The sugar factory must consider regularisation claims of employees listed for sanctioned posts.

The 15 petitioners sought consideration of their services for regularization on parity with petitioners in W.P. No. 105061 of 2021, in which the High Court had directed respondent No. 3, a sugar factory, to consider the petitioners’ representation in accordance with law and Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi.

The petitioners asserted that they were similarly situated.

Respondent No. 3 opposed the petition, submitting that these petitioners were not parties to the earlier case and had not submitted a representation.

The petitioners’ names appeared in a list accompanying the Commissioner for Cane Development and Director of Sugar’s order dated 19 November 2021, which identified 243 eligible employees for regularization against sanctioned vacant posts.

1. Whether the petitioners, who were not parties to the earlier writ petition and had not submitted a representation, could obtain the same direction for consideration of their regularization claims.

2. Whether respondent No. 3 should be directed to consider a fresh representation from the petitioners in light of the earlier order and the Director of Sugar’s order and list.

Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High Court may issue directions requiring a public or other respondent to consider a representation and decide it in accordance with law.

The earlier order in W.P. No. 105061 of 2021 directed consideration of the representation there in accordance with law and in light of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1; it did not itself grant regularization.

The present order likewise required consideration, rather than determining the petitioners’ substantive entitlement to regularization.

The Court noted that the petitioners were not the same individuals as those in the earlier writ petition and that respondent No. 3 disputed receipt of any representation from them.

However, the petitioners’ names appeared in the Director of Sugar’s list of 243 employees identified as eligible for regularization against sanctioned vacant posts.

In those circumstances, the Court directed the petitioners to submit a fresh representation with the relevant orders and list, enabling respondent No. 3 to consider their claims under the approach adopted in the earlier case.

The Court did not decide whether the petitioners were legally entitled to regularization.

The matter was listed for reporting compliance on 16 November 2026.