SHIVAJI vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54920
WP No. 201489 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010268482026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.201489 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. SHIVAJI
S/O KALLAPPA,
AGE. 36 YEARS,
OCCUPATION ANIMAL ATTENDER,
RESIDENCE OF CHIKKANAGAON WADI,
TALUKA BASAVAKALYAN,
DISTRICT BIDAR.
2. BABU S/O TUKARAM,
AGE. 40 YEARS,
OCCUPATION MESSENGER,
RESIDENCE OF AMALAPURA,
TALUKA AND DISTRICT BIDAR.
3. VAIJINATH
S/O NAGASHETTY,
AGE. 49 YEARS,
OCCUPATION ANIMAL ATTENDER,
RESIDENCE OF AYSPURA,
TALUKA AND DISTRICT BIDAR.
4. SANJEEV KUMAR
S/O ARJUN,
AGE. 39 YEARS,
OCCUPATION ANIMAL ATTENDER,
RESIDENCE OF UPPAR
MOHALLA KAMTHANA,
TALUKA AND DISTRICT BIDAR.
5. BASAVARAJ
S/O SHANTAPPA BIRADAR,
AGE. 43 YEARS,
OCCUPATION ANIMAL ATTENDER,
RESIDENCE OF JANTHI,
Digitally
signed by
VANDANA S
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54920
WP No. 201489 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010268482026
TALUKA BHALKI,
DISTRICT BIDAR.
6. GOUTAM
S/O ANJAPPA,
AGE. 34 YEARS,
OCCUPATION ANIMAL ATTENDER,
RESIDENCE OF BARIDABAD,
TALUKA AND DISTRICT BIDAR.
7. SHALIVAN
S/O CHARLIES,
AGE. 36 YEARS,
OCCUPATION ANIMAL ATTENDER,
RESIDENCE OF S.M. KRISHNA NAGAR,
JAMISTANPUR,
TALUKA AND DISTRICT BIDAR.
8. KASHINATH
S/O VEERASHETTY,
AGE. 49 YEARS,
OCCUPATION MESSENGER,
RESIDENCE OF NIRANAWADI,
TALUKA HUMNABAD,
DISTRICT BIDAR.
9. PARMESHWAR
S/O BHIMANNA KOTE,
AGE. 35 YEARS,
OCCUPATION MESSENGER,
RESIDENCE OF AYSPURA,
TALUKA AND DISTRICT BIDAR.
10. SUNITA
W/O SHIVARAJ,
AGE. 46 YEARS,
OCCUPATION ANIMAL ATTENDER,
TH
RESIDENCE OF 228, 6 BLOCK,
KAMTHANA VILLAGE,
TALUKA AND DISTRICT BIDAR.
11. HAJJU BEE
S/O SYED WAHEED UDDIN,
AGE. 30 YEARS,
OCCUPATION MESSENGER,
RESIDENCE OF AYSPURA,
TALUKA AND DISTRICT BIDAR.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54920
WP No. 201489 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010268482026
12. SHOBHA VATI
W/O MARUTI,
AGE. 37 YEARS,
OCCUPATION ANIMAL ATTENDER,
RESIDENCE OF H.NO. 646/1,
ZAMISTANPUR,
VETERINARY UNIVERSITY CAMPUS BIDAR.
13. DEVID
S/O NAGAPPA,
AGE. 48 YEARS,
OCCUPATION MESSENGER,
RESIDENCE OF KAMTHANA,
TALUKA AND DISTRICT BIDAR.
14. KASHINATH
S/O NAGASHETTY,
AGE. 44 YEARS,
OCCUPATION MESSENGER,
RESIDENCE OF AYSPURA,
TALUKA AND DISTRICT BIDAR.
15. AZIA ALI
S/O RYASAT ALI,
AGE. 48 YEARS,
OCCUPATION ANIMAL ATTENDER,
RESIDENCE OF KAMTHANA,
TALUKA AND DISTRICT BIDAR.
16. SIMON
S/O MANIK,
AGE. 41 YEARS,
OCCUPATION MESSENGER,
RESIDENCE OF KOLAR (K),
TALUKA AND DISTRICT BIDAR.
17. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O BASAVARAJ,
AGE. 39 YEARS,
OCCUPATION ANIMAL ATTENDER,
RESIDENCE OF AYSPURA,
TALUKA AND DISTRICT BIDAR.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRAKASH BIRADAR FOR
SRI. MANJUNATH GINNI, ADVOCATES)
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54920
WP No. 201489 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010268482026
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF VETERINARY
AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY
AND FISHERIES,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. KARNATAKA VETERINARY ANIMAL
AND FISHERIES SCIENCES UNIVERSITY
NANDINAGAR, BIDAR-585401.
REPRESENTED BY
ITS VICE CHANCELLOR.
3. KARNATAKA VETERINARY ANIMAL
AND FISHERIES SCIENCES UNIVERSITY
NANDINAGAR,
BIDAR-565401.
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
4. THE DEAN,
KARNATAKA VETERINARY ANIMAL
AND FISHERIES SCIENCES UNIVERSITY,
NANDINAGAR, BIDAR – 564 401.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W
SRI. H.B. KESHAVA MURTHY, AGA FOR R-1;
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE R2 TO R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04-05-2024 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2. VIDE NO. KVAFSU-GEN / 40 / 2023-RGR AT
ANNEXURE-E, ONLY IN RESPECT OF PETITIONERS, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54920
WP No. 201489 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010268482026
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’
GROUP , THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioners seek the following reliefs:
“i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order
dated 04.05.2024 passed by the respondent No.2 vide
No.KVAFSU-GEN/40/2023-RGR at Annexure-E, only in
respect of petitioners, in the interest of justice and equity.
ii) Issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents to
consider the representation dated 20.04.2024 at Annexure-H
and direct the respondents to regularize the services of the
petitioners from the date of appointment along with all
consequential benefits, in the interest of justice and equity.
iii) Issue any writ or directions or orders as this Hon'ble
Court deems fit in circumstances of case in ends of justice.”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
AAG and learned AGA for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for
respondent Nos.2 to 4 and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the
petitioners have been working as Animal Attenders, Messengers,
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54920
WP No. 201489 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010268482026
etc. in the respondent Nos.2 to 4 – University and on 04.05.2024,
the respondent – University issued the impugned order at Annexure
– E calling upon them to execute a bond with an undertaking that in
the event the respondent – University were to appoint somebody
else to the post of the petitioners, the petitioners would voluntarily
surrender their post. Further, the representation of the petitioners
dated 20.04.2024 for regularisation having not been considered by
the respondents, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the
present petition.
4. Per contra, learned AAG and learned AGA for
respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4
submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is
liable to be dismissed.
5. A perusal of the material on record including prayer
No.(i) sought for in the present petition will indicate that insofar as
the impugned order at Annexure – E dated 04.05.2024 is
concerned, the same reads as under:
: ,
ಷಯ ಕ ಾಟಕ ಪಶು ೈದೕಯ ಪಶು ಾಗೂ ೕನುಾೆ ಾನಗಳ
ಶ ಾಲಯ ಮತು# ಧ ಅಂಗಸಂ(ೆ)ಗಳ*+ನ ಮಂಜೂ-ಾ. ಹು ೆ0ಗಳ
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54920
WP No. 201489 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010268482026
' ' ' ' ' '
ಎದು-ಾ2 3 4 ಮತು# 5 ವೃಂದ*+ನ ಹು ೆ0ಗ8ೆ ಕ9ಷ: ಮೂಲ ೇತನ
ಗು.# ೆ ೌಕರರ (ೇ ೆ ಪ=ೆಯುವ ಕು ತು.
: 1) : -315 2022,
ಉ@ೆ+ೕಖ ಸ ಾರ ಆ ೇಶ ಸಂCೆ ಪಸಂ ೕ ಇ ಪಅ(ೇ
, : 28 2023
EೆಂಗಳFರು G ಾಂಕ ೇ ಆಗHI
2) : KVAFSU-GEN / 40 / 2023-
ಈ ಕKೇ ಆ ೇಶ ಸಂCೆ
RGR/I/7957/2023 : 20-11-2023
G ಾಂಕ
3) : KVAFSU-GEN / 40 / 2023-
ಈ ಕKೇ ಆ ೇಶ ಸಂCೆ
RGR/I/8852/2024 : 07-02-2024
G ಾಂಕ
4) :KVAFSU-GEN / 40 / 2023-RGR
ಈ ಕKೇ ಆ ೇಶ ಸಂCೆ
/I/7295/2023 : 23/25-09-2023
G ಾಂಕ
5) : KVAFSU-GEN / 40 / 2023-
ಈ ಕKೇ LಪMN ಸಂCೆ
RGR/17512/2023 : 05-10-2023
G ಾಂಕ
6) : -10 2023 :
ಸ ಾರದ ಪತO ಸಂCೆ ಪಸಂ ೕ ಇ ಪಅ(ೇ G ಾಂಕ
9-11-2023
7) 111 :
ೇ ವ ವ(ಾ)ಪಕ ಮಂಡ8 ಸQೆಯ ನ=ಾವ8 G ಾಂಕ
28-12-2023
8) , ,
ಧ ಅಂಗಸಂ(ೆ)ಗಳ ಮುಖ ಸ)ರು ಕಪಪ ೕ 3ೕದರ ಇವರ
ಪO(ಾ#ವ ೆಗಳR
9) &
ಮುಖ ಚು ಾವTಾUಾ ಪದ9 ತ# ಸ ಾರದ ಾಯದV
: DPAR 01 MCC (Addl CEO)-1 : 2024
ಇವರ ಪತO ಸಂCೆ
16-3-2024
G ಾಂಕ
10) : : ( ):
ಶ ಾಲಯದ ಸುWೊ#ೕ@ೆ ಸಂCೆ ಕುಸ ಕಪಪ ೕ 3ೕ
: :202-24 : 16-3-2024
ಚು ಾವTಾ 9ೕ.ಸಂXWೆ G ಾಂಕ
11) :
ಹಣ ಾಸು 9ಯಂತOTಾU ಾಗಳ ಹಣ ಾ4ನ ಸಹಮ. G ಾಂಕ
17-04-2024
12) : 04-05-2024
Zಾನ ಕುಲಪ.ಗಳ ಆ ೇಶ G ಾಂಕ
:-
ಪO(ಾ#ವೆ ಪO(ಾ#ವೆ ಪO(ಾ#ವ ಪO(ಾ#ವೆ ೆ
(1) , ,
ಉ@ೆ+ೕಖ ರ ಸ ಾರದ ಆ ೇಶದಂWೆ ಕ ಾಟಕ ಪಶು ೈದೕಯ ಪಶು ಾಗೂ
ೕನುಾೆ ಾನಗಳ ಶ ಾಲಯ ಮತು# ಅಂಗಸಂ(ೆ)ಗ8 ೆ ಸ ಾರGಂದ ಮಂಜೂ-ಾ2
118
Cಾ* ಇರುವ Eೋಧ ೇತರ ಹು ೆ0ಗಳ ಎದು-ಾ2 ಹು ೆ0ಗ8ೆ ಕ9ಷ: ಮೂಲ ೇತನದ5
6 ( .100/-
ಗು.# ೆ ೌಕರೆ ೇ ೇತನ ಆ[ೕಗದ ಪ ಷ\ತ ಮೂಲ ೇತನವನು] ರೂ
) 179 :30-09-2023 26-03-2024
ಕ5ತ ೊ84 Gವಸಗ8 ೆ 4ೕ ತೊ84 G ಾಂಕ ಂದ
(2)&(3) .
ರವ-ೆ ೆ ಕ9ಷ: ಮೂಲ ೇತನ 9ೕಡಲು ಉ@ೆ+ೕಖ ರಂWೆ ಆ ೇಶ ೊರ5ಸ@ಾ2ತು#
ಮುಂದುವ-ೆದು ಸ ಾರGಂದ ಮಂಜೂ-ಾ2 Cಾ* ಇರುವ Eೋಧ ೇತರ ಹು ೆ0ಗಳ ಎದು-ಾ2
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54920
WP No. 201489 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010268482026
118 179
ಹು ೆ0ಗ8ೆ ಪ^ನಃ Gವಸಗ8 ೆ 4ೕ ತ ಾ2 ಕ9ಷ: ಮೂಲ ೇತನದ5 ಮಂಜೂ-ಾ.
118 179
Eಾ ಇರುವ Eೋಧ ೇತರ ಹು ೆ0ಗಳ ಎದು-ಾ2 ಹು ೆ0ಗ8ೆ ಪ^ನಃ Gವಸಗ8 ೆ
(8)
4ೕ ತ ಾ2 ಕ9ಷ: ಮೂಲ ೇತನದ5 ಗು.# ೆ ೌಕರರ (ೇ ೆ ಪ=ೆಯಲು ಉ@ೆ+ೕಖ ರಂWೆ
/
ಶ ಾಲಯ ಮತು# ಧ ಅಂಗಸಂ(ೆ)ಗಳ ಕKೇ ಗಳ ಮುಖ ಸ)ರು ಅನುಮ. ಾ2 ಸ*+4ರುವ
.
ಪO(ಾ#ವ ೆ 9 ತ# Zಾನ ಕುಲಪ.ಗಳ ಆ ೇಶದಂWೆ ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡ ಆ ೇಶ ೊರ5ಸ@ಾ2 ೆ
:
ಆ ೇಶ ಆ ೇಶ ಆ ಆ ೇಶ ೇಶ
, ,
ಪO(ಾ#ವ ೆಯ+ ವ4ರುವ ಅಂಶಗಳ X ೆ]@ೆಯ+ ಕ ಾಟಕ ಪಶು ೈದೕಯ ಪಶು
ಾಗೂ ೕನುಾೆ ಾನಗಳ ಶ ಾಲಯ ಮತು# ಅಂಗಸಂ(ೆ)ಗಳ*+ ಸ ಾರGಂದ
-1
ಮಂಜೂ-ಾ2 Cಾ ಇರುವ Eೋಧ ೇತರ ಹು ೆ0ಗಳ ಎದು-ಾ2 ಅನುಬಂಧ ರ+ Wೋ 4ರುವ
118 (2) & (3)
ಹು ೆ0ಗ8ೆ WಾWಾa*ಕ ಾ2 ಗು.# ೆ ೌಕರರನು] ಉ@ೆ+ೕಖ ರಂWೆ (ೇ ೆ
, (2)&(3)
ಪ=ೆಯ@ಾಗುತು# ಮುಂದುವ-ೆದು ಸದ ಉ@ೆ+ೕಖ ರ*+ ಾಯ9ವXಸು.#ರುವ ಗು.# ೆ
(9) , : 01-04-2024 179
ೌಕರರನು] ಉ@ೆ+ೕಖ ರ X ೆ]@ೆಯ*+ G ಾಂಕ ಂದ Gವಸಗ8 ೆ
( .100/-
4ೕ ತ ಾ2 ಅಥ ಾ ಮುಂGನ ಆ ೇಶದ ವ-ೆ ೆ ಕ9ಷ: ಮೂಲ ೇತನದ5 ರೂ
)
ಕ5ತ ೊ84 ಗು.# ೆ ೌಕರರ (ೇ ೆ ಪ=ೆಯಲು ಅ4#ತ ದ*+ರುವ ಾಯcಾನಗಳR ಮತು#
.
ಷರತು#ಗಳನು] ಅಳವ54 ೊಂಡು (ೇ ೆ ಪ=ೆಯಲು ಶ ಾಲಯ ಅನುಮ. 9ೕಡ@ಾ2 ೆ
: -1
ಲಗತು# ಅನುಬಂಧ
Note:
1. As and when the posts are filled-up on regular basis persons engaged
on Minimum Basic will be terminated and no further working
arrangements will be made.
2. Wages including EPF & ESI should be paid as sanctioned from time to
time.
3. Persons should be engaged by following the reservations policies of
Government of Karnataka.
4. Contractual workers should be engaged as per the prescribed
qualification of C & R of KVAFSU, Bidar.
5. No new persons shall be taken on contract without the approval of
university when the incumbent leaves the contract job.
6. Controlling Officers shall issue office order by name to contractual
employee engaged and execute contract agreement on Rs.50/-
e-Stamp paper (Format enclosed).
7. All related documents of contractual employee are to be maintained in
office of the respective controlling office.
" "
Zಾನ ಕುಲಪ.ಗ8ಂದ ಅನುdೕGಸಲMLI ೆ
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54920
WP No. 201489 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010268482026
6. A perusal of the aforesaid order at Annexure – E dated
04.05.2024 under which the respondent No.2 purported to call upon
the petitioners to execute a bond is clearly without jurisdiction or
authority of law, nor traceable to any statutory provisions and
consequently, the impugned order being illegal and arbitrary, the
same deserves to be quashed.
7. Insofar as prayer No.(ii) sought for by the petitioners is
concerned, under identical circumstances, this Court in the case of
Smt. Lakshmi Vs. Karnataka Veterinary Animal & Fisheries and
another – W.P.No.7911/2026 dated 30.09.2026 has held as
under:
“ORAL ORDER
“ In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
“a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari quashing the endorsement
bearing Ku.Sa/Ka.Pa.Pa.Me.Ve.Ve.: Kayam-Guttige
Noukara/2024-25/3338 dated 21.01.2025 (Annexure-A)
st
issued by the 1 respondent rejecting the claim of the
petitioner and other non-teaching staffs for considering
their service for regularization as the same being illegal
and contrary to law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs Umadevi
2006(4) SCC 1 and State of Karnataka & Others vs M.L.
Kesari & Others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247 and also
judgments of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.34001/2019
and W.A.No.1185/2021 and the recent decision
rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Jaggo Vs
UOI decided in SLP No.5580/2024;
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54920
WP No. 201489 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010268482026
b) Issue an writ, order or direction in the nature
st
of mandamus directing the 1 Respondent University to
regularize the service of the petitioner in the post of Lab
Assistant or Assistant as she is working against the
nd
sanctioned post at 2 Respondent Veterinary College
and further pay full salary equal pay for equal work and
allowances attached to the posts held by the petitioner
with effect from the time they appointed retrospectively
and give all consequential benefits flowing from the
same, in the interest of justice and equity.
c) Pass such other and favorable
relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to pass under the
circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and
equity.”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondents and perused the
material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate
that the petitioner, who was appointed as Lab Assistant in
the respondent – University on 03.10.2012 on contract
basis requested the respondents to regularise her services.
The said request of the petitioner for regularisation of her
services having been rejected by the respondents vide
impugned endorsement at Annexure – A dated 21.01.2025,
the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present
petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
reiterate the various contentions urged in the petition and
refer to the material on record and pointed out that persons
who were identically / similarly situated as that of the
petitioner viz., Nagendra and others approached this Court
in W.P.No.34001/2019, which was allowed and disposed of
in favour of the said persons vide final order dated
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54920
WP No. 201489 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010268482026
16.07.2021, whereby identical endorsement issued to the
said persons – writ petitioners was quashed by this Court,
which directed the respondent – University to consider the
case of the said writ petitioners for regularisation, bearing in
mind the observations made in the said order and the
judgments of the Apex Court referred to therein in the said
order. It was further submitted that aggrieved by the said
order dated 16.07.2021 passed in W.P.No.34001/2019, the
respondent – University approached the Hon’ble Division
Bench in W.A.No.1185/2021, which was dismissed by the
Hon’ble Division Bench vide final order dated 10.01.2022
and the same has attained finality and become conclusive
and binding upon the respondent – University. It is also
submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that
subsequently, the said writ petitioners instituted contempt
proceedings in CCC No.458/2022, which was disposed of
vide final order dated 27.07.2022 by the Hon’ble Division
Bench of this Court, aggrieved by which, the writ petitioners
approached the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5586/2024
(SLP(C) No.10123/2023) whereby the claim of the aforesaid
writ petitioners was upheld by the Apex Court and the
review petition filed by the respondent – University was
dismissed by the Apex Court. It is submitted that despite the
aforesaid facts and circumstances, the respondent –
University has erroneously rejected the request of the
petitioner for regularisation by issuing the impugned
endorsement, which deserves to be quashed and the
respondent – University be directed to regularise the
services of the petitioner.
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54920
WP No. 201489 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010268482026
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
–University would support the impugned endorsement and
submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is
liable to be dismissed.
6. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it
would be necessary to notice that in the case of Nagendra
and others Vs. Karnataka Veterinary Animal & Fisheries
Sciences University , the learned single judge of this Court
in W.P.No.34001/2019 dated 16.07.2021 has held as under:
“The petitioners in this writ petition have called in
question an endorsement dated 26.06.2019 whereby
the claim of the petitioners for regularization is turned
down by the respondent - Karnataka Veterinary Animal
& Fisheries Sciences University (‘University’ for short)
2. Heard Prof.Ravivarma Kumar, learned Senior
Counsel for Smt.Sharada Bai, learned counsel
appearing for petitioners and Sri.H.N.Shashidhar,
learned counsel appearing for respondent.
3. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of the petition
as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:
The University was newly established by
carving out from the University of Agricultural Sciences.
When the University began, a search was initiated for
smooth functioning of the University by recruiting
personnel. In furtherance of the said search, an order
was issued on 6-08-2005 seeking to fill up certain non-
teaching posts against sanctioned vacancies, but on
contract basis. The order dated 6-08-2005 reads as
follows:
“ORDER
In view of the difficulties experienced
by different officers of the University for filling
up of the sanctioned posts of the University in
respect of Non- teaching posts & the legal
problems involved, the following guidelines
are framed for engaging qualified Non-
teaching staff against the vacant posts on
work Contract basis:
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54920
WP No. 201489 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010268482026
1. At the first instance,
deployment of the staff within the constituent
units of the University may be made for the
vacant posts wherever possible.
2. Permission of the University
has to be obtained for filling up of the posts on
work contract basis.
3. The contract work may be
notified on the notice board giving all the
details of work, qualification prescribed etc.
for the Contract work prescribing the last date
for submission of applications.
4. With the help of a local
committee the requests shall be scrutinized
and a suitable person will be entrusted with
Contract work on lowest quotation basis not
exceeding 179 days at a time but renewable
by following above procedure.
5. The amount payable for the
Contract work should not be more than the
initial basic pay of the sanctioned vacant post.
6. Voucher may be obtained
from the Contract worker for the work carried
& the concerned officers have to certify the
satisfactory work done. The expenditure in
this regard shall be debitable for the
concerned salary heads for arranging the
payment.”
4. In terms of the said order, which was in the
form of a policy of appointment of non-teaching staff, a
notification was subsequently issued on 2-03-2016
calling for applications from eligible candidates for
appointment to non-teaching posts. This notification
resulted in selection process and appointment orders
being issued to the petitioners and the like and all the
petitioners were appointed on 11-03-2006 and onwards
and their services were continued in the University from
time to time. The dates of entry of all the petitioners are
as per the chart extracted hereunder:
Sl. Place of Date of initial
Name Post
No
. working appointment
Veterinary
1. Nagendra S.G Assistant College, 5.8.2005
Bengaluru
Veterinary
College,
Hassan
Dhananjaya Lab
2.
S.R. Assistant
20.10.200
9
Veterinary
3. Vimala K.K. Assistant College, 14.11.2007
Hassan
Veterinary
4. Kumari Jyothi Assistant 13.9.2004
College,
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54920
WP No. 201489 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010268482026
Bengaluru
Veterinary
5. Manikappa Assistant College, 23.04.2007
Bengaluru
Dairy
Science
College,
Bengaluru
6. Nawaz Pasha Assistant
14.06.2006
Office of
the
Comptroller
, KVA & FS
University,
Bidar
Sunil Kumar
7. Assistant
Patil
01.07.2005
Officer of
the
Comptroller
, KVA & FS
University,
Bidar
8. Someshwara Assistant
01.04.2005
Office of
the Estate
Officer,
KVA & FS
University,
Bidar
24.11.2005
9. Jaikishan Assistant
Office of
the Dean,
Veterinary
College,
Bidar
10
Parimala Assistant
.
01.02.2006
Office of
the Estate
Officer,
KVA & FS
University,
Bidar
11 Santhosh
Assistant
. Kumar
05.05.2007
Officer of
the Dean,
Veterinary
College,
Shimoga
12 Raghavendra
Assistant
. R.,
01.04.2007
Office of
the Dean,
Veterinary
College,
Shimoga
13 Messeng
Gnanesh B.,
. er
01.07.2007
In terms of the chart afore-extracted entry of the
petitioners into service of the University was on two
counts. At the outset, in terms of the order dated 6-08-
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54920
WP No. 201489 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010268482026
2005 and in furtherance of the Notification dated 2-03-
2006 which was against sanctioned vacant posts, as it
was a new University and the posts were all unfilled and
vacant the petitioners were appointed between
13.09.2004 and 20-10-2009. The petitioners, though
were appointed on contract basis were from time to time
continued with an artificial break for a day. The
continuance was either by passing an order to that effect
or again issuing a Notification and selecting these
petitioners only. Therefore, the petitioner had discharged
their duties with the artificial break of a day continuously
otherwise without any break.
5. On the ground that the petitioners were
appointed against sanctioned vacant posts and had been
in continuous employment for more than 10 years, they
registered their claim for regularization by submission of
representations. When those representations went
unheeded, the petitioners knocked the doors of this Court
in Writ Petition Nos. 30685-30704 of 2016. This Court by
its order dated 19-03-2019 directed consideration of
cases of petitioners for regularization in terms of
representations given by them. What became an order
of this Court dated 19-03-2019 was issuance of the
impugned endorsement declining to accept claims of
petitioners for regularisation. It is this order that is called
in question in this writ petition.
6. Learned senior counsel Prof. Ravi Verma
Kumar, appearing for the petitioners would vehemently
argue and contend that the petitioners do fulfill all the
conditions indicated in the judgment of the Apex Court in
the case of Umadevi which is reiterated in M.L.Kesari as
the petitioners were appointed after issuance of
notification and initiation of selection process against
sanctioned vacant posts. He would further submit that
the petitioners are all in continuous employment of the
University and would seek a mandamus at the hands of
this Court for regularization of their services in the
University.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondent Shri H.N.Shashidhara would refute the
contention of the learned senior counsel and would seek
to justify the impugned order on the ground that merely
because the petitioners were appointed and continued in
service would not mean that they are entitled for
regularization.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective learned counsel and
perused the material on record.
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54920
WP No. 201489 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010268482026
9. The factum of appointment and continuance of
petitioners in service is not in dispute. Before considering
cases of petitioners, a particular paragraph of the
statement of objections is germane to be noticed which
would clearly be a vindication to the contention of the
learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners. The
University at paragraph-3 of its statement of objections
averred as follows:-
“3. The first Petitioners were appointed
in the cadre of non-teaching staff on contractual
basis vide order dated 06.08.2005 in
No.0/GEN/KVAFSU/Appt/2004-05 at Annexure-
D to the writ petition. The Respondent
University issued the notification at Annexure -
D, since the Respondent University was
established under new Act called Karnataka
Veterinary Animal and Fisheries Sciences
University Act 2004. For immediate exigency
and for the smooth transition of the affairs of the
New University, the university thought that it is
appropriate to appoint persons on purely
contract basis. This is because the university
was not in a position to initiate appointment of
permanent staff as the same requires approval
by the Government of Karnataka, inviting
applications and process of selection, which will
be long drawn process. Hence these posts were
filled up on temporary basis by not exceeding a
maximum service limit of 179 days to the effect
that the work shall only be governed by the
contract.”
In terms of the afore-extracted paragraph of the
statement of objections, what becomes unmistakably
true is that the petitioners were appointed for smooth
functioning of the University against vacant sanctioned
posts. Having appointed the petitioners and utilized their
services to overcome the teaching problems of the
University as it was newly established, cannot now turn
around and say that they cannot consider cases of the
petitioners for regularization of their services. It is also
to be noticed that every trite that is required for a regular
appointment was undertaken by the University while
appointing the petitioners on contract basis. The
petitioners as stated hereinabove were appointed
pursuant to a selection process against sanctioned
vacant posts and have continued in employment for
more than 10 years.
10. It is, therefore, necessary for the
University to consider cases of petitioners bearing in
mind the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Umadevi and its aftermath. Therefore, the impugned
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54920
WP No. 201489 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010268482026
order referring to the conditions stipulated in Umadevi
to deny regularization of the services of the petitioners
will have to be re-considered in the light of the
observations made in the order. Every condition that is
found in the impugned order to deny regularization of
the services of the petitioners runs counter to the law
laid down either in the judgment of Umadevi or
subsequent judgments rendered to the judgment of the
Constitution Bench in Umadevi. All of which are
considered by this Court in writ petition No.80646/2011
in the case of SMT. G.P.SAROJAMMA VS. STATE OF
KARNATAKA AND OTHERS , disposed on 08.03.2021.
In the light of the preceding analysis, the endorsement
that denies regularization of the services of the
petitioners is rendered unsustainable.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) Impugned Endorsement dated 26.06.2019 -
Annexure ‘A’ is quashed.
(iii) The respondent- University is directed to
consider the cases of the petitioners for regularization
bearing in mind the observations made in the body of
the order, as also, the judgments rendered by the Apex
Court (supra).
(iv) The respondent - University shall consider and
pass appropriate orders within six months from the date
of receipt of the copy of this order.”
7. The respondent – University having filed an
appeal against the said order, the Hon’ble Division Bench
dismissed the said appeal in W.A.No.1185/2021 vide final
order dated 10.01.2022 as hereunder:
“This intra-Court appeal is filed by the appellant –
University challenging the order dated 16.07.2021
passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.34001/2019, whereby the writ petition filed by the
respondents herein has been allowed quashing the
endorsement dated 26.06.2019 at Annexure – A,
directing the appellant - University to consider the cases
of the respondents herein for regularization and to pass
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54920
WP No. 201489 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010268482026
appropriate orders within six months from the date of
receipt of the copy of the order.
2. Based on the order dated 06.08.2005
and the Notification dated 02.03.2006, issued by the
appellant – University respondents herein were
appointed for non-teaching posts against the sanctioned
vacant posts and their services were continued in the
appellant - University from time to time for more than 10
years. The details of the same are as under:-
Sl Place of Date of initial
Name Post
No. working appointment
Veterinary
1. Nagendra S.G Assistant College, 5.8.2005
Bengaluru
Veterinary
College, 20.10.2009
Hassan
Dhananjaya Lab
2.
S.R. Assistant
Veterinary
3. Vimala K.K. Assistant College, 14.11.2007
Hassan
Veterinary
4. Kumari Jyothi Assistant College, 13.9.2004
Bengaluru
Veterinary
5. Manikappa Assistant College, 23.04.2007
Bengaluru
Dairy Science
6. Nawaz Pasha Assistant College, 14.06.2006
Bengaluru
Office of the
Comptroller,
KVA & FS
University, Bidar
Sunil Kumar
7. Assistant
Patil
01.07.2005
Officer of the
Comptroller,
KVA & FS
University, Bidar
8. Someshwara Assistant
01.04.2005
Office of the
Estate Officer,
KVA & FS
University, Bidar
9. Jaikishan Assistant
24.11.2005
Office of the
Dean,
Veterinary
College, Bidar
10. Parimala Assistant
01.02.2006
Office of the
Estate Officer,
KVA & FS
University, Bidar
Santhosh
11. Assistant
Kumar
05.05.2007
Officer of the
Dean,
Veterinary
College,
Shimoga
Raghavendra
12. Assistant
R.,
01.04.2007
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54920
WP No. 201489 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010268482026
Office of the
Dean,
Veterinary
College,
Shimoga
13. Gnanesh B., Messenger
01.07.2007
3. W.P.Nos.30685-30704/2016 filed by
respondents herein seeking quashing of the Notification
dated 07.07.2015, whereby the appellant - University
had called for applications for recruitment inviting
applications from eligible candidates for various posts,
got disposed of by order dated 19.03.2019 reserving
liberty to the respondents herein to make fresh
representations seeking regularization. Pursuant to
which, the respondents herein submitted applications
seeking regularization of their services. The appellant -
University by an endorsement dated 26.06.2019 has
clarified that regularizing the respondents herein in their
respective posts is not permissible under law, against
which W.P.No.34001/2019 was filed by the respondents
herein before this Court seeking direction to the
appellant - University to regularize their services as
against the posts held by them and for quashing of the
said endorsement dated 26.06.2019. The learned Single
Judge by order dated 16.07.2021 having allowed the
writ petition quashing the endorsement dated
26.06.2019, this appeal is filed by the appellant -
University.
4. Learned counsel Smt. Vaishali Hegde
appearing for the appellant - University submitted that
the respondents herein were appointed between 2004
and 2009 with a clear understanding that their
appointments were temporary. A newly established
appellant - University was not in a position to make
permanent appointment at that point of time and hence,
the appointments were made on contractual basis as a
stop-gap arrangement till permanent appointments were
made after following due process of recruitment and
selection by getting the necessary approval from the
Government. Learned counsel submitted that appellant
- University has no power to regularize the services of
the respondents unless the Government approves the
same. In the absence of the Government arrayed as a
party to the proceedings, any decision taken by the
appellant - University would be futile exercise muchless
no decision could be taken by the appellant - University
in such matters. Having considered all these aspects in
the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of State of Karnataka & others Vs. Uma Devi
& others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, the appellant -
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54920
WP No. 201489 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010268482026
University has rejected the representations of the
respondents herein which has not been appreciated by
the learned Single Judge. Thus, the learned Single
judge has erred in directing the appellant - University to
consider the case of the respondents herein for
regularization on the basis of the Hon'ble Apex Court
decision in Uma Devi & others, supra. No
regularization dehorse the recruitment and selection
process could be made. The respondents cannot seek
for regularization by-passing Articles 14 and 15 of the
Constitution of India.
5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Ravivarma
Kumar representing the respondents submitted that the
respondents herein were appointed by the appellant -
University against the vacant posts since its inception
and are continued to work in non-teaching posts till
date. The ground now urged by the appellant -
University that it lacks competency to regularize the
services of the respondents is wholly untenable. Inviting
the attention of the Court to the order dated 12.08.2017
(Annexure – L) issued by the appellant - University with
respect to one Sri. M. Mallesh submitted that the said
daily wage employee who had left the services was
called and re-appointed with retrospective effect in
terms of the decision of the Management dated
01.04.2005. Appellant – University cannot act arbitrarily
discriminating the respondents for having extracted the
work from them against sanctioned vacancies. Though
the respondents have worked continuously for more
than ten years and fulfilled all the conditions indicated in
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Uma Devi & others, supra and Smt. G.P. Sarojamma
vs. The State of Karnataka and others
(W.P.No.80646/2011, D.D. 08.03.2021), appellant -
University denying the request of the respondents for
regularization was wholly untenable. Hence, the learned
Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition and the
same deserves to be confirmed by this Court.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for
the parties and perusing the material on record, we are
of the considered opinion that the appellant - University
has appointed the respondents on the basis of policy of
appointment for non-teaching staff against sanctioned
vacant posts and have continued in employment for
more than ten years. The ground of challenge that no
Government department is arrayed as a party to the
proceedings and appellant - University lacks
competency to regularize the services of the
respondents is not supported by any valid substantial
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54920
WP No. 201489 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010268482026
material. The endorsement dated 26.06.2019 issued by
the appellant - University is not based on the said
reasons. If any other employee like Sri. M. Mallesh
could be re-instated by the appellant - University, the
same yardstick is applicable in other cases also. It
cannot be cherry picked by the appellant - University to
suit the convenience inasmuch as its competency to
regularize the services of its employees. Even if such
financial approval is required, it is obligatory on the part
of the University to get such approval from the
concerned and the same cannot be raised as a ground
to reject the representation or challenge the order of the
learned Single Judge, more particularly, when no such
ground was taken in the writ proceedings. Hence, the
arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant -
University must fail.
7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Sheo Narain Nagar and others vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and another reported in (2018) 13 SCC 432
has categorically held that extracting work and not
regularizing the employees would be a form of
exploitation from the hands of the State. It is apt to refer
to the paragraph No.7 which reads as under:-
“7. When we consider the prevailing scenario, it is
painful to note that the decision in Uma Devi (3)
[State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1:
2006 SCC (L & S) 753] has not been properly
understood and rather wrongly applied by various
State Governments. We have called for the data in
the instant case to ensure as to how many
employees were working on contract basis or ad-
hoc basis or daily-wage basis in different State
departments. We can take judicial notice that widely
aforesaid practice is being continued. Though this
Court has emphasised that incumbents should be
appointed on regular basis as per rules but new
devise of making appointment on contract basis has
been adopted, employment is offered on daily wage
basis etc. in exploitative forms. This situation was
not envisaged by Uma Devi (supra). The prime
intendment of the decision was that the employment
process should be by fair means and not by back
door entry and in the available pay scale. That spirit
of the Uma Devi (supra) has been ignored and
conveniently overlooked by various State
Governments/ authorities. We regretfully make the
observation that Uma Devi (supra) has not be
implemented in its true spirit and has not been
followed in its pith and substance. It is being used
only as a tool for not regularizing the services of
incumbents. They are being continued in service
without payment of due salary for which they are
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54920
WP No. 201489 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010268482026
entitled on the basis of Article 14, 16 read with
Article 34 (1)(d) of the Constitution of India as if they
have no constitutional protection as envisaged in
D.S. Nakara v. Union of India [D.S. Nakara v. Union
of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305: 1983 SCC (L & S) 145 :
AIR 1983 SC 130] from cradle to grave. In heydays
of life they are serving on exploitative terms with no
guarantee of livelihood to be continued and in old
age they are going to be destituted, there being no
provision for pension, retiral benefits etc. There is
clear contravention of constitutional provisions and
aspiration of downtrodden class. They do have
equal rights and to make them equals they require
protection and cannot be dealt with arbitrarily. The
kind of treatment meted out is not only bad but
equally unconstitutional and is denial of rights. We
have to strike a balance to really implement the
ideology of Uma Devi (supra). Thus, the time has
come to stop the situation where Uma Devi (supra)
can be permitted to be flouted, whereas, this Court
has interdicted such employment way back in the
year 2006. The employment cannot be on
exploitative terms, whereas Uma Devi (supra) laid
down that there should not be back door entry and
every post should be filled by regular employment,
but a new device has been adopted for making
appointment on payment of paltry system on
contract/adhoc basis or otherwise. This kind of
action is not permissible, when we consider the pith
and substance of true spirit in Uma Devi (supra).”
8. In Chander Mohan Negi and others vs. State
of Himachal Pradesh and others reported in (2020) 5
SCC 732 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered the
schemes notified by the Government where there was a
condition that such appointees should not seek
regularization/absorption. Having considered the
services extended from time to time, in view of the
requirement of the State, and all the appointed teachers
having completed more than fifteen years of service, the
Hon’ble Apex Court directed regularization of such
teachers.
9. In the light of these judgments, the action of the
appellant – University in extracting the work from the
respondents for more than 10 years, appointing them on
contract basis for smooth functioning and thereafter
denying the regularization of their services is wholly
untenable. These aspects are extensively analyzed by
the learned Single Judge in arriving at a conclusion.
10. What is relevant for the appellant - University is
to examine the case of the respondents in the light of
the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Umadevi and
- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54920
WP No. 201489 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010268482026
others , supra. Having analysed these aspects in the
backdrop of the case as narrated hereinabove, learned
Single Judge has rightly held that the endorsement
dated 26.06.2019 (Annexure –A) issued by the
appellant - University is wholly unsustainable. We find
no jurisdictional error in the order impugned.
Appeal being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.
In view of the disposal of the appeal, all pending I.As.
stand disposed of accordingly.”
8. Subsequently, the successful writ petitioners in the
aforesaid petition in the case of Nagendra and others
initiated Civil Contempt proceedings in CCC No.458/2022,
which was disposed of by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this
Court vide final order dated 27.07.2022 as hereunder:
“This petition has been filed for non compliance
of the order dated 16.07.2021 passed in
W.P.No.34001/2019 by which the writ petition preferred
by the petitioners was disposed of with a direction to the
respondent - University to consider the case of the
petitioner for regularization of service bearing in mind the
observations made by the Supreme Court in SMT.UMA
DEVI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH', (2006) 4 SCC
1.
2. Learned Senior counsel for the
respondents while inviting the attention of this Court to
the averments made in the counter affidavit submitted
that the State Legislature has negated the Karnataka
State Civil Services (Prohibition and Absorption of
Services of the Employees or Establishments in Public
Sector into Public Services) Act, 2020. It is further
submitted that in view of Section 2(v), the Act applies to
the University and therefore, in view of the bar contained
in Section 3 of the Act about regularizing the services of
an employee, the accused has considered the case of
the petitioners and by an endorsement dated 06.05.2022
has informed the complainants that it is not possible to
accede to the prayer for regularization of services made
by the complainants. It is further submitted that the
directions contained in the order have been complied
with and the complainants are at liberty to take recourse
to such remedy as may be available to them in law with
regard to their grievance.
3. On the other hand, learned Senior
counsel for the complainants while inviting the attention
of this court to preamble of the Act as well as various
- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54920
WP No. 201489 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010268482026
provisions submitted that the Act in question does not
apply to the case of the complainants as the
complainants are the employees of the University. It is
further submitted that the University is an autonomous
University and is a government University. It is also
urged that the complainants have not been posted on
deputation to a Government department and the plea
taken by the accused that the services of the
complainants cannot be regularized in view of the
provisions of the Act is barred by constructive res
judicata.
4. We have considered the submissions
made on both sides by an interpretative process, the
accused cannot be held guilty of committing contempt of
this court. There is no element of willful disobedience on
the part of the respondents. We are therefore not
inclined to proceed further with this petition, the same is
accordingly disposed of with the liberty to the petitioners
to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to
them in law with regard to their grievance.
With the aforesaid liberty, petition is disposed
.”
of
9. Since the Hon’ble Division Bench came to the
conclusion that the respondent – University was not guilty of
the contempt, the said writ petitioners approached the Apex
Court in Civil Appeal No.5586/2024 (SLP (C)
No.10123/2023), which was disposed of by the Apex Court
vide final order on 30.04.2024 as hereunder:
“ORDER
Leave granted.
Heard learned senior counsel for the appellants
as also learned counsel for the respondents and
perused the appeal papers.
At the outset, though we note that the order
impugned herein is passed in a contempt petition
which was filed before the High Court of Karnataka and
the High Court has disposed of the contempt petition
through its order dated 27.07.2022 holding that there is
no willful disobedience and allowed the appellants
herein to take recourse to such remedy as may be
available to them, in our opinion, the matter is to be
looked into from the stage the proceedings had
commenced before the learned Single Judge.
- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54920
WP No. 201489 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010268482026
This is for the reason that learned counsel for the
respondents would, at the outset, contend that the
direction issued by the learned Single Judge was to
consider the case of the appellants and also that the
present endorsement issued to the appellants on
06.05.2022 invoking the provision of the Karnataka
State Civil Services (Prohibition of Absorption of
Services of the Employees of Establishments in Public
Sector into Public Services) Act, 2020 (For short `Act,
2020').
Insofar as the reliance placed on the said Act,
2020, we note that the same was neither brought to the
notice of the learned Single Judge nor the Division
Bench. Be that as it may, the facts and circumstances
involved in the instant case, are not akin to what is
contained in the said legislation.
In that background, a perusal of the order dated
16.07.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition No. 34001 of 2019 would indicate that when
the appellants were before the learned Single Judge in
the second round of litigation, after the direction issued
by the learned Single Judge on 19.03.2019 was not
processed in their favour, the learned Single Judge in
the present writ petition had referred in detail to the
rival contentions and also the decision of this Court in
the case of "Smt. Uma Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,
(2006) 4 SCC 1 and had taken note of the manner in
which the appellants have been appointed and on
taking note that such appointments were against
sanctioned vacancies that were available and as on
the date of consideration of the matter by the learned
Single they had already served for far more than ten
years, a positive mandamus was issued by the learned
Single Judge to consider the cases of the appellants
for regularization.
Though it is contended by the learned counsel for
the respondents that the direction was only to consider,
we are unable to agree with the learned counsel since
such direction for consideration simpliciter was made
only in the first order dated 19.03.2019.
In the present order while directing consideration,
the learned Single Judge, in fact, had further specified
that such consideration is to be made bearing in mind
the observations made in the body of the order. If that
be so, as already indicated in the body of the order, the
learned Single Judge, having adverted to the position
of law and the factual aspects, had arrived at the
conclusion that they are entitled to regularization and,
therefore, the direction was issued. The writ appeal
- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54920
WP No. 201489 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010268482026
filed by the Karnataka Veterinary Animal and Fisheries
Sciences University was dismissed by the Division
Bench on 10.01.2022. It is thereafter that the
endorsement on which reliance is placed by the
Karnataka Veterinary Animal and Fisheries Sciences
University was issued. Therefore, in the said factual
facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the
Division Bench of the High Court while considering the
contempt petition ought to have kept all these aspects
in mind and, thereafter, should have arrived at a
conclusion. Instead, the Division Bench arrived at the
conclusion that there was no willful disobedience,
which is not in accordance with law.
In normal circumstances, the appropriate course
would have been for this Court to set aside the order
dated 27.07.2022 and restore the contempt petition to
the High Court to proceed further in the matter.
However, we are of the opinion that the said course
need not be adopted in the instant facts and
circumstances, since the appellants have been
litigating for a long period of time and even subsequent
to the order passed by the learned Single Judge
directing regularization. They have been working in the
same capacity and their regularization has not been
considered. Therefore, though, at this juncture, we
express no opinion with regard to the contempt
proceedings in the present appeal, we direct that the
Karnataka Veterinary Animal and Fisheries Sciences
University shall regularize the services of the
appellants herein in the manner, as has been directed
by the learned Single Judge through the order dated
16.07.2021. The order of regularization of the services
of the appellants shall be issued to the appellants
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order.
The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.”
10. As can be seen from the aforesaid orders
passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, Division
Bench as well as the Apex Court, the claim of the writ
petitioners therein have been upheld and in pursuance of
the same, the respondent – University has regularised the
services of the said writ petitioners.
- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54920
WP No. 201489 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010268482026
11. At this stage, learned counsel for the
respondent – University submits that though the respondent
– University has regularised the services of the aforesaid
writ petitioners i.e, in the case of Nagendra and others as
stated supra, the State Government has not accepted the
regularisation nor is the State Government financially
supporting the respondent – University in respect of the said
persons. The said submission is placed on record.
12. A perusal of the impugned endorsement will
indicate that apart from the fact that the same is a cryptic,
laconic, non-speaking and unreasoned endorsement
without assigning any cogent or proper reasons as to why
the claim of the identically / similarly situated writ petitioner
was being rejected by the respondent – University, the
aforesaid orders passed by this Court and the Apex Court
as well as the undisputed fact that the respondent –
University has itself regularised the services of the writ
petitioners therein have not been adverted to much less
considered or appreciated by the respondent – University
while issuing the impugned endorsement, which deserves
to be quashed and the matter remitted back to the
respondent – University for reconsideration afresh and in
accordance with law.
13. In addition thereto, under identical
circumstances in the case of Sri. Venugopal P and others
Vs. The Principal Secretary and others –
W.P.No.13606/2023 and connected matter dated
- 28 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54920
WP No. 201489 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010268482026
13.11.2025 , the Co-ordinate bench of this Court quashed
the impugned endorsement and held as under:
“1. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions
seeking for the following reliefs:
In WP No. 13606/2023
"a) quash the endorsement issued by the
Respondent No.2 bearing No.R/Rect/casual/Labours/
Endorsement/ 2022-23 dated 31/03/2023 vide
Annexure-O, by issue of writ of certiorari,
b) To issue writ of mandamus, directing the
Respondents authority to consider representation dated
10/04/2023 made by the Petitioners vide Annexure-P, to
regularize their services in permanent nature with all
consequential benefits such as pension, arrears of
salary and other monetary benefits to the Petitioners.
c) To issue writ of mandamus, directing the
Respondents authorities to obey the Hon'ble High Court
order dated 30/09/2022 passed in WP No. 7633/2022
(S-RES) vide Annexure-M,
d) issue any appropriate writ, order or direction
as deemed fit in circumstances of the case in the
interest of justice."
In WP No. 13605/2023
"a) quash the endorsement issued by the
Respondent No.2 bearing No.R/Rect/casual/Labours/
Endorsement/ 2022-23 dated 31/03/2023 vide
Annexure-O, by issue of writ of certiorari,
b) To issue writ of mandamus, directing the
Respondents authority to consider representation dated
10/04/2023 made by the Petitioners vide Annexure-P, to
regularize their services in permanent nature with all
consequential benefits such as pension, arrears of
salary and other monetary benefits to the Petitioners.
c) To issue writ of mandamus, directing the
Respondents authorities to obey the Hon'ble High Court
order dated 30/09/2022 passed in WP No. 7634/2022
(S-RES) vide Annexure-M,
- 29 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54920
WP No. 201489 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010268482026
d) issue any appropriate writ, order or direction
as deemed fit in circumstances of the case in the
interest of justice."
2. The brief facts leading rise to the filing of this
petition are as follows:
The petitioners are stated to have joined the
service as a casual labourers working in the third
respondent Regional Research Station. It is submitted
that the petitioners have been working for more than 30
years and the second respondent has issued a
Circular/Notification dated 12.09.2014, whereby, the
second respondent has taken a decision that those
employees who joined after 01.07.1984 and have
completed 10 years as of 10.04.2006 could be
considered for extension of benefits under the
Karnataka Daily Wages Employees' Welfare Act, 2012.
The similarly placed employees approached this Court
in W.P Nos. 13263-13268/2017 as well as W.P
Nos.3194-3199/2018 and sought for the relief of
regularization. The said writ petitions came to be
allowed. Pursuant to the order passed in the said writ
petitions, the respondents were directed to consider the
representations made by the petitioners to the
University.
Further, it is also contented that the similarly
placed petitioners, filed a writ petition in W.P
No.34001/2019 and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
issued direction to consider the case of the petitioners
for regularization, keeping in mind the observation made
in the said order. Accordingly, the petitioners submitted
a representation for regularization. The respondents did
not consider the representation. The petitioners
approached this Court in WP No.7633/2022 and WP
No.7634/2022. This Court, vide order 30.09.2022,
disposed off the writ petitions directing the respondent-
University to consider the representation and pass the
necessary orders taking note of the observation made in
W.P No. 34001/2019 disposed of on 16.07.2021. After
the disposal of the said writ petitions, the petitioners
submitted a representation vide Annexure 'N' dated
30.12.2022 to the second respondent. The second
respondent issued an endorsement vide Annexure - 'O'
dated 31.03.2023, wherein the second respondent
rejected the representation submitted by the petitioners
for regularization. Hence, these writ petitions.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned AGA for respondent No.1 and learned counsel
for respondent No.2.
- 30 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54920
WP No. 201489 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010268482026
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the petitioners approached this Court in
W.P No.7633/2022 and W.P No.7634/2022, wherein
this Court, while disposing of the said writ petitions,
referred to the order passed in W.P No.34001/2019. He
submits that the petitioners in WP No. 34001/2019 filed
a contempt petition in C.C.C No.458/2022. When an
order was passed in the contempt proceedings, the
respondents in the contempt proceedings preferred Civil
Appeal No.5586/2024 before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
The Hon'ble Apex Court, vide order dated 30.04.2024,
disposed of the civil appeal directing the respondents to
regularize the service of the petitioners therein. He
submits that the petitioners are entitled for regularization
of service in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5586/2024. Hence, on
these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petitions.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for
respondent No.2 supported the impugned order and
submits that in view of the exposition of law laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF
KARNATAKA vs. UMA DEVI AND OTHERS reported in
AIR 2006 SC 1806, the respondent No.2 has rightly
rejected the representation. She also submits that
considering the provisions of the Karnataka State Civil
Services (Prohibition of Absorption of the Services of
the Employees of Establishments in Public Sector into
Public Services) Act, 2020, respondent No.2 has rightly
issued an endorsement. Hence, on these grounds, she
prays to dismiss the writ petitions.
6. The learned AGA for respondent No.1
adopted the arguments of the learned counsel for
respondent No.2.
7. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
8. There is no dispute that the petitioners are
working in the third respondent for last more than 30
years. The similarly placed petitioners filed a writ
petition in W.P No.34001/2019. The Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court directed the respondents to consider the
representations and pass an appropriate order.
Pursuant to the order passed in W.P No.34001/2019,
the respondents did not comply the order passed in the
aforesaid petition. The petitioners filed a contempt
petition in C.C.C No.458/2022. The contempt petition
was disposed of vide order dated 27.07.2022 holding
- 31 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54920
WP No. 201489 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010268482026
that there is no willful disobedience and allowed the
petitioners therein to take recourse to such a remedy as
may be available to them. The petitioners approached
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5586/2024.
The Hon'ble Apex Court, while disposing of the said
Civil Appeal, has observed, which reads as follows:
"However, we are of the opinion that the said
course need not be adopted in the instant facts and
circumstances, since the appellants have been
litigating for a long period of time and even
subsequent to the order passed by the learned Single
Judge directing regularization. They have been
working in the same capacity and their regularization
has not been considered. Therefore, though, at this
juncture, we express no opinion with regard to the
contempt proceedings in the present appeal, we
direct that the Karnataka Veterinary Animal and
Fisheries Sciences University shall regularize the
services of the appellants herein in the manner, as
has been directed by the learned Single Judge
through the order dated 16.07.2021. The order of
regularization of the services of the appellants shall
be issued to the appellants within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order."
9. The similarly placed petitioners filed the writ
petitions in W.P No.7633/2022 and W.P No.7634/2022.
The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the said
writ petitions and also referred to the order passed in WP
No.34001/2019, disposed of on 16.07.2021, directing the
respondents to consider the representation of the
petitioner for regularization of service. The respondents
have complied the order passed in W.P No.34001/2019.
The petitioners also stands on the same footing. The
petitioners are also entitled for the similar benefits on the
ground of parity. The impugned endorsement issued by
respondent No.2 is contrary to the order passed by this
Court in W.P No.34001/2019. The impugned order is
arbitrary and perverse and accordingly, the same is liable
to be set aside.
10. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
i) Writ Petitions are allowed.
ii) The impugned endorsements dated
31.03.2023 issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure -
'O' are hereby set aside.
iii) The respondents are directed to consider the
representation dated 10.04.2023 in terms of the order
passed by this Court in W.P No.34001/2019 within 8
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
- 32 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54920
WP No. 201489 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010268482026
Pending I.A's, if any, disposed of accordingly.”
14. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to quash the
impugned endorsement and direct the respondents to
consider the claim of the petitioner for regularisation bearing
in mind the earlier orders of this Court, as well as the Apex
Court and in accordance with law, within a stipulated time
frame.
15. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed .
(ii) The impugned endorsement at Annexure – A
st
dated 21.01.2025 issued by 1 respondent is hereby
quashed.
(iii) The respondents are directed to reconsider
the claim of the petitioner for regularisation bearing in mind
the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Nagendra
and others Vs. Karnataka Veterinary Animal & Fisheries
Sciences University - W.P.No.34001/2019 dated
16.07.2021 and confirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in
W.A.No.1185/2021 dated 10.01.2022 and the judgment of
the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5586/2024 (SLP (C)
No.10123/2023) as well as the observations made in the
body of this order and take appropriate decision / pass
appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iv) It is further directed that till the respondents
take appropriate decision / pass appropriate orders as
- 33 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54920
WP No. 201489 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010268482026
stated supra, the respondents shall not take any
precipitative / coercive steps against the petitioner.”
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I
deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition by issuing
certain directions.
9. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order at Annexure – E dated
04.05.2024 passed by respondent No.2 is hereby quashed.
(iii) Respondents are directed to consider the
representation of the petitioners at Annexure – H dated
20.04.2024 in terms of order passed in Smt. Lakshmi Vs.
Karnataka Veterinary Animal & Fisheries and another –
W.P.No.7911/2026 dated 30.09.2026.
(iv) If such a representation is submitted by the
petitioners, the concerned respondents shall consider the
same and take appropriate decision / pass appropriate
orders, within a period of six weeks from the date of
submission of such representation bearing in mind the
- 34 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54920
WP No. 201489 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010268482026
judgment of this Court in Lakshmi’s case supra and in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
SV
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 0