{"id":18831,"date":"2003-01-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-01-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-by-secretary-vs-t-b-manjunath-and-ors-on-13-january-2003"},"modified":"2019-04-05T15:49:44","modified_gmt":"2019-04-05T10:19:44","slug":"state-of-karnataka-by-secretary-vs-t-b-manjunath-and-ors-on-13-january-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-by-secretary-vs-t-b-manjunath-and-ors-on-13-january-2003","title":{"rendered":"State Of Karnataka, By Secretary, … vs T.B. Manjunath And Ors. on 13 January, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
State Of Karnataka, By Secretary, … vs T.B. Manjunath And Ors. on 13 January, 2003<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: ILR 2003 KAR 2827<\/div>\n
Author: Raveendran<\/div>\n
Bench: R Raveendran, K Manjunath<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
 Raveendran, J.  <\/p>\n
 As this petitions involve common question of law we have heard
\nand disposed of these petitions by this common order.\n<\/p>\n
 Facts in W.P.No. 45030\/2002:\n<\/p>\n
 1. The respondent herein approached the Karnataka  Administrative Tribunal in Application No. 10244\/2001 alleging that  he was initially appointed on daily wage basis on 1-1-1984 as a  forest Watcher, that after two years there was a break as he was  discharged and he was re-appointed with effect from 1-1-1992; that  as he had served for more than 2400 days in a block period of 10  years, he was entitled to regularisation relying on the Government  Order dated 20-10-1994; that as his request was not considered, he  approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application No  3649\/1999 and the Tribunal disposed of the said Application by order  dated 18-8-2000 directing the petitioners herein to consider the  representation and take a decision thereon; and that thereafter an  endorsement dated 13-12-2000 was issued to him rejecting his  request for regularization. He therefore, sought quashing of the  endorsement dated 13-12-2000 and a direction to petitioners herein  to regularize his services as a Forest Watcher with all consequential  benefits.\n<\/p>\n
 2. The petitioners herein resisted the said application on the  ground that the respondent had worked between January 1984 to  December 1985; that thereafter that in December 1985 he voluntarily  left the work; that he was re-employed as a daily wage worker only  in March 1992 and therefore what should be reckoned is the service  from March, 1992; and that as he was appointed after 1-7-1984 and  as he had not completed 10 years service, he was not entitled to  claim regularization.\n<\/p>\n
3. The Tribunal by order dated 9-9-2002 allowed the application  in part. It held that having regard to the decision in Premalakala Shetty and Ors. v. Common Cadre Authority, Writ Petition No. 1330\/1998 dd 12.11.1998 what was  necessary for regularization was 10 years service irrespective of  whether they were appointed prior to 1-7-1984 or after 1-7-1984;  that as petitioner had completed 10 years of continues service as  on the date of the order, his requests for regularization requires to  be considered, particularly as he had worked for more than 2400  days during the period of 10 years. It therefore directed the petitioners  to find out whether respondent had in fact worked for 10 years or  2400 days in 10 years and consider his case for regularization  accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
 Facts in WP Nos 793 to 796\/2003  <\/p>\n
4. The respondents herein approached the Karnataka  Administrative Tribunal in Application Nos. 6930-6933\/2001 seeking  a direction to the petitioners to regularize their service in the posts  held by them or equivalent posts with consequential benefits. The  respondents alleged that they had been appointed on daily wages  on various dates between 1-7-1985 and 4-9-1987 and having been  continuously worked ever since then and completed 10 years of  service on daily wage basis and therefore they were entitled to  regularization.\n<\/p>\n
5. The petitioners herein filed their reply admitting that  respondents have been working from the respective dates mentioned  by them. But they contended that the respondents were not entitled  to regularisation as they were all appointed on daily wage basis  after the cut off date 1-7-1984.\n<\/p>\n
 6. The Tribunal allowed the applications in part by order dated  26-9-2002. It held that having regard to the decision in SMT  PREMAKALA SHETTY vs COMMON CADRE AUTHORITY (Supra)  which has been affirmed by the Division Bench and by the Supreme  Court, the contention of the petitioners herein that for regularisation  of the appointment on daily wage basis ought to have been prior to  1-7-1984 was not correct. The Tribunal held that what was the relief  was 10 years service and not the date of initial appointment.\n<\/p>\n
 Common contentions:\n<\/p>\n
7. Feelings aggrieved, respondents in the said applications have  filed these petitions. They have reiterated their contentions urged  before the Tribunal in these petitions that is, that regularisation can  be only in accordance with the scheme contained in the Government .1. Writ Petition No. 1330\/1998 dd 12.11.1998  Order dated 6-8-1990 and not otherwise, that the said scheme does  not contemplate regularisation of any daily wage employee appointed  subsequent to 1-7-1984; and that as all the Respondents claim that  they were appointed on daily wage basis subsequent to 1-7-1984,  they are not entitled to regularisation. Reliance is placed of the  decision of the Division Bench or this Court in State of Karnataka v. The Karnataka Casual & Daily Rated Workers Union, Hubli, W.A.No.<\/a> 120\/1999 dd on 1.2.2001  wherein it is held that that the decision  in Dharwad District PWD literate Daily Wages Employees Assn. v. State of Karnataka,   and the  Government Order dated 6.8.1990 were applicable to only those  who were appointed on daily wage basis on or before 1-7-1984;  and that as the G.O. dated 6.8.1990 did not apply to those appointed  after 1.7.1984, and as there was no provision for recruitment  otherwise than in accordance with Karnataka Civil Services (General  Recruitment) Rules, 1977, persons appointed after 1-7-1984 on daily  wages were not entitled to regularisation, irrespective of whether  the period of such service on daily wage basis exceeded ten or  more years.\n<\/p>\n
8. But other Division Benches have not followed the said decision  in W.A.120\/1999. We may refer to some of them State of Karnataka v. H.R. Basavaraju, W.A. No.<\/a> 5861-65\/2000 dd 1.2.2001,  State of Karnataka v. Eranna, W.A.No. 1381 -1398\/2001 dd 12.6.2001 and The State of Karnataka v. H. Ganesh Rao, W.A.<\/a> 1592-1638\/2000 C\/C dd 1.6.2001 The last decision refers to and  distinguishes the decision in W.A.No.120\/1999.\n<\/p>\n
9. The decision in W.A. No. 120\/1999 has proceeded on the  basis that the G.O. dated 6-8-1990 providing for regularisation was  issued to give effect to the decision in DHARWAD DISTRICT PWD  LITERATE DAILY WAGES EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION ; that the said decision formulated the scheme for  regularisation of Casual daily wage employees appointed on or before  1-7-1984; and therefore persons appointed on daily wage basis after  1-7-1984; cannot claim regularisation on the basis of the said decision  of the Supreme Court or the G.O. dated 6-8-1990. But the other  Division Benches of this Court have consistently taken the view (both  before and after the decision in W.A.No.120\/1999) based on several  decisions of Supreme Court that any person employed on daily wage  basis for ten or more years is entitled to be considered for  regularisation. They have affirmed and approved the following view  expressed by the Single Judge in PREMAKALA SHETTY vs  COMMON CADRE COMMITTEE (W.P.NO.1338\/1998 and connected  cases decided on 12-11-1998, by following several decisions of  Supreme Court:-\n<\/p>\n
“It is evident from these decisions that if any person employed  either temporarily or on daily wage basis serves continuously for  a period of more than 10 years, he should normally be considered  for regularisation. Even the several schemes formulated by the  State Government in regard to the regularisation of daily rated\/  monthly rated employees, as per orders dated 6.8.1990 and  21.8.1999 contemplate regularisation on the completion of 10  years of service..\n<\/p>\n
 It is next contended that 96 persons who were regularised  by order dated 28.3.1996 were all appointed prior to 1.7.1984  and therefore they were regularised by following the principle  contained in the Government Order dated 6.8.1990; and many of  the petitioners were appointed after 1.7.1984 and therefore they  (who were appointed after 1.7.1984) could not be regularised.  The order dated 6.8.1990, in terms, does not apply to the Banks  where petitioner were working. Further the date 1.7.1984 was  relevant to the scheme for regularisation formulated on 6-8-1990.  It does not mean that no one appointed after 1-7-1984 cannot be  regularised, even if they render continuous service for 10 years.  The stress should be on the 10 years minimum service and not  on any cut off date. The cut off date will have to vary from time  to time. Hence, the contention that persons appointed after  1-7-1984 cannot be regularised has no merit.”\n<\/p>\n
 (emphasis supplied)   <\/p>\n
9.1 In ERANNA’S Case, the Division Bench held as follows,  while approving the decision in PREMAKALA SHETTY:  “Respondents-Writ Petitioners having put in 15 years of service  filed the writ petitions seeking a writ of mandamus directing the  appellants to consider the case for regularisation of their service.  Single Judge keeping in view that the respondents had put in 15  years of service has allowed the writ petitions in terms of the  order passed in the case of PREMAKALA SHETTY vs COMMON  CADRE COMMITTEE (Writ Petition No. 1338\/1998 and other  connected matters decided on 12th of November, 1998). In  Premakala Shetty’s case. The Learned Single Judge after  elaborately considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court  has held that an employee who has put in more than 10 years of  service either temporarily or on daily wage basis deserves to be  considered for regularisation of his\/her service. This Bench has  also taken a similar view.\n<\/p>\n
 We agree with the view taken by the Single Judge. In case  an employee is continued in service for a period of 10 years,  then the need is permanent prima facie. Single Judge has rightly  directed the appellants to consider the case of the respondents  for regularisation of their service as they had put in 16 years of  service.”\n<\/p>\n
 9.2 In GANESH RAO’S case, another Division Bench considered  the matter exhaustively. It dealt with persons who were appointed  on daily wage basis after 1-7-1984, with out following the procedure  laid down under the Recruitment Rules. After referring to the decision  in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, , the Division Bench  observed as follows.\n<\/p>\n
 “The Supreme Court while pointing out that the  aforementioned observations\/guidelines are not exhaustive,  concludes thus:\n<\/p>\n
Each Government or authority has to devise its own criteria  or principles for regularisation having regard to all the relevant  circumstances, but while doing so, it should bear in mind the  observations made herein”.\n<\/p>\n
 The Supreme Court did not go to the extent of holding that the  ad-hoc or temporary employees whose employment was necessitated  on account of the exigencies of administration will be ineligible for  regularisation only for the reason that they were appointed without  following the normal recruitment procedure. However, the Supreme  Court did indicate that even in such cases, candidates should be  drawn from the Employment Exchange or some other method  consistent with the requirement of Article 16 should be followed. A  notice calling for applications should be published and such  applications should be considered. At the same time, the Supreme  Court did not indicate the consequences of not following such  procedure while initiating the process of recruitment of ad-hoc\/daily  wage employees. On the other hand, the need to regularise the  services of ad-hoc employees or casual labour who were continued  for a fairly long spell of service has been stressed by the Supreme  Court with the only rider that they must be eligible and qualified  according to Rules, that the Service record is satisfactory and the  appointment is not opposed to reservation policy. It is not the case  of the Appellant that any of these disqualifying factors apply to the  cases of the respondents. The orders issued by the Government of  Haryana from time to time regularising the services of work-charged  employees and casual labour has been recommended by the  Supreme Court. The Apex Court indicated that the proper course  would be frame a scheme for regularisation consistent with the  observations made therein. Following the decision in PIARA SINGH’s  case, in a recent case viz., Hindustan Machine Tools v. M. Ranga Reddy, JT<\/a> 2000 (Suppl.1) SC 267, the Supreme Court held:\n<\/p>\n
  “Tested on the touchstone of the principles laid down in the  decisions noted above and keeping in mind the mandate of the  Constitution under Articles 38(1), 39(e) and 43, we are of the  considered view that the directions issued by the High Court to  frame a scheme for regularisation of services of the writ petitioners  does not warrant interference. However, considering the  submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants that  the Company is under financial constraints and has decided to  reduce its work force, we would like to clarify that while framing  the scheme it would be open to the appellant Company to assess  the requirement of the regular work force in its different units … and fix the strength of work force so that the workers concerned
\nare able to get the benefit of regular service within a reasonable  time.”\n<\/p>\n
 The writ petitioners in that case were the casual labourers working  on daily wages for long periods discharging the same duties as  regular employees of the company.\n<\/p>\n
In our view the decision in PIARA SINGH’s case fortifies the  Respondents’ stand for the reasons already discussed. It may  be that the respondents bear stigma of being back-door entrants  because most of them have not come through the Employment  Exchange and there is no evidence of due publicity before  engaging them on temporary and daily wage basis.Though the  Supreme Court laid down the procedure to be followed in such  cases of ad-hoc or temporary employment consistent with Article  16 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court did not go further and  said that failure to follow such procedure would disentitle the  employees to claim regularisation by virtue of their long-standing  service. The underlined observations, vide Para 14 Supra give  a contra-indication. It is a well-known fact that in vast majority of  cases, recruitment of ad-hoc\/daily wage employees is made  without giving due publicity and without a transparent selection  procedure. If that could be put against the employees concerned,  there could hardly be any case in which regularisation could be  directed by framing a scheme or otherwise. A balanced and  pragmatic outlook consistent with justice and fairness is what is  required in such situations. It would have been a different matter  if a procedure had been prescribed for recruitment even on daily  wage or ad-hoc basis and the appointments were made in breach  of such procedure as it had happened in ASHWANI KUMAR’s  case. But that is not the case here.\n<\/p>\n
 Nearer home, there is a decision of three Judge Bench of  the Supreme Court in DHARWAD DISTRICT P.W.D. LITERATE  DAILY WAGES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION vs STATE OF  KARNATAKA. In<\/a> that case, Writ Petitions were filed by the  Employees’ Unions and by others in public interest seeking  directions to confirm the daily rated and monthly-rated employees  as regular government servants and for payment of salary at the  scale applicable to the appropriate categories of Government  Servants and for other service benefits. The Supreme Court  noticed that the workers who were employed as monthly rated  Gangmen and Sowdies were working for 16 to 20 years  continuously. Earlier, a direction was given to the Government to  pay salary to such workmen at the rates equivalent to the  minimum pay in the pay scales of the regularly employed  Gangmen or Sowdies, but without any increment, with effect from  1.7.1988. The Government was directed to frame a rational  scheme for absorbing as many casual workers and monthly rated  Gangmen and Sowdies as possible in regular cadres. The  Government of Karnataka then filed a draft scheme, whereupon  the matter came up for further consideration of the Supreme Court.  On the principle of equal pay for equal work, this is what the  Supreme Court said:\n<\/p>\n
  ” We have referred to several precedents – all rendered within  the current decade – to emphasise upon the feature that equal  pay for equal work and providing security for service by  regularising casual employment within a reasonable period have  been unanimously accepted by this Court as a constitutional goal  to our socialistic polity. Article 141 of the Constitution provides  how the decisions of this Court are to be treated and we do not  think there is any need to remind the instrumentalities of the  State be it of the Centre or the State, or the public sector that  the Constitution – makers wanted them to be bound by what this  Court said by way of interpreting the law.”\n<\/p>\n
 The decisions starting from NARINDER MOHAN’s case  including the three Judge Bench decisions in the cases of  SURENDRA KUMAR and SURESH KUMAR VERMA seem to  lay down that in exercise of judicial review power under Article  226, the Court should not give directions for regularisation merely  on the ground that the ad hoc or daily wage employees have put  in considerable length of satisfactory service. The ratio of these  decisions spells out that regularisation cannot be ordered dehors  the recruitment rules framed under Article 309 especially  where the process of selection is entrusted to a constitutional  body like the Public Service Commission. Sweeping directions to  regularise without regard to the selection and recruitment  procedure prescribed by the Rules were not approved by the  Supreme Court PIARA SINGH’s case and ASHWANI KUMAR’s  case seem to tread a middle path and set a leeway for  regularisation if the employees concerned were appointed on daily wage ad-hoc basis against sanctioned posts and their appointment was not totally obnoxious to the rules governing the recruitment.  The procedural irregularities in the matter of recruitment can be  overlooked to certain extent and regularisation could be ordered  if other conditions such as longstanding service, fulfillment of  qualifications for entry are satisfied. Both in PIARA SINGH’s case  and ASHWANI KUMAR’s case, induction of employees through  back-door, that is to say, without the publicity and transparent  process of selection was frowned upon. But, that by itself has  not been regarded as a disqualifying factor for regularisation  unless of-course, those requirements as spelt out in the procedure  prescribed for the ad-hoc\/daily wage recruitment. A holistic view  has to be taken by balancing various relevant considerations.  That was the approach in the two cases of PIARA SINGH and  ASHWANI KUMAR.”\n<\/p>\n
 10. Thus the principle clearly appears to be that any one  employed continuously for more than 10 years on daily wage basis  should be considered for regularisation, provided there was no fraud  or misrepresentation on the part of the employee in securing or  continuing in such daily wage employment and the employee  possesses the prescribed qualification for the post to which he is  considered for regularisation. We therefore find no infirmity in the  directions issued by the Tribunal and no ground is made out to  interfere with the order of the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
 11. In view of the above these petitions are dismissed. We  however, extend the time for complying with the order of the Tribunal  by four months from the date of receipt of this order.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court State Of Karnataka, By Secretary, … vs T.B. Manjunath And Ors. on 13 January, 2003 Equivalent citations: ILR 2003 KAR 2827 Author: Raveendran Bench: R Raveendran, K Manjunath ORDER Raveendran, J. As this petitions involve common question of law we have heard and disposed of these petitions by this common order. Facts […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18831","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Karnataka, By Secretary, ... vs T.B. Manjunath And Ors. on 13 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-by-secretary-vs-t-b-manjunath-and-ors-on-13-january-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Karnataka, By Secretary, ... vs T.B. Manjunath And Ors. on 13 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-by-secretary-vs-t-b-manjunath-and-ors-on-13-january-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-01-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-05T10:19:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-by-secretary-vs-t-b-manjunath-and-ors-on-13-january-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-by-secretary-vs-t-b-manjunath-and-ors-on-13-january-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Karnataka, By Secretary, … vs T.B. Manjunath And Ors. on 13 January, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-01-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-05T10:19:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-by-secretary-vs-t-b-manjunath-and-ors-on-13-january-2003\"},\"wordCount\":3082,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-by-secretary-vs-t-b-manjunath-and-ors-on-13-january-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-by-secretary-vs-t-b-manjunath-and-ors-on-13-january-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-by-secretary-vs-t-b-manjunath-and-ors-on-13-january-2003\",\"name\":\"State Of Karnataka, By Secretary, ... vs T.B. Manjunath And Ors. on 13 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-01-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-05T10:19:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-by-secretary-vs-t-b-manjunath-and-ors-on-13-january-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-by-secretary-vs-t-b-manjunath-and-ors-on-13-january-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-karnataka-by-secretary-vs-t-b-manjunath-and-ors-on-13-january-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Karnataka, By Secretary, … vs T.B. Manjunath And Ors. on 13 January, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Karnataka, By Secretary, ... vs T.B. Manjunath And Ors. on 13 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-by-secretary-vs-t-b-manjunath-and-ors-on-13-january-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Karnataka, By Secretary, ... vs T.B. Manjunath And Ors. on 13 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-by-secretary-vs-t-b-manjunath-and-ors-on-13-january-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-01-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-05T10:19:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-by-secretary-vs-t-b-manjunath-and-ors-on-13-january-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-by-secretary-vs-t-b-manjunath-and-ors-on-13-january-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Karnataka, By Secretary, … vs T.B. Manjunath And Ors. on 13 January, 2003","datePublished":"2003-01-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-05T10:19:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-by-secretary-vs-t-b-manjunath-and-ors-on-13-january-2003"},"wordCount":3082,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-by-secretary-vs-t-b-manjunath-and-ors-on-13-january-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-by-secretary-vs-t-b-manjunath-and-ors-on-13-january-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-by-secretary-vs-t-b-manjunath-and-ors-on-13-january-2003","name":"State Of Karnataka, By Secretary, ... vs T.B. Manjunath And Ors. on 13 January, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-01-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-05T10:19:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-by-secretary-vs-t-b-manjunath-and-ors-on-13-january-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-by-secretary-vs-t-b-manjunath-and-ors-on-13-january-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-by-secretary-vs-t-b-manjunath-and-ors-on-13-january-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Karnataka, By Secretary, … vs T.B. Manjunath And Ors. on 13 January, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18831","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18831"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18831\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18831"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18831"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18831"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}