JAYANANDA M PADIL vs MANGALORE UNIVERSITY

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61655
WP No. 7485 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010211822015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO. 7485 OF 2015 (S-REG)
BETWEEN:
1.
JAYANANDA M PADIL
S/O BABU MOOLYA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
ATTENDER, DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS
MANGALAGANGOTHRI-574 199
MANGALORE UNIVERSITY
DAKSHINA KANNADA DITRICT
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. N. SHESHADRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
PRAKASH N
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. MANGALORE UNIVERSITY
MANGALAGANGOTHRI-574 199
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
2. THE SECRETARY,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVT. OF KARNATAKA,
ROOM NO.762, 2ND GATE, 7TH FLOOR,
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T P RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. ASHVINI PATIL, AGA FOR R2)

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61655
WP No. 7485 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010211822015
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER / ENDORSEMENT DTD.1.3.2010 ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ORDER / ENDORSEMENT
DTD.22.3.2011 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-M
RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner who is stated to be working with the
Mangalore University has filed the present petition seeking
for setting aside the endorsements at Annexures-J and M
and has sought for direction to the respondent to
regularize services of the petitioner in the post of Attender
or any other equivalent cadre with benefits to be extended
after 10 years of service.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has
completed his SSLC course and had been engaged on
monthly honorarium initially in the Mangalore University in
terms of Annexure-C. It is further submitted that the
petitioner had joined duty in terms of Annexure-D on

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61655
WP No. 7485 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010211822015
02.11.1995. The petitioner has also placed on record the
attendance records. The petitioner has also relied on a
testimony issued by the Reader and Chairman of
Department of Post-Graduate Studies and Research in
Electronics, of Mangalore University regarding the
satisfactory services being rendered by the petitioner.
3. The petitioner submits that his request for
regularization had been rejected in terms of the
endorsement dated 01.03.2010 at Annexure-J. In terms of
the endorsement at Annexure-J, it is the stand of the
University that the petitioner had been engaged on
outsource basis and accordingly, his services cannot be
regularized.
4. The petitioner has also sought for setting aside
the endorsement at Annexure-M, whereby the
endorsement dated 22.03.2011 has reiterated the earlier
endorsement of 01.03.2010 that petitioner's services have

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61655
WP No. 7485 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010211822015
been engaged on outsource basis and they cannot be
regularized.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent - University
has filed statement of objections and has contended that
the petitioner's service has been engaged initially in
relation to a certain project of the UGC and on such terms
had been engaged between 02.11.1995 to 30.11.1999. It
is further made out from the objections that the
petitioner's services were engaged subsequently between
01.12.1999 to 30.06.2006 on humanitarian grounds under
the 'Self-Financing Scheme'.
6. It is averred in the statement of objections that
the respondent after audit objections have been raised on
15.07.2005, the petitioner's services have been engaged
on an outsource basis from July-2006 onwards.
7. It is further averred in the statement of
objections that the University has not appointed the

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61655
WP No. 7485 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010211822015
petitioner directly and that there are restrictions for
appointment which cannot be made except as provided
under the Cadre and Recruitment Rules and without taking
note of the restrictions as may be found under the
provisions of the Karnataka State Universities Act.
8. Heard both sides.
9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's services
which initially were engaged on 02.11.1995 has continued
till date and admittedly the petitioner has been working for
about 31 years. The facts made out in the statement of
objections itself, are testimony to the engagement of the
petitioner though under different capacities. It is only after
2005 it appears that the University has engaged the
services of the petitioner through outsource basis.
10. A perusal of the endorsements issued at
Annexure-J dated 01.03.2010 would reveal that the
question of considering regularization would not arise in

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61655
WP No. 7485 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010211822015
light of petitioner being engaged through outsource
agency. Similarly the endorsement at Annexure-M also is
on the same lines.
11. Insofar as the legal position is concerned, the
Apex Court in the case of Jaggo v. Union of India and
Others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 while
noticing the contention of the employees that their long
and continuous service be recognised and having taken
note of submission of both sides, has made observations
at para 25 as follows:
"25. It is a disconcerting reality that
temporary employees, particularly in government
institutions, often face multifaceted forms of
exploitation. While the foundational purpose of
temporary contracts may have been to address
short-term or seasonal needs, they have
increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-
term obligations owed to employees. These
practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of “Temporary” Labels:
Employees engaged for work that is essential,

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61655
WP No. 7485 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010211822015
recurring, and integral to the functioning of an
institution are often labeled as “temporary” or
“contractual,” even when their roles mirror those
of regular employees. Such misclassification
deprives workers of the dignity, security, and
benefits that regular employees are entitled to,
despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary
employees are frequently dismissed without cause
or notice, as seen in the present case. This
practice undermines the principles of natural
justice and subjects workers to a state of constant
insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of
their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary
employees often find themselves excluded from
opportunities for skill development, promotions,
or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant
in their roles, creating a systemic disparity
between them and their regular counterparts,
despite their contributions being equally
significant.
• Using Outsourcing as a Shield:
Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing
roles performed by temporary employees,

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61655
WP No. 7485 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010211822015
effectively replacing one set of exploited workers
with another. This practice not only perpetuates
exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate
effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular
employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits:
Temporary employees are often denied
fundamental benefits such as pension, provident
fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even
when their tenure spans decades. This lack of
social security subjects them and their families to
undue hardship, especially in cases of illness,
retirement, or unforeseen circumstances."
Clearly the Apex Court has voiced the view of
institutions increasingly resorting to outsourcing roles to
be performed by temporary employees, thereby replacing
one set of exploited workers with another.
12. It is further clear from the observations of the
Apex Court that the Apex Court has frowned upon such
practice of outsourcing used as a shield and has further
observed that allowing such practices would perpetuate

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61655
WP No. 7485 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010211822015
exploitation and would demonstrate a deliberate effort to
bypass obligation to offer regular employment.
13. Subsequently, the Apex Court in the case of
Dharam Singh and Others v. State of UP and Another
reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1735 has reiterated
the above stand in Jaggo's case and the observations at
para 13 reads as follows:
"13 . As we have observed in both Jaggo
(Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot
become a convenient shield to perpetuate
precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement
practices where the work is inherently perennial.
The Commission's further contention that the
appellants are not “full-time” employees but
continue only by virtue of interim orders also
does not advance their case. That interim
protection was granted precisely because of the
long history of engagement and the pendency of
the challenge to the State's refusals. It neither
creates rights that did not exist nor erases
entitlements that may arise upon a proper
adjudication of the legality of those refusals."
In light of the above, the impugned endorsements
rejecting regularization only on the ground of outsourcing
are required to be set aside.

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61655
WP No. 7485 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010211822015
14. Taking note that the University would contend
that in terms of the relevant statutes and legislation, the
approval of the State Government may also be required
before any proceedings are culminated, it would be
appropriate that certain directions be passed including as
regards the Government.
15. Taking note of admitted factual position as would
emanate from the statement of objections clearly the
petitioner has been in the services in different capacities
even as per the say of the University under a project
under Self-Financing Scheme and Outsourcing right from
1999 from 02.11.1995.
16. In terms of the statement of objections filed by
the University, the initial engagement of the petitioner
under the project was from 02.11.1995 which extended
upto 03.11.1999 and after the project period he was
engaged on temporary basis from 01.12.1999 to
30.06.2006 and only after audit objections have been

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61655
WP No. 7485 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010211822015
raised as referred to at para 4 of the statement of
objections, it appears that subsequently from July, 2006
petitioner has been engaged though on outsource basis.
17. In light of the discussion made above, the
engagement of the petitioner on outsource by itself would
not be a disqualification to consider case of regularization.
Other aspects to be taken note of by the University which
is to make appropriate report and seek for approval of the
Government and in its reports set forth all relevant criteria
for the purpose of regularization. The Government then
would have to pass appropriate orders taking note of the
law laid down by the Apex Court. Both entities cannot lose
sight of the fact that petitioner has been engaged with the
University from 02.11.1995 and continues to work
admittedly though in various different capacities serving
the University till date. The service rendered for 31 years
cannot be lost sight of. Further, both the respondents
were dutybound at various points of time when sanctioned

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61655
WP No. 7485 of 2015
CNR: KAHC010211822015
posts were filled up to have taken steps to have
accommodated services of the petitioner, and there is no
material to demonstrate such action having been taken.
18. In light of the above discussion, the
endorsements at Annexure-J and M are set aside. The
Respondent No.1 - University and Respondent No. 2 are
directed to consider the case of the petitioner for
regularization and pass appropriate orders within a period
not later than three months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of the order. In the event of any practical
difficulties, extension of time must be sought for before
this Court.
Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of in
terms of the above directions.
Sd/-
(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
MCR/NP
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5