Karnataka HC Quashes Veterinary University Bond Requiring 17 Contract Workers To Vacate Posts For Regular Appointees, Orders Fresh Consideration Of Regularisation Plea

The petitioners worked as Animal Attenders, Messengers and in similar posts at the Karnataka Veterinary, Animal and Fisheries Sciences University.

By order dated 4 May 2024, the University authorised their engagement on minimum basic pay and required them to execute agreements containing conditions including that they would surrender their posts if regular appointments were made.

The petitioners challenged that order and sought consideration of their representation for regularisation.

They also relied on the High Court’s decision in Smt. Lakshmi v. Karnataka Veterinary Animal & Fisheries and Another, W.P. No. 7911 of 2026, dated 30 September 2026, which had directed reconsideration of a similar regularisation claim.

1. Whether the University’s order requiring the petitioners to execute agreements containing conditions for surrender of their posts was without jurisdiction or authority of law.

2. Whether the petitioners’ representation seeking regularisation should be considered in light of the decision in Smt. Lakshmi.

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to review administrative action and grant appropriate relief where an order is unlawful or arbitrary.

The Court held that the impugned condition requiring the petitioners to surrender their posts was not traceable to any statutory provision and was issued without jurisdiction or authority of law.

For the regularisation claim, the Court directed consideration in terms of Smt. Lakshmi, which relied on prior decisions concerning similarly situated University employees, including Nagendra and Others v. Karnataka Veterinary Animal & Fisheries Sciences University, W.P. No. 34001 of 2019, the Division Bench’s decision in W.A. No. 1185 of 2021, and the Supreme Court’s order in Civil Appeal No. 5586 of 2024.

The present judgment did not itself hold that the petitioners were entitled to regularisation.

The Court found that the University had imposed the surrender condition through the 4 May 2024 order without identifying any statutory authority for doing so; it therefore treated the order as unlawful and liable to be quashed.

As to regularisation, rather than granting that substantive relief, the Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioners’ representation in terms of Smt. Lakshmi and in accordance with law.

The respondents were directed to consider the petitioners’ representation dated 20 April 2024 in terms of Smt. Lakshmi; if the representation is submitted, they must decide it within six weeks, bearing that judgment in mind and acting in accordance with law.