Karnataka HC Orders Fresh Review Of 4 Veterinary University Contract Workers’ Regularisation Claims, Says 2020 Absorption Ban Doesn’t Apply

The petitioners, who worked in various non-teaching roles at the respondent University on a contractual basis, sought regularisation and related salary benefits.

After their representation dated 2 February 2022 was rejected by an endorsement dated 6 May 2022, they challenged that decision under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

The University’s stated ground for rejection was that the Karnataka State Civil Services (Prohibition of Absorption of the Services of the Employees of Establishments in Public Sector into Public Service) Act, 2020 barred regularisation.

At the hearing, the University conceded that the Act did not apply to the petitioners and that the endorsement gave no other reason for rejecting their claim

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

The Court relied on *Nagendra v. Karnataka Veterinary Animal & Fisheries Sciences University*, W.P. No. 34001/2019 (16 July 2021), affirmed in W.A. No. 1185/2021 (10 January 2022), and the Supreme Court’s order in Civil Appeal No. 5586/2024 (30 April 2024), concerning the University’s consideration and regularisation of similarly situated contractual employees

It also took account of *Smt. Lakshmi v. Karnataka Veterinary Animal and Fisheries Sciences University*, W.P. No. 7911/2026 (30 September 2026)

The endorsement rested solely on the 2020 Act, which the University accepted was inapplicable to the petitioners.

The Court found that the endorsement also failed to address the prior orders concerning similarly situated University employees and was therefore unsustainable.

In light of those decisions, the Court directed reconsideration of the petitioners’ claim in accordance with law, rather than itself ordering regularisation

The University was directed to reconsider the petitioners’ regularisation claims, taking account of *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 University was restrained from taking precipitative or coercive steps against the petitioners; liberty was reserved to pursue other remedies available in law