Karnataka HC Directs Authorities To Consider Ugarkhur[d] Attender And Data Entry Operator’s Regularisation Proposals Within 10 Weeks

Kareppa, employed as an Attender, and Dayanand, employed as a Data Entry Operator, sought approval of their posts and regularization of their services with the Town Municipal Council, Ugarkhurd.

In earlier proceedings, the High Court had set aside orders terminating their appointments and directed that they continue in their respective posts.

The petitioners relied on a municipal proposal dated 22 July 2025, which recommended regularization of four other employees, and on a 10 March 2025 order of the Panchayat Raj Commissioner.

The Zilla Panchayat submitted that, following the upgrading of the Gram Panchayat to a Town Municipal Area, the Deputy Commissioner and District Urban Development Cell were the authorities competent to act on regularization.

The petitions invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Court directed that the regularization proposal be considered in light of the latest law laid down by the Supreme Court concerning employees who have served for more than ten years, and the Division Bench judgment in W.A. No. 100680 of 2025, disposed of on 16 October 2026.

The order does not identify the Supreme Court decision or set out its specific test; it therefore establishes no independent entitlement to regularization, but requires the competent authority to assess the proposal under the applicable law.

The Court noted the earlier orders protecting the petitioners’ continuation in their posts, but did not treat those orders or the proposal for other employees as sufficient grounds to order approval or regularization directly.

Because the Gram Panchayat had been upgraded to a Town Municipal Area, and the Zilla Panchayat’s counsel identified the Deputy Commissioner and District Urban Development Cell as the authorities competent to act, the Court directed that the proposal be forwarded to those authorities for consideration under the governing law.

The concerned authority must forward the proposal to the Deputy Commissioner and District Urban Development Cell within three weeks; those authorities must consider it within the following seven weeks, having regard to the applicable Supreme Court law and the cited Division Bench judgment. A compliance report must then be filed with the Court Registry.