Facts
The petitioner claimed that he was appointed as a daily-wage Sweeper at Karnataka College in 1996–97 and thereafter worked as a monthly-rated employee against a sanctioned vacant post.
Source reference: pp. 4–5He sought regularisation by representations dated 24 October 2007 and 29 December 2010, asserting that he had completed ten years of uninterrupted service.
Source reference: pp. 4–5The University sought service particulars in 2008, but the representations remained undecided.
Source reference: pp. 4–5The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking consideration of his representations, regularisation, and consequential service and monetary benefits.
Source reference: pp. 4–5Issues
1. Whether the respondents should be directed to consider the petitioner’s representations seeking regularisation of his services
Source reference: pp. 3–5, 7–82. Whether the petitioner was entitled in this petition to a direct order of regularisation and consequential benefits
Source reference: pp. 3, 7–8Law Applied
The Court relied on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, AIR 2006 SC 1806, as the governing Supreme Court authority concerning regularisation of public employment.
Source reference: p. 5It also referred to Ramesh v. Director, Directorate of Municipal Administration, W.P. No. 102979 of 2024, decided on 16 September 2026, where the Court had directed consideration of a regularisation representation in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
Source reference: pp. 5–7The present order does not set out a separate test for regularisation; it requires the competent authorities to decide the representations in accordance with the applicable law.
Source reference: pp. 5–7Reasoning
The petitioner’s claim of long and uninterrupted service and his pending representations raised a matter requiring consideration by the respondents.
Source reference: pp. 5–8Relying on Uma Devi and its prior decision in Ramesh, the Court directed the authorities to consider both representations under the applicable law.
Source reference: pp. 5–8It did not determine whether the petitioner satisfied the legal requirements for regularisation, nor did it grant regularisation or consequential benefits.
Source reference: pp. 5–8Holding
The writ petition was allowed to the limited extent that the respondents were directed to consider the representations dated 24 October 2007 and 29 December 2010 in accordance with the Supreme Court’s law on regularisation, within twelve weeks.
The Court ordered the matter to be listed on 7 December 2026 for reporting compliance; it did not grant the requested regularisation or consequential benefits.
Source reference: p. 8Original Court PDF
SHRI. SHEKHARAPPA S/O SANGAPPA MARIKATTIvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
