K A Ramanna S/O Anjanappa vs The State Of Karnataka Reptd By Its … on 20 January, 2009

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED T3118 T1111 26m DAY OF JANUARY 2009

BEFORE

THE HOMBLE MR.J£;ST1cE S. ABDUL NAZEER 'A  *   

WRIT PETITION N0.3,1, 433404? rS4RES2%:' "  v = I T;    %

Between:

1

Sri K.A. Ramanna,

SE0 zimjaxlappa,

aged about 39 years, _  
Working as Handpump CIipé3.rat01"_:.' A 
Ofiice of the Taiuk Panchityat, 3 ' V _
Gowribidanuxz, '- _  A
Kclar Distxici.  _  V" 

SE0 Nanjmadaéalri,   '-- '
Ages} dbeut 38 years,

 "  _ DI'?§}7§:'f, Qfiiee f Kaz 1;a1aka,

A iv ' ~ Rapid. By  3€?CI'3I£1I"'_Y to Govemxttxexzt,
 ' Rural Dzwefcpxnent S: Panchayat Raj Department,
 Karnaiaigzi Gave-nmieizt Secretariat,
v 3  -z«.25.s;' Bidg, Dr. Ambedkar veedhi,
' '"B&;1g5ah>re ~ 566 G0}.



2 The Zilla Panchayat,
Kolar District,
K0131;   
Rapid. By its Chief Executive Officer. I

3 The Taluk Panchayat,

Gowribidaimr Taluk,

Gowribidamur,

Reptd. By its Executive    V ,".';~-.._._'R.ésp_<mdents.
(By Sti T.P. Srinivas, AGA,   _  '

This Writ Petitidg isi:11fi1ed.unde¥;z' A1T_iC1es'226"'& 227 of the
Censtitution, praying'to9_'di1'e'CtI.__t1f1e-..res§3-3ni3efit.s to regularise the
service of the petitioners- ii} the respective'  working in the
second and third"résp9iident§;~: uaxiteiiy-, ZiH:i'?énchayat and Taluk
Panehayat of Kljlar _DistfictVwifi1t ii1'u1iedi_ate effect, etc.

This Writ Pefiitim  inal Hearing this day, the
Court made fl1e_foI}oi%"i11g; . _  '- "

 "(}':fi'1"i)ER

 Tite  .c;§::;:end that they have been working as

iflaznd Pun?  Gangnen and Driver respectively with

 'land 3 for the past over 10 years and that the

 'sec:-m"ei-- respondents have not reguiarised their services so

3%.}

far. Therefore, they have filed this writ petition seeking the

following reliefs: __
“(i) issue an order or direction or writ in the nature of
writ of mandamus regularizing the service of the V

petitioners in the respective posts working in ‘ti1ei*<2"d~:'

reepondent»-Zifia Paiieltayat and 3"' resp€$i1de'nt–Ta1ui«:'

Panama: of Kola: District with innnedjate eeege anti l

to issue necessary orders as did iiifi_:ti2eV ease' i V
Raghupathi Gowda and as 'per at ii
Annexure B,and M it it " A'

(i£) pass such Qtitezigornexfs fifld _'ex:pedient in the
circumstances 'of the"e:ese;"–inielz3aing the award of

costs, in the interest ofj~:_:sti::e equity."

{have §1ear;t'tlie* learned Counsel for the pafiies.

' for the petitioeers contends that the

were eppointed by the second and third respondents to

_posts questien as against the existing vacancies hy follewing

V f j the reguler procedure and that at best, their appointment is irregular

'ii

\

and not illegal. Therefore, their services requires to be regularised

33 held by the Apex Court at paragraph 53 of the decision in

sz«:cRa:2:4RY, STATE 01? KZ4R.?'VAII'AKA & orgzsas r»:¥;.i~.i

L-''MADEVI & OTHERS —- (2006) 4 sec 1. It is evident that the

petitioners have not filed any application seeking regulsrisetietiiv (if

their appeintmerit befose the second and _'It;..tyhgu

circumstance; petitioners are perznittegf' =19 méti:e__ ap§§:=Qpii3.fE'

applications to the competent authprities.tseel§ing'*:?egula19ise1ion.~i)f

their services. If such an applicatiggl ise..ffi£§vd,.':"s§§};o§id am: third

respondents are directeld.~toV_eons'i<;ler,the satne in accordance with
law. This order shouid nei=be":tiiief'st{5oii as expressing any opinion

on the merits' dfthe matte; tine way or the other. No costs.

Sd/….

V?:”t§h»iMf20l’2009.V: ‘ -A Judge