Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1418 (KAR)

B. Karibasappa v. State Of Karnataka

2020-07-15

SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

body2020
JUDGMENT Sachin Shankar Magadum, J. - The captioned writ petitions are fi led seeking writ of mandamus to the respondents to approve the 24 proposals/board resolutions pertaining to the 24 petitioners as per Annexure-A to A23 and other directions from this Court. 2. Facts leading to the top noted writ petitions are as under: The petitioners have averred in the writ petitions that they were initial ly appointed in Group-D cadre as peons l ibrary attenders, office attenders and laboratory attenders under the respondents/institution and as on the date of fi l ing of writ petitions it is the speci fic contention of the petitioners that they have rendered more than 18 years of service. The respondents/ institution through various Institutions' Board Committee Resolutions, have resolved to regularize the pay scale of the petitioners in terms of the state pay scale respectively. 3. The petitioners are claiming benefits by way of parity and have rel ied on the orders passed by this Court in W.A.No.5614/2017 & W.A.Nos.6106-6107/2017, which was chal lenged against the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.963-965/2014. 4. Relying on these orders, the petitioners have speci fical ly contended in the writ petitions that the order passed in W.P.Nos.963-965/2014 is complied by admitting the attenders for grantin- aid. It is also stated in the writ petitions that the State Government has implemented the order of appointment of petitioners in W.P.Nos.963- 965/2014. 5. At paragraph No.5 of the writ petitions, the petitioners have specifical ly contended that, about 9 lectures working under the same management for more than 10 years approached this Court in W.P.Nos.110831-110838/2015. The petitioners have contended that this Court has al lowed the said writ petitions directing the management to pass resolutions in terms of order issued under Article 371-J of the Constitution of India and a further direction was issued to the State to approve the appointment in terms of special status under Article 371-J of the Constitution of India. 6. At paragraph No.5 of the writ petitions, the petitioners have speci fical ly averred that they are also under the same management and petitioners are entitled for simi lar benefit. The copy of order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.110831-110838/2015 is produced as per Annexure-C. 7. 6. At paragraph No.5 of the writ petitions, the petitioners have speci fical ly averred that they are also under the same management and petitioners are entitled for simi lar benefit. The copy of order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.110831-110838/2015 is produced as per Annexure-C. 7. The petitioners have also contended that the order of approval of appointment of simi larly placed employees under the same management admitting the said petitioners to grant-in-aid has attained final ity. Once the order has become final including and in order dated 25.10.2017 passed in W.A.No.5614/2017 & W.A.No.6106-6107/2017, al l contentions of the Government were negatived by this Court and hence, the petitioners are also entitled for the benefit and they cannot be discriminated by the respondents. The petitioners have also placed several orders as per Annexures-K, M, N and P, wherein in respect of the simi larly placed teaching and non-teaching staf f of various institutions, Government has approved their regularization. 8. The petitioners being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioners have approached this Court seeking writ of mandamus and several directions. 9. Sri V.Laxminarayana, learned Senior Counsel would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that, the petitioners are also entitled for the benefits conferred by many notifications issued by the Government to special region called Hyderabad Karnataka region. He would submit to this Court that the persons who have put in 10 years of service are entitled for benefit of regularization. He would submit to this Court that the petitioners have put in 18 years of service and have worked ful l time on consolidated salary. He would submit to this Court that there is discrimination even in payment of salary and thereby violative of the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" under Article 39(D) of Constitution of India. He would also submit to this Court that regularization on completion of 10 years is equal ly appl icable to the petitioners apart from approval of recommendation made by the institution. 10. To buttress his arguments he would rely on judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347 and would submit to this Court that on principles of parity, the petitioners are also entitled for the benefit. 10. To buttress his arguments he would rely on judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347 and would submit to this Court that on principles of parity, the petitioners are also entitled for the benefit. Further he would also rely on judgment of Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Nagappa Vs. State of Karnataka, (1986) ILR(Kar) 3093 and submit to this Court the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Indrapal Yadava's case has been reiterated by Division Bench of this Court in Nagappa's case. 11. Per contra, Smt.K.Vidyavati, learned Additional Advocate General would vehemently argue and contend before this Court that the writ of mandamus sought at prayer-A cannot be granted. The petitioners cannot seek direction to approve proposal/Board resolutions pertaining to present petitioners as per Annexures-A, A1 to A23. 12. At this juncture learned Senior Counsel, however would submit to this Court that he would restrict his case to prayer-(B), (C) & (F). 13. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Advocate General for State. 14. On perusal of the order passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court as per Annexure- C, this Court whi le considering the case of the petitioners in the said writ petition who were also serving under the same management as that of the present petitioners herein has negatived the contention of the State Government. The State in the said writ petition seriously contested and contended that Veerashaiva Vidyavardhak Sangh has made appointment in gross violation of legal requirements and prescriptions. Learned Additional Advocate General further contended that their selection for appointment was not fol lowed that due publ ication of vacancies in the newspaper and it was also not preceded by prior permission of the department in making such appointment. 15. The coordinate Bench of this Court having examined the rival contentions of the parties, al lowed the writ petitions in part directing the management to regularize the services of the petitioners in the said writ petitions and accordingly submitted a proposal for approval of their appointment and for extension of grant-in-aid so that the petitioners in the said writ petitions wi ll have security of tenure and parity in pay scales. 16. 16. The direction was also issued to the respondents to consider the proposal of the respondent/institutions and whi le considering the proposal, a specific direction was issued by this Court by examining the observations made in the said writ petition to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with law. 17. In the present case on hand, the respondents/management has regularized the services of the petitioners as per Annexures-A, A1 to A23. In that view of the matter, the case of the petitioners needs to be examined by respondents in terms of findings recorded by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos. 110831-110838/2015 and pass appropriate orders on the proposals/Board resolutions pertaining to 24 petitioners as per Annexures-A, A1 to A23. 18. For the reasons stated supra, the writ petitions are al lowed. The respondents are directed to consider the 24 proposals / Board resolutions pertaining to the 24 petitioners as per Annexures-A and A1 to A23 and also take note of observations made by the coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.110831-110838/2015 as per Annexure-C and also judgment in W.P.No.963-965/2014 as per Annexure-D and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.