itself states
that the appointment would be on contract basis and that therefore
the petitioners have no legally vested right to demand that their
services be regularized. He brings to my notice the appointment
orders issued to the petitioners. They specify their appointments as
contract Assistant Engineers or contract Junior Engineers. He
submits that the KPTCL has taken a conscious decision not to
regularize the services of the contractual appointees after the
Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in Uma Devi’s case (supra).
40
21. He submits that the approval of the Government is
sought, as KPTCL is a Government undertaking. That there was no
need to take the prior approval of the Government for regularizing
the services of the petitioners is not one of the grounds raised in the
memorandum of the writ petition, so submits the learned Senior
Counsel. Only because the services of the contractual employees of
the earlier three batches came to be regularized, the contractual
appointees of the next batch cannot claim them as binding
precedents. To advance the submission that the regularization of
the petitioners runs contrary to the legal position declared by the
Apex Court in Uma Devi’s case (supra), he relies on the Apex
Court’s judgment in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND
ANOTHER v. ARULMOZHI INIARASU AND OTHERS
reported in (2011) 9 SCR 1. Paragraph No.20 of the said decision
read out by him read as follows:
“20. It is plain from the terms of the letter of appointment
that the respondents were told in unambiguous terms that their
appointments were temporary and would not confer any right to
claim any permanent post in the department. It is not the case of
41
the respondents that at any point of time, during their
engagements with the appellants, a promise was held out to them
by the appellants that they would be absorbed as regular
employees of the department. In fact, no such promise could be
held out in view of the Government O.M. dated 7th June, 1988
banning the employment of persons in regular posts.”
22. He submits that the petitioners’ reliance on the
Government’s letter, dated 14.2.2007 (Annexure-D) in
W.P.Nos.47435-47448/2012 does not come to the rescue of the
petitioners in any way because it is issued one week after the
issuance of the recruitment notification, dated 7.2.2007. He submits
that some regular recruitments have indeed taken place pursuant to
the Government’s letter, dated 14.2.2007 on 26.8.2009 and
12.4.2015 for the posts of Assistant Engineers and Junior
Engineers.
23. Sri A.S.Ponnanna, the learned Additional Advocate
General appearing for the Government submits that the KPTCL
had regularized the services of the contractual appointees of the
2003, 2005 and 2006 batches without seeking the approval of the
42
Government. On being asked as to whether the Government raised
any objection subsequent to the said regularization, he answers in
the negative. He submits that the Government’s letter, dated
14.2.2007 (Annexure-D in W.P.Nos.47435-47448/2012) would
apply for all the ongoing recruitments too.
24. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that
the proposal for the regularization of the petitioners’ services is
rejected by the Government, as the regularization move is in
contrast to the Apex Court’s judgment in Uma Devi’s case
(supra). He submits that it is open to the KPTCL to take its own
decision without seeking the approval from the Government. On
being specifically asked as to whether the KPTCL can regularize the
services of its contract Engineers in the wake of the Government’s
disapproval for the same, he submits that the KPTCL is at liberty to
take its own decision.
25. In the course of rejoinder, Sri B.V.Acharya submits that
the facts and circumstances of this case warrant the issuance of the
43
positive direction to regularize the services of the petitioners from
the date of the passing the resolution, dated 29.12.2010. This is not
a case for remanding the matter to the KPTCL, because KPTCL
has already passed a resolution for regularizing the services of the
contract Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers and because it is
the stand of the Government that it is open to the KPTCL to take a
decision on its own without insisting for the approval from the
Government.
26. He brings to my notice the Apex Court’s judgment in the
case of MALATHI DAS AND OTHERS v. SURESH AND
OTHERS reported in (2014) 13 SCC 249, in which case the
services of 371 employees were regularized out of 445 employees;
the request for the regularization of remaining 74 employees was
turned down on the ground that it would be against the ratio laid
down by the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra). The
Hon’ble Supreme Court negatived such a contention and directed
the Government to regularize the services of the remaining 74 daily
44
rated employees. Paragraph No.13 of the said decision read out by
him is extracted hereinbelow:
“13. In the aforesaid undisputed facts it is wholly unnecessary for
us to consider as to whether the cases of persons who were awaiting
regularization on the date of the decision in Umadevi is required to be
dealt with in accordance with the conditions stipulated in para 53 of
Umadevi inasmuch as the claims of the respondent employees can well
be decided on principles of parity. Similarly placed employees having
been regularized by the State and in case of some of them such
regularization being after the decision in Umadevi we are of the view
that the stand taken by the appellants in refusing regularization to the
respondents cannot be countenanced. However, as the said stand of the
appellants stems from their perception and understanding of the
decision in Umadevi we do not hold them liable for contempt but
make it clear that the appellants and all the other competent
authorities of the State will now be obliged and duty-bound to
regularize the services of the respondents (74 in number) which will
now be done forthwith and in any case within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of this order.”
27. Sri Jayakumar S.Patil submits that no fresh decision is
required to be taken by the KPTCL. It has to only implement its
resolution from the date of its passing. He brings to my notice that
the agenda notes for the earlier resolution for regularizing the
45
services of 2003, 2005 and 2006 batch contract employees and the
agenda notes for the resolution for regularizing the services of 2007
contract employees are exactly the same.
28. Sri S.S.Nagananda joins issue with Sriyuths B.V.Acharya
and Jayakumar S. Patil and submits that if this Court is inclined to
hold that the Government’s approval for regularizing the services
of the petitioners is not required, then KPTCL would consider all
the relevant aspects of the matter and take a decision in the matter
of regularization. He resists the issuance of the positive direction to
KPTCL to regularize the services of the petitioners.
29. The submissions of the learned counsel have received my
thoughtful consideration. The question that arises for my
consideration is whether the services of the petitioners are to be
regularized. For examining this question, the following facts and
circumstances are of utmost importance:
(i) The services of the similarly appointed contract
Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers have come to
46
be regularized. It is also not in dispute that the
appointments of 2005 and 2006 batch of Engineers
themselves were on 6.7.2006 and 23.11.2006. The
appointments of contract engineers of both the batches
are thus after 10.4.2006, the date of the Apex Court’s
decision in the case of Uma Devi (supra). It is trite
that the similarly placed persons cannot be treated
dissimilarly. Some of the Engineers of KPTCL had
challenged the decision to regularize the services of the
earlier batches of contract engineers by filing
W.P.No.7425/2007. One ground specifically raised by
the petitioners in the said case was that the resolution
for regularizing the services is contrary to the law laid
down by the Apex Court in Uma Devi’s case (supra).
The said contention is negatived. The unsuccessful
petitioners therein took up the matter to the Division
Bench and the Hon’ble Supreme Court but without any
rate of success.
47
(ii) The petitioners are not the back-door entrants. They
have taken part in the recruitment process which was
lawfully initiated. It is not that they are appointed
arbitrarily to the exclusion of the other aspiring, eligible
candidates. The KPTCL issued the notification calling
for application for filling up the posts in question, held
the written test and viva-voce also. It has also complied
with the reservation and roster requirements. Further, it
is also not in dispute that the petitioners are appointed
against the sanctioned vacancies. All these factors
clearly show that they were appointed in accordance
with the constitutional scheme for public
appointments.
(iii) No provision of KPTCL Service Regulations or Cadre
and Recruitments Rules is pointed out to me to show
that the prior approval of the Government is necessary
for the regularization of the services of its contract
employees. It is also worthwhile to notice that for
48
regularizing the services of the earlier three batches of
the contract employees, neither the KPTCL sought the
approval of the Government nor the Government
subsequently raised any objection to the said
regularization.
(iv) As is evident from the Government’s letter, dated
14.2.2007, the option/clearance/permission is already
granted to the KPTCL to consider the issue of
recruiting the Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers
on permanent basis instead of contract basis if their
services are required on permanent basis. The general
clearance accorded by the Government cannot be
restricted only to one or two rounds of recruitments,
which are stated to have been taken immediately after
the issuance of the letter, dated 14.2.2007. As the said
letter does not restrict or specify the period of its
operation, it has to be taken that it would continue to
be in force until such time that it is withdrawn. In the
49
instant case, it is not in dispute that the services of the
petitioners are required. In this regard, the relevant
proceedings may be seen. The proceedings of the
meeting of the Board of Directors of KPTCL held on
29.12.2010, inter alia, read as follows:
“The details were perused. It was noted that the above
engineers have completed 3 years of service and have hand
hands on experience in the utility. KPTCL and ESCOMs
have spent substantially on their salaries over the last three
years. It is difficult to get experienced hands in the power
sector since such experience are rarely available.
Further based on the approval from Government of
Karnataka, the above Engineers have been recruited duly
following all the procedures and reservation policies of
Government. Retention of such experienced engineers would
become difficult if they are not considered for regularization.”
(v) The perusal of the afore-extracted portions of the
proceedings clearly indicate that the petitioners’
services are required. The observation of the
Government in its letter, dated 14.2.2007 that the
50
KPTCL may consider the issue of recruiting the
Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers on
permanent basis instead of contract basis, if they are
required on permanent basis has to be seen in
conjunction with the assessment of the Board of
Directors of KPTCL.
30. Now let me examine the applicability of the authorities,
cited by either side, for the factual matrix of these cases. The
Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Uma Devi (supra) is a
direction to resort to the process of regular recruitment, as
following any other course would be disastrous in as much as it
would deprive the security of tenure, right of equality conferred on
civil servants under the constitutional scheme. As clarified by the
Apex Court and other High Courts subsequently, the decision in
Uma Devi’s case (supra) lays down the principle that the services
of the back-door entrants cannot be regularized. It does not in any
way come in the way of regularizing the services of the employees,
who are appointed against the sanctioned vacancies, where publicity
51
is given to the process of making the appointment, applications are
called for, written test and viva voce are held, the candidates’ merit
is determined and their suitability is ascertained.
31. In the case of PWD Employees Union (supra), the
Apex Court has expressed the considered view that if the process of
recruitment is consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
of India, the employees are entitled to all the benefits of service
including the regularization of service. It has further held that the
decision in Uma Devi’s case has no application for the daily wage
employees who are engaged in jobs which are perennial in nature
and whose initial appointments are not illegal and irregular.
32. In Nihal Singh’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has observed that the judgment in Uma Devi’s case cannot
become a licence for exploitation by the State and its
instrumentalities. Further, it has come down heavily on the public
sector banks for enjoying the cheap labour over a period of
decades.
52
33. When the initial appointment of the petitioners cannot
be categorized as irregular or illegal, the relief of the regularization
of their services cannot be denied to them. In a more or less similar
case but falling under the contempt jurisdiction, the Apex Court has
directed the regularization of services of 74 employees, as the
services of the similarly placed 371 employees were regularized.
34. The Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the case
of Sachin Ambadas Dawale (supra) has directed the Maharashtra
State Government to confer permanency in service on the
employees, who were appointed on contractual basis, as they were
through the selection process conducted by the Maharashtra Public
Service Commission.
35. The facts of the cases on hand and of Arulmozhi
Iniarasu (supra) are entirely different. In Arulmozhi Iniarasu
case (supra), the workmen were engaged as part-time contingent
casual labourers purely on temporary basis. They were engaged on
the basis of the need of the office for which they were paid on
53
hourly basis. That is why they were held as not eligible for the
regularization of their services.
36. The impugned communication, dated 15.11.2012 turning
down the KPTCL’s request for the regularization of services is not
sustainable for one simple reason. It does not refer to, much less
consider the regularization of the earlier three batches of contract
employees. It is therefore difficult to hold that the Government has
taken an informed or well-considered decision. Although the
impugned communication issued by the Government is not
supportable and sustainable, I do not find the need to quash it in
view of the submission made on behalf of the Government that it is
open to KPTCL to take its own decision in the matter of
regularization of its employees.
37. In the result, I allow these petitions by holding that the
petitioners are entitled to the regularization of their services. The
KPTCL is directed to regularize the services of the petitioners with
effect from 29.12.2010, the date of passing the resolution in that
54
regard and on the same terms on which the services of the contract
Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers of 2003, 2005 and 2006
batches were regularized. The KPTCL shall comply with these
directions within three months from the date of the issuance of the
certified copy of today’s order. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cm/-MD