SHOBHA vs THE SECRETARY AND ORS

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11289-DB
WP No. 201653 of 2021
CNR: KAHC030270072021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO
WRIT PETITION NO.201653 OF 2021 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
SHOBHA W/O SURENDRA DHOTRE,
AGED 47 YEARS, OCC: SWEEPER IN GOVT.
PRINTING PRESS, MSK MILL ROAD,
KALABURAGI, R/O. WADDAR GALLI,
BRAHMAPUR KALABURAGI-585 103.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAMCHANDRA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SECRETARY,
GOVT. OF KARNATAKA,
DPAR, M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
Digitally signed by
SHIVALEELA D
UDAGI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE DIRECTOR OF PRINTING PRESS,
TH
8 MAIN, R.V. COLLEGE,
POST. KENCHANHALLI, MYSORE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 059.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
GOVT. PRINTING PRESS,
MSK MILL ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585 102.
…RESPONDENTS

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11289-DB
WP No. 201653 of 2021
CNR: KAHC030270072021
(BY SMT. MAYA T.R., AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
A) ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL KALABURAGI IN APPLICATION NO.4460/2019
DATED 31.03.2021 AS PER ANNEXURE-C. B) ISSUE FURTHER
WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED
BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2, IN FILE NO.GPVKS/COURT-
05/2015-16 DATED 23.09.2015 IS AS PER ANNEXURE-A5.
C) ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER
THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 04.02.2015
AS PER ANNEXURE-A4, AND REGULARIZE THE SERVICES AS
PER GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION BY PROVIDING ALL SERVICE
BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONER AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRL. HEARING IN ‘B’
GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the
order dated 31.03.2021 passed by the Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal, Kalaburagi, in Application
No.4460/2019.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11289-DB
WP No. 201653 of 2021
CNR: KAHC030270072021
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition
are as follows:
3. The petitioner is discharging her duties as a
sweeper in the office of Government Printing Press, Kalaburagi,
since more than 20 years, without any interruption or
obstruction from the office of the respondents. Considering and
looking at the long-standing services in the office of respondent
No.3, she is entitled to get all the service benefits as per the
Government Notification and also regularization of her service.
In this regard, some of the co-workers already regularized their
services. The respondents have deliberately not considered the
representation. Respondent No.2 issued an endorsement
rejecting the request of the petitioner for regularization of her
service and other benefits. The petitioner aggrieved by the
endorsement issued by respondent No.2, approached the
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application
No.4460/2019 and prays to allow the application.
4. The state filed a statement of objections, denying
the averments made in the application and contended that
there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11289-DB
WP No. 201653 of 2021
CNR: KAHC030270072021
respondents, as the petitioner was appointed through an
outsourcing agency. Hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition.
5. The Tribunal after hearing the learned counsel for
the parties, rejected the application by order dated 31.03.2021.
The petitioner aggrieved by the same, filed this writ petition.
6. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the
petitioner has produced the attendance register to show that
the petitioner was working in the Government Printing Press for
more than 20 years without any interruption and therefore, she
is entitled to regularization of her service. The petitioner made
a representation to the respondents to regularize her services
and extend all the benefits that were extended to the co-
employees. Respondent No.2 has passed an order by issuing an
endorsement declining to consider the representation. It is
further submitted that the Tribunal without considering the
documents produced by the petitioner, rejected the application.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11289-DB
WP No. 201653 of 2021
CNR: KAHC030270072021
The order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the records.
Hence, learned counsel prays to allow the writ petition.
8. Per contra, learned AGA submits that there is no
privity of contract between the petitioner and the respondents,
as the petitioner was appointed through an outsourcing agency.
Hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition.
9. Perused the records and considered the submission
of learned counsel for the parties.
10. The petitioner submitted a representation to
regularize service. The respondents denied the relationship as
employer and employee. The respondents have produced the
agreement entered in between the contractor and the
respondents for supply of personal security guards and
housekeeping services. Further also produced the
communication dated 03.12.2012 addressed by Maruthi
Enterprises to the Deputy Director, Printing, Stationery and
Publication Department, for providing security and
housekeeping services. A perusal of the communication dated
03.12.2012 clearly discloses the name of the petitioner as a

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11289-DB
WP No. 201653 of 2021
CNR: KAHC030270072021
housekeeper and she was appointed by the outsourcing
agency. The petitioner has not produced any records to
establish that she was appointed by the respondents. Further,
the learned AGA has produced the attendance registers, which
clearly discloses that the agency has maintained the daily
attendance register i.e., Maruthi Enterprises and also J.K.
Security Services, wherein the name of the petitioner is shown
at SL.03 in the monthly attendance sheet for the month of
June, 2011.
11. As rightly pointed out by the Learned Additional
Government Advocate that, the petitioner was appointed
through an outsourcing agency and not by the respondents.
Hence, the respondents have rightly issued an endorsement
declining to consider the request made by the petitioner for
regularization of service and to extend the service benefits.
Learned AGA has produced the petitioner’s wage slip for the
month of April 2014, which clearly discloses that the
outsourcing agency i.e., Maruthi Enterprises has paid the salary
to the petitioner. The petitioner has not produced any records
to show that her salary was paid by the respondents. As the

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11289-DB
WP No. 201653 of 2021
CNR: KAHC030270072021
petitioner has failed to prove the relationship between the
herself and the respondents as the employer and employee. As
there is a serious dispute regarding the relationship as
employer and employee, hence the question of regularization of
service does not arise. The petitioner is not entitled to
regularization of service and respondent No.2 has rightly issued
an endorsement. The Tribunal has rightly passed an impugned
order and we do not find any error in the impugned order. We
declined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, we
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
dismissed.
i. The writ petition is
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO)
JUDGE
AMA/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 36
CT: AK