High Court Karnataka High Court

M Veeresh S/O Eswarappa vs State Of Karnataka on 27 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
M Veeresh S/O Eswarappa vs State Of Karnataka on 27 July, 2009
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
I! THE HIGH GOQIR? OF KARNATAKA
CIRCHIT BERG!-I AT DHARWAD

mrrnn '21-Ira 'rm trrm an or JULY'.  , ;  "  H

am-om   -

TI-IE HOIPBLE nmausrxcs uomiax  . i  

m..mA..4._'r rr we  

Between:

1.

M VEERESB s/o ESWARAPPA «. .

AGBAO YEARS, BILL COLLECTOR. ‘
CHIKKADENK_ANAK.AL engage. .P1iNCHA¥A’i”1~I¥ ” ‘

GANGAVATHITQ;-KOPPALDIST. * ‘ ‘

GOUSESA3 1~.w1.I;.A”1-:;;._ _ ‘ ._ ‘
AGB.3V-5 mask BILL C*g’)LLE(;’IfOR
S!0.M’i3HABO0B’;’£.Ll,,_ * . j
R/OMWALE vi1.LA&E, _mvALg GRAM
PANCHAYATH, GA}IGAVATl~fl_1¥;}. ~”

KOPPAL §§SfI’.” V V

BA:;AvAN’rHAw.a BAi3Ac§*s
353,47 mans, BILL cpwscwoa
Rf€).R.AL&LA1~¥?~IA BADAGI,

.A ‘ a;o.aUL:H*:.’n1aa VILLAGE
caxNQAv_Am1 irQ,.xoppAL um:

365.49 ‘
Em. C€3LLi§C:TOR,
S.¥0.CHA’f~¥NABASAP?A

AA R.iO.HfisL.%i.VAD§, Iv1{}PPAL’I’QA2~IDDIS.T

V . K {.2-T:KSHNiI3~¥AR.A§’ANA
_ £16345 YEARS, BILL COLLECTOR
; Si0.K,RAMA??A., A1<IBGUNDi VILLAGE
__ 7 GANGAVATHI TQ, KUWAL DIST.

VRUFANNA HOGAR

AGE46 YEARS, BILL COLLECTGR
SJCLSHARABANNA, R.f0.SiDI}A?{JRA
i}ANGAVA'i'i-H TQ, KOWAL DIST.

7. ?OORNENDRASWAMY
AGEL35 YEARS, BILL COLLECTOR
S10. , R!0.KALA’I’f-IAVARAGERE
KOPPAL ‘IQ AND DIST.

8. GANGAPPA GADGI
AGE.«$£ YEARS, BILL COLLECTOR
S!O.SA’I’HYAPPA, Rf0.NILVAGAL
KUSHTAGI TQ, KOPPAL DIST.

9. BALAPPA KURVIN
A.GE.48 YEARS, BILL COLLECTOR
SIGERAPPA W0. RE
YELBURGA TQ, KOPPAL DIST.

10. BASAVESHWARA 1.m~n
AGE40 mums, am. cougcmn _
SfO.SH1VAMUR’I’HEPPA R/cmvmn
YELBURGA TQ, KGPPA1. DIST. 5 p

1:. pammmsxwgamya ._
AGE53 YEARS, BzLL–coLmc1tm
SiO.VENKAPPA_9f€’-;(fi{ALA§£AL; ~
¥EL3UaGATQ,:1cop;su, mar, _ ‘

12. sHARA”:»:_A1An§§:aEML3rr ‘ __
AGEA9 YEARS, BILL _oe1..L.w.cI\QR* ”
S!O.SANNABASALlNGAIA§l ” ,
RlO.BI-IAGYANAGAB, KOPPAL ‘IQ AND BEST.

‘:3. Y:¢.1;3a,AHéLc~oUnA ” « ….. .. »

– ‘Atmss 311.1. COLLBCTC)
. s.tQ.r;Y;s.ae:a.mGouDA
“:3f§3.i!AL!(§E§¥.1;i;0ifPAL1QANDDIST. rm-mama

1.»? ns’rA*moM.:Ax1-;ATAK.A

‘ RURAL DEVELOPMENT ARI}
* PANCHAYATRAJ, M.3.BUILI3ING
ROAD, BANGALORE»!
« ” KERRY ITS SECRETARY

‘~ -.12..’ ‘ mmpmmmvam

KOPPAL D!S”I’., KOPPAI.

KERRY ITS SECREFARY

3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY
ZILLA PANCHAYATH
KOPPAL FEST.

KOPPAL.

4. ASSESFANTSECRETARY
zmmpmmmvam 1.

1<ePPALms'r,,xo99AL.

{Dy8d.R.E.lttfl,lGIPbr£1,
R2,3aIl4I¢)

THIS PE’I’I’i’ION IS FILED UND.éfiv1%Am’CLEs’V3é§ 7A3~tb”‘2é7 of

THE C0l’~lS’1″l’I’U’I’l0N OF mom PRfi3′{NG ‘m DIRECT THE
RESPON-DENTS TO FRAME.’ A SCHEME “-AND corasgnazzz THE
QUESTION OF REGULARISATIGN oi? moss vgmmovsms wuo HAVE
COMPLETED 10 YEARS 09* sERwcE__zr«a’¢rH1:LT. LIGh”.1′ op JUDGEMENT
RENDERED BY THE HON’BLE’ _suPRm–.a:-2., cfizzm or mom in
DHARWAD 0131*. ms DAILY” WAGE”-.EM1r=.LoY.EEs ASSOC!A’l’IC>N
VERSUS swrs O:F’3=£AI§NA’E;’AKA AND 0’5′?-HER$’, REPOIWED IN AIR
1990 s.c.PA<3Ess3. . . —

miss PE’r’:’i*’1{*;:s.’,r.:’t>sun1=~: G_””-z:>__1~:– r’-0:2 HEARING, TI-HS DAY, THE
comm MADE mm z:oi~.;’.Qw:1s:fc::.

for directions to the rcspomcnts to

tl1:g:ir% for 1egI1l%tion since they have compicted

.. of scxviscc, in the light of the: judgment

Vmndargti Court in the ms: of DHARWAD I)ISI’Ri(I!’

«.§)_AIi;Y; WAGE EMPLOYEES UMON vs. STATE 01?

‘I§flR!§}\’?AKA AND mums (AIR 1990 3C 333). Certain

VT refiefs are also askcd for.

\(fi

4

2. According to the petitioners, afi of them have

from more than ten years as Bill Collectors V’

Panchayats of Kappa] District on the jg’ gal \’

to Rs.l.200[-. Since they are in »the of.:.’V3§

there axe not el1@’b’ le fior any other’ T _.

for regularisation.

3. The queationA._involves1..:.h. is squarely
by the in the case of
SECRETARY, AND OTHERS vs.

1). There is nothing on
record in were appointed on ccmtzact

basis as posts. In View of the same, the

that they are appointed in the

“fie has been held by the Apex Court in the

abeorptioza, regularisation or permanent

of bemporazjr, oentrmtual, casual, daily wage or

.’__a{fi:eel”employees appointed/recruited and continued for long in

emplsoyment dehors the constitutional scheme of public

in the eye oflaw. Itisalso mm in the said

judment that the decisions of the Supzeme Court rtztnnnw

‘W

5

counter to or contain dirocfions counter to these

stand denuded of their status as 3

pmcedenm on the subject wen:

aforocitad judmcnt. in View of

pctifioners do not have any ngh’ xlegula’ H ‘anV cn’t

pubiic empbymcnt.

4. It is needless to of irmgular
appointanenm sanctioned vacant
posts, the 701; of such cmpioyccs
have to fight of the principle
settbd by cited juamcm. Since
there is that the appdntxnmt of the

Was’a§iné.f posts, no specmcdizmtion

‘ pctit1on’ .

V V the wrk petition. steam m the sight

.. _, .. of the Apex Court in that: msc oiflmarhvi stated

ScI/-

JUDGE

Jill]-