ORDER : (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD, J.) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the endorsement dated 15.04.2023 vide Annexure-N, issued by the second respondent and also consequential endorsements, all dated 04.05.2023 issued by the fourth respondent vide Annexures P, P1, P2 and P3, whereby the request of the petitioners for regularization has been rejected. 2. The petitioners were working as drivers on daily wage basis in the respondent No.4 – Municipal Corporation. The first petitioner from the month of April 1994, the second petitioner from the month of October 1992 and the third and fourth petitioners from the month of October 1994. Since they have worked for more than ten years as daily wage employees, they submitted representations seeking regularization. Since their representations for regularization has been rejected, by endorsement dated 22.02.2018, the same has been called in question by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.35695/2018. This Court, by order dated 28.11.2022, allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioners for regularization in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA V. UMADEVI (3) AND OTHERS reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 as well as in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS vs. M.L.KESARI AND OTHERS reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247. Thereafter, the impugned endorsements have been issued, once again the case of the petitioners has been rejected. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were appointed against the sanctioned posts. To show that, there are four sanctioned posts of drivers, they have produced Annexure-A. They have also produced Annexure-E dated 02.11.1999 issued by the second respondent, wherein the second respondent ordered that equal pay for equal work has to be given. Pursuant to that, the petitioners are being paid the salary equivalent to the salary which is being paid for regular employees. Thereafter, by Annexure-G dated 27.01.2007 the Deputy Commissioner, Tumakuru has recommended the petitioners’ names for regularization since they have complied with four conditions as prescribed in UMADEVI’s case. Inspite of production of these documents, the impugned endorsements have been issued. 4. He further contended that absence of formal appointment order, should not in itself, negate the legitimate rights of an employee who has been continuously engaged in service from 1999. Inspite of production of these documents, the impugned endorsements have been issued. 4. He further contended that absence of formal appointment order, should not in itself, negate the legitimate rights of an employee who has been continuously engaged in service from 1999. In support of his contentions, he relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in W.P.No.6238/2020 and connected matter disposed of on 17.03.2025. The relevant portion is extracted below: “…….. The burden of proof should lie upon the respondents, who are the custodians of all relevant records, thereby, there shall not be any violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution with regard to prayer made by the petitioner.” 5. Lastly, he contended that one of the reasons for rejection is that the petitioners have completed ten years after 10.04.2006, therefore, they are not entitled. This is contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of NARENDRA KUMAR TIWARI vs. STATE OF JHARKAND AND OTHERS reported in (2018) 8 SCC 238 . Hence, he sought to allow the writ petition. 6. Per contra, the learned AGA appearing for the respondent – State contended that the petitioners have not produced any orders of appointment of the petitioners. Since their entering into service itself is illegal and contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Hence, their cases cannot be considered for regularization. The authority has rightly rejected the case of the petitioners for regularization. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers. 8. The case of the petitioners is that they are working as drivers in the fourth respondent - Mahanagara Palike from 1994. They have placed on record Annexure-A to show that there are four posts of drivers and all the posts are sanctioned posts in the fourth respondent – Corporation and they have also produced an order passed by the Director – respondent No.2, directing the third respondent to extend the benefit of equal pay for equal work to the petitioners and also produced the records to show that even the fourth respondent has also recommended the names of the petitioners for regularization. They have produced Annexure-G dated 27.01.2007, wherein the Deputy Commissioner has recommended the names of the petitioners along with others for regularization and also it is noted that they have satisfied all the conditions mentioned in UMADEVI’s case. All these records have not been considered by the second respondent and an endorsement vide Annexure-N has been issued. There is no reference to these records. The main ground of rejection is that they have not complied the four conditions of UMADEVI’s case. The impugned order is passed without application of mind and without considering the documents produced by the petitioners. One more reason assigned for rejection that the petitioners have completed ten years of service after 10.04.2006 is also contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court in NARENDRA KUMAR TIWARI’s case. On this ground alone, the impugned endorsement is liable to be quashed. 9. Accordingly, the following order is passed: (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned endorsement dated 15.04.2023 vide Annexure-N issued by the second respondent is quashed. (iii) Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file fresh representations, enclosing all the relevant documents, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (iv) The second respondent is directed to consider the representations to be submitted by the petitioners, in accordance with law, keeping in view of the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.No.35695/2018, as expeditiously as possible, not later than three months from the date of receipt of the representations.