ORDER : ASHOK S.KINAGI, J. The petitioner filed this petition seeking the following relief: “issue writ of certiorari by quashing the impugned endorsement dtd: 19-06-2023 passed by The Respondent No.2 in No:ZIPAMCHI/Aa(15)/CR-01/2006-07 dtd: 19-06-2023 as per vide Annexure-X and to pass necessary orders regularizing the services of the petitioner from the date on which he had become eligible for regularization in the post held by him and to grant all service benefits attached to the said posts and etc., and pass such other orders as deems fit by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice and equity.” 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows: 2.1. The petitioner was initially appointed on a daily wage basis as a Driver vide official memorandum dated 28.06.1988. The petitioner was relieved from service on 30.09.2018 on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner submitted a representation on 12.09.2006 for regularisation of his service. The case of the petitioner was forwarded for the grant of minimum pay under Annexure-C communication dated 18.09.2006 to respondent No.2. Thereafter, under Annexure-D the letter dated 17.07.2007, minimum pay was granted to the petitioner. The petitioner's case was also recommended for regularisation under Annexure-F dated 20.11.2007. An endorsement was issued on 17.07.2018 vide Annexure-U. A month prior to the retirement, the respondents have declined to regularise the services of the petitioner on the ground that the prescribed minimum qualification for the post of Driver is PUC and that the petitioner has passed only 7 th standard. The petitioner further contends that, the qualification prescribed in the corresponding posts in other departments was pass in 7 th standard referring to the Karnataka Education Departments Services (Department of Public Instruction) (Recruitment) Rules, 1967 (‘Rules of 1967’ for short). It is contended that, the endorsement dated 17.07.2018 requires to be quashed directing respondent No.2 to re-consider the case of the petitioner in the light of educational qualification prescribed for the post of Driver as of the date of appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the endorsement dated 17.07.2018, filed a writ petition in WP No.36440 of 2018. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the endorsement dated 17.07.2018, filed a writ petition in WP No.36440 of 2018. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 01.12.2022 and directed the respondents to re-consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation of his service as a Driver, taking note of the qualification of the petitioner as of the date of his appointment in 1988 and pass appropriate order within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Respondent No.2 issued the impugned endorsement dated 19.06.2023 vide Annexure-X by reiterating the averments of the endorsement issued on 17.07.2018. The petitioner, aggrieved by the impugned endorsement dated 19.06.2023, filed this writ petition. 3. Respondent No.2 has filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the memorandum of writ petition and contented that, the petitioner was appointed on the daily wage basis and it is against the sanctioned post. It is also contented that, the petitioner did not have educational qualification for the post of Driver. It is contented that, the educational qualification prescribed for the post of Driver is passing PUC. It is contended that, the petitioner has not passed the PUC and the petitioner's services are not entitled to the regularisation in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others , (2006) 4 SCC 1 . Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 3, and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was appointed on a daily wage basis as a Driver on 28.06.1988 and he has completed more than 10 years of service without any interruption. The petitioner is entitled for regularisation. He submits that, as of the date of appointment on a daily wage basis as a Driver, the qualification prescribed was 7 th passed. He submits that, the petitioner has passed the 7 th standard as of the date of his appointment in 1988. The petitioner is entitled to regularisation and is having the educational qualification pre-requisite for the post of Driver. He submits that, the petitioner has passed the 7 th standard as of the date of his appointment in 1988. The petitioner is entitled to regularisation and is having the educational qualification pre-requisite for the post of Driver. He submits that, though this Court has directed the respondents in WP No.36440 of 2018, disposed of on 01.12.2022 vide Annexure-W, wherein this Court quashed the endorsement dated 17.07.2018 and directed respondent No.2 to re- consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation as a Driver taking note of the qualification of the petitioner as of the date of his appointment in 1988 and pass an appropriate order. Respondent No.2 has passed an order vide Annexure-X dated 19.06.2023. The request of the petitioner for regularisation was rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not having educational qualification. He also submits that, the services of the similarly placed employee was regularised and he has produced the copy of the order marked as Annexure-Y. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that, the educational qualification required for the post of Driver is PUC passed. Respondent No.2 has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner for regularisation of the petitioner. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Perused the records and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 8. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was appointed on a daily wage basis in 1988 as a Driver. He has completed more than 10 years of service. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 12.09.2006 for regularisation of service on the ground that the petitioner had completed 10 years of service and it is also stated that, as of the date of appointment, the petitioner has passed the 7 th standard, which was the prescribed qualification for the post of Driver. The representation of the petitioner was rejected by respondent No.2 vide endorsement dated 17.07.2018. The representation of the petitioner was rejected by respondent No.2 vide endorsement dated 17.07.2018. The petitioner, aggrieved by the endorsement dated 17.07.2018, preferred a writ petition in WP No.36440 of 2018, wherein this Court, vide order dated 01.12.2022, disposed of the writ petition quashing the endorsement dated 17.07.2018 and directed respondent No.2 to re-consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation as Driver taking note of qualification of the petitioner as of the date of his appointment in 1988 and pass the appropriate order. Respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order vide Annexure-X dated 19.06.2023. However, again respondent No.2 has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner does not possess a prescribed qualification. 9. Rule 87 of the Karnataka Education Departments Services (Department of Public Instruction) (Recruitment) Rules, 1967 provides educational qualification for the post of Driver for direct recruitment as: i) A pass in the seventh standard; ii) Should possess a current driving licence. The said Rules were amended in 2020, wherein the educational qualification for the post of Driver is PUC passed. Admittedly, the petitioner passed 7 th standard as of the date of appointment i.e., 1988. He was qualified for the post of Driver in 1988. The respondents considered the Karnataka General Service (Panchayat Raj Branch) (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2020 (‘Rules of 2020’ for short), but this Court in WP No.36440 of 2018, directed the respondents to consider the qualification prescribed as of the date of his appointment in 1988 and to pass an appropriate order. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed in 1988 and he has passed 7 th standard as required by Rule 87 of the Rules of 1967. The respondents, by considering Rule 21 of the Rules of 2020, which prescribes the minimum qualification for the post of Driver as PUC passed or equivalent qualification, issued an endorsement stating that, the petitioner does not possess requisite qualification. However, the petitioner was appointed in 1988 and as of the date of his appointment, he possessed a qualification of passing 7 th standard. The Rules of 2020 are prospective in nature, and are not applicable to the case of the petitioner. 11. Admittedly, the petitioner has completed more than 10 years of service and this Court has directed to re- consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation in the earlier round of litigation. The Rules of 2020 are prospective in nature, and are not applicable to the case of the petitioner. 11. Admittedly, the petitioner has completed more than 10 years of service and this Court has directed to re- consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation in the earlier round of litigation. The impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.2 is contrary to the observation made by this Court in WP No.36440 of 2018. Further, the petitioner has produced the copy of the official memorandum dated 09.07.2008 vide Annexure-Y, wherein the service of the similarly placed employee was regularised. Respondent No.2 subjected the petitioner to discrimination and the action of the respondent is in violation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. Further, in view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India and Others , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 , Dharam Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735 and Shripal and Another Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had referred to its judgment in the case of Umadevi (supra) and directed the employer to consider the case of the employees for regularisation of their services. In view of the exposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Jaggo (supra), Dharam Singh (supra) and Shripal (supra), respondent No.2 is required to re-consider the case of the petitioner. 12. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned endorsement vide Annexure-X is quashed; iii. Respondent No.2 is directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation for the post of Driver taking note of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of Jaggo (supra), Dharam Singh (supra) and Shripal (supra), and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; iv. Pending IAs, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.