Karnataka HC Says 2020 Absorption Ban Doesn’t Apply To 38 KVAFSU Contract Staff, Orders Fresh Review Of Regularisation Claims

The petitioners were non-teaching employees of the Karnataka Veterinary, Animal and Fisheries Sciences University (“University”), appointed on contract against sanctioned posts.

They challenged the University’s endorsement dated 6 May 2022 rejecting their representation for regularisation, on the stated ground 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 their claim.

The petitioners relied on the High Court’s decision in *Nagendra* and subsequent appellate orders, including the Supreme Court’s direction concerning the employees in that case.

The State and the University accepted that the 2020 Act did not apply to the petitioners and that the endorsement gave no other reason for rejecting their claim.

Petitioners 17 and 20 had been deleted, and the petition was dismissed as withdrawn in respect of them.

Sections 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(ii) of the 2020 Act restrict proceedings and enforcement of orders for absorption into public service; the Court held that those provisions did not apply to these petitioners, who were not seeking absorption into State Public Service.

In *Nagendra v. Karnataka Veterinary Animal & Fisheries Sciences University*, W.P. No. 34001/2019, affirmed in W.A. No. 1185/2021, the High Court directed the University to consider the employees’ regularisation claims in light of *Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi* and related authorities.

In Civil Appeal No. 5586/2024, the Supreme Court directed regularisation of the appellants in *Nagendra* in the manner specified by the Single Judge.

The Court also relied on its decision in *Smt. Lakshmi v. Karnataka Veterinary Animal & Fisheries Sciences University*, W.P. No. 7911/2026, and the principle that comparable claims must be considered consistently with the applicable prior orders.

The endorsement relied on the 2020 Act as the sole reason for rejecting the petitioners’ representation. The Court held that this ground was legally unavailable because the Act’s restrictions on absorption into State Public Service did not cover the petitioners’ claim.

It further observed that the University had not considered the prior decisions concerning similarly situated employees, including *Nagendra* and the Supreme Court’s subsequent order, or explained why the petitioners’ claims should be treated differently.

The Court therefore set aside the endorsement and ordered reconsideration, rather than itself granting regularisation.

The respondents were also restrained from taking precipitative or coercive steps against the petitioners pending that decision, with liberty reserved to pursue other remedies available in law.