Karnataka HC Orders Fresh Review Of University Contract Worker’s Regularisation Plea, Finding 2020 Absorption Ban Inapplicable To Him

The petitioner claimed that he had worked as an Assistant Comptroller Officer at the Karnataka Veterinary, Animal and Fisheries Sciences University (KVAFSU) on a contractual basis against a sanctioned post since 2005.

After his representations seeking regularisation were rejected by the University, he challenged the rejection endorsement dated 18 April 2022 and sought consideration of his claim.

The endorsement relied 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 State and University respondents acknowledged that the Act did not apply to the petitioner and that the endorsement gave no other reason for rejecting his claim.

The Court considered the Karnataka State Civil Services (Prohibition of Absorption of the Services of the Employees of Establishments in Public Sector into Public Service) Act, 2020, including Section 3(1)(i) and (ii), which bars proceedings seeking absorption into public service; it held that the Act did not apply to this petitioner’s claim for regularisation within KVAFSU.

The Court also 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 of similarly situated University workers.

It further considered the Court’s decision in Smt. Lakshmi v. Karnataka Veterinary Animal and Fisheries Sciences University, W.P. No. 7911/2026.

The impugned endorsement relied solely on the 2020 Act. The respondents conceded that the Act did not apply, and the Court held that its bar concerned absorption into State public service, not the petitioner’s claim for regularisation within the University.

The Court also found that the endorsement did not address the relevant decisions concerning similarly situated University employees, including the directions in Nagendra and the Supreme Court’s subsequent order. Given the inapplicable statutory ground and the failure to consider those decisions, the endorsement could not stand; the proper course was to remit the claim for reconsideration rather than directly order regularisation.

The respondents were directed to reconsider the petitioner’s regularisation claim in light of Nagendra, the Division Bench decision in W.A. No. 1185/2021, the Supreme Court’s order in Civil Appeal No. 5586/2024, and the Court’s decision in Lakshmi, and to pass appropriate orders within six weeks of receiving the order.

The respondents were also directed not to take precipitative or coercive steps against the petitioner pending that decision.