Court expunges the Uma Devi reference, directing authorities to decide the matter in light of the State’s paragraph 8 reply.

The ten applicants, formerly Class IV employees in the ex-Ministerial Private Establishment on a co-terminus basis and presently unemployed, filed the present MCC seeking modification of the operative portion of paragraph 7 of the order dated 3 August 2026 passed in WPS No. 1730 of 2025 and connected matters.

The earlier order directed the State authorities to take an appropriate decision concerning the applicants in light of the State’s reply in paragraph 8 and “the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi”.

The applicants submitted that, in a meeting held on 24 September 2024, the General Administration Department had already decided that the principles in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi were not applicable to their regularisation.

They therefore sought deletion or modification of the reference to Uma Devi from paragraph 7.

Whether the reference to “the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi” in the operative portion of paragraph 7 of the order dated 3 August 2026 should be deleted or modified in light of the State’s prior decision that Uma Devi was inapplicable to the applicants’ regularisation claim?

Whether the operative portion of paragraph 7 should be substituted to limit the direction to consideration of the State’s reply in paragraph 8 within a specified period?

The Court applied the principle that an operative direction in a previous order may be modified where the record and the circumstances justify correction or clarification of the relief granted.

The Court also considered the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Uma Devi & Ors., but, on the applicants’ submissions regarding the State’s prior administrative decision, removed the express reference to that decision from the operative direction.

No independent statutory provision or additional precedent was relied upon in the order.

The Court accepted that the General Administration Department had already considered the applicability of Uma Devi and had concluded that it did not govern the applicants’ regularisation claims.

In those circumstances, retaining an express direction requiring consideration of Uma Devi could create inconsistency with the State’s own recorded position.

Having considered the submissions and the record, the Court held that the prayer for modification deserved to be allowed.

It accordingly substituted paragraph 7 so that the authorities were required only to take an appropriate decision in light of the State’s reply in paragraph 8, without the deleted reference to Uma Devi, and within four months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

The operative portion of paragraph 7 of the order dated 3 August 2026 in WPS No. 1730 of 2025 was modified to direct the respondent authorities to take an appropriate decision in light of the State’s reply in paragraph 8 within four months from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

All other portions of the earlier order remained unaltered.

The MCC was disposed of, and the present order was directed to be made part of the record in WPS No. 1730 of 2025.