High Court Karnataka High Court

Jayanti D/O Vasant Rao Kari vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 March, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Jayanti D/O Vasant Rao Kari vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 March, 2010
Author: Subhash B.Adi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE gm DAY OF MARCH, 29.  .

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE'SUBHAI3H .;B'fvArJ'1':  

WRIT PETITION No.6651'9,/_2°o0§(séRES; . «. " 

BETWEEN:

SMT. JAYANTI, D /O VASAN'F..RAC_Y I<IARI- E j_  " - .,
AGED ABOUT 38 YRS., OC€.:.THOSTE;I,'v, '  I 
SUPERINTENDENT, R /O PRE METRIC:GI_RLS.  

HOSPT EL, HUDLI, DIST. BELGAUM _ 

(BY SRI.  

V'  QFETITIONER

AND:

1.

THE STATE OF KAI+iN'ATAK)3I,
R/BY;1TS_SECR;ETARY   .
DEPARTMENT OFBACEZWARD.
CLASS AND MIN'O_RTTIES',=.._ " '
M.S.BUILI:-INS, BANGALORE 01

 bIRECTO'R;.OEFAF:TMENT OF
BA.C'KVy'-ARDA CLAS AND MINORITIES

" BA1\I'GAi.QRE ~91



" 3 "THE TALUKA PANCHAYAT, BELGAUM.

'THE fDISf'I*IiIC.'I"" OFFICER,

OE'T»ARTME:sIT1'OF BACKWARD CLASS
AND M_INO.RITIES, BELGAUM.

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
...RESPONDENTS

SAVITHA N. PATIL, HCC-P,)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING To QUASH THEVORDER
OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 28/O7/2008 OF ANNEXURE..-LAND

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

1. SmhSavitha N. Patil, leariaed
Pleader takes notice for the reSp¢¥If:lVdV’¢l’lt§. it I it

2. Case of the petitione’ri’ji.s the services in
Welfare DepartInent(BaCkwa{fCl Minorities) on
15/1 0/1992 Working. However,

her services h’a,s”‘-not be:3n–Vregula:rizecf5.. In this regard she has
made a reApresentati:on’.il

3. The lgiireictorii oft’.the.i.i~~’Backward Class and Minorities,

SOcia1’~i–w¢If’are the____irnpugned order dated 28/ 07/ 2008 has

hrejeetsd ‘£h€~’fC(‘.]tLi€’St of the petitioner to regularize her services

in ‘the’–s’aid’p”ost;’C:= ‘

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

iipsetitioher has been working more than 17 years and despite

Vithaiii: she has not been regularized in the services.

%t°i*L

5. The Director of Backward Class and Minorities and

Social Welfare, by his order has observed that the petitioner

was appointed as a temporary employee and

continued from time to time and as such her””se–rjriee’s. cannot

be regularized. Apart from this, the

appointments have to be made ‘in___cons’o.r_1ance Articlle 309:2:

of the Constitution of India or in~.evon_sonance:vrithljthe Rules
made under the provisionldwil, C in N ‘V

6. It appears that the,.ap.pointment.i’oi”Vplthelpetitioner is not
on regular in the rules made

thereinfr, ThereV’is_n_o”provis-io_n- under the Constitution or the

Rules, to reguiarize. thre’servioels of the petitioner and as such I

do notfind anj} good groiind to interfere.

‘ Vi ” -Peti_ti’on «vdis-Inissed.

A =-.._Sm_t;S;’~a’Vitha N. Patil, HCGP is permitted to file memo of

‘ appearance within four weeks.

Sd/it
lodge

Kmv