Absence of a sanctioned post does not bar consideration of long-serving daily wagers for regularization.

The petitioners stated that they had been appointed on daily-wage basis as Waterman-Cum-Bill Collectors or in related municipal posts under the fifth respondent, City Municipal Council, Koppal, in 1999, and had continued in service.

In 2016, this Court directed consideration of regularization claims brought by certain co-workers.

The Council later recommended the petitioners’ cases for regularization, but an endorsement dated 18 March 2017 rejected the recommendation on the ground that the requirements in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi were not satisfied.

After a further representation dated 18 September 2025, the Council recommended their cases again on 3 October 2025; the recommendation remained unconsidered.

The petitioners sought quashing of the 2017 endorsement and a direction for regularization.

1. Whether the endorsement dated 18 March 2017 rejecting the petitioners’ regularization recommendation should be quashed.

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioners’ cases for regularization in light of the cited decisions.

The Court referred to Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, concerning the limits on regularizing public employment and the conditions relevant to such claims.

It also cited Akhil Bharatiya Soshith Karamchari Mahasangh v. Union of India, State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, Jaggo v. Union of India, and Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. in addressing regularization claims and the objection that the posts were not sanctioned.

The Court did not order automatic regularization; it directed the authorities to consider the claims in light of the cited decisions.

The Court noted that the 2017 endorsement had rejected the recommendation by reference to Uma Devi, and that the petitioners’ later representation and the Council’s renewed recommendation had not been considered.

Referring to its order in W.P. No. 102097 of 2025 and the Supreme Court decisions cited there, the Court concluded that the objection concerning the absence of sanctioned posts should not, by itself, prevent consideration of the petitioners’ claims.

It therefore required a fresh consideration under the applicable principles rather than itself determining that the petitioners were entitled to regularization.

The Court issued a mandamus directing respondents 1 to 5 to consider the petitioners’ cases for regularization, keeping in view the cited Supreme Court and High Court decisions, within six weeks.

The Court also directed the matter to be listed for reporting compliance on 16 November 2026.