Karnataka HC Orders Fresh Review Of 14 University Contract Workers’ Regularisation Claims, Says 2020 Absorption Law Does Not Apply

The petitioners, non-teaching staff working for the respondent University on contract, sought regularisation and related salary benefits.

The University rejected their representation by endorsement dated 6 May 2022, relying solely on the Karnataka State Civil Services (Prohibition of Absorption of the Services of the Employees of Establishments in Public Sector into Public Service) Act, 2020.

The petitioners challenged that endorsement under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Court noted that the endorsement did not give any other reason for rejecting their claim.

The Court considered the 2020 Act, which prohibits absorption of employees of establishments in the public sector into public service; it held that the Act did not apply to these petitioners, who were not seeking absorption into State Public Service.

It relied on Nagendra and Others v. Karnataka Veterinary Animal & Fisheries Sciences University, W.P. No. 34001/2019, affirmed in W.A. No. 1185/2021, and the Supreme Court’s order in Civil Appeal No. 5586/2024, which addressed regularisation claims by similarly situated University employees.

The Court also referred to Smt. Lakshmi v. Karnataka Veterinary Animal and Fisheries Sciences University, W.P. No. 7911/2026, and Sri Venugopal P. and Others v. Principal Secretary and Others, W.P. No. 13606/2023 and connected matter.

The governing principle was that the University must consider the petitioners’ claims in accordance with law and in light of those decisions; the Court did not itself grant regularisation in this petition.

The University’s stated basis for rejection—the 2020 Act—was inapplicable to the petitioners, a position its counsel conceded.

The endorsement was therefore legally unsustainable on that ground.

Further, it was a non-speaking decision that did not address the earlier decisions concerning similarly situated employees or the University’s treatment of those employees’ claims.

The Court accordingly set the endorsement aside and directed reconsideration, rather than ordering regularisation outright.

The University was directed to reconsider the petitioners’ regularisation claims, having regard to Nagendra, the Division Bench decision, the Supreme Court’s order in Civil Appeal No. 5586/2024, and Lakshmi, and to pass appropriate orders within six weeks of receiving the Court’s order.

Pending that decision, the respondents were restrained from taking precipitative or coercive steps against the petitioners; the parties were also left at liberty to pursue other remedies available in law.