{"id":245320,"date":"2009-12-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-r-vs-the-managing-director-on-17-december-2009"},"modified":"2015-02-18T04:49:25","modified_gmt":"2015-02-17T23:19:25","slug":"harish-r-vs-the-managing-director-on-17-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-r-vs-the-managing-director-on-17-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Harish R vs The Managing Director on 17 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Harish R vs The Managing Director on 17 December, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy<\/div>\n
E\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BAIVIGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 17\"' DAY OF' DECEMBER, 2909\n\nmm HOWBLE hm. JUSTICE mm MORAN R1i;\u00a7i)Bj$r%LIi L?  % \n\nWRIT I>E'rI'rIo1~t N0.36202~2o3 QF}2oo9\";%s\u00a7i\u00a7t1%V:si:  _ Q h  \n\nBEFORE\n\nBETWEEN\n\n1\n\ni~lARISI\u00bb-I R  -\n\n$10. RAMALSNGEGOWDA\n\nAGE 29 YEARS\n\nR\/AT. LAKSHNQ NILAYA \u00ab - *\nNEXT TO APOLLO Hi\ufb01ff sc;Hc;01; \nSTE CROSS, HEGGANAHEKLLI.    \nBANGALORE 91.  .,\n\nBASEWARAJ BIR;xDAVR*TVT.__  _\n\nS\/O. SI;iAN'\u00a5'HAPI?A--   \nAGESIYEARS .  \" \n\n01.53.. Y H GQPALAIAH\n\nrm. 360, 21\"DfV$AI_N, 3RD CROSS\n'N1E'AI42\"Lv\u00a73ASAvEsHWARA SCHOOL\n\nA  P_IPE_LiN'\u20ac,R'{)AD, SRINWASANAGAR\n\n _SUN}\u00a7A_BAKa'iff1*E, B'LORE -- 9:.\n\n PETITIONERS\n\n  (BY S'R_1:; K s:2i:\u00a7;':,}asA 53 STM A] S, ADVS.)\n\n_ ?:' 'r~:_E MANAGING DMECTQR\n 'KPFCL, CORPORATE GFFICE\n KAVERY BHAVAN, mmzm ~: .\n\nTHE MANAGING \ufb01IREC'\u00a5'OR'\n\nBESCQM, CORPORATE OFFICE\nK R CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 1.\n\nM\n\n\n\n2\n\n3 THE QIRECTQR (AEDMIN 65 H R}\nKPTCL, KAVERY BHAVAN\nBANGALORE \u00ab- 1. ...RESPONDE}\\{'\u00a5~'S\n\n(BY SR1. N K GUPFA, smrszmns COUNSEL FOR 122-3) \n\nTHESE PIETITIGNS FILED UNDER ARTICL,E'--2\ufb01:6'.':'&'~A\n\n227 09 THE CONSFITUTION OF INIHA P_RAYEN{E;~.. \"\u00a7'{)\n\nDIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE '{:AsE\"'<3_?, <\/pre>\n
THE PETITIONERS FOR SELECTION’ AND APPC1lNTM.;\u00a7’,N”\u00a7’ V ~
\nTO THE POSTS OF JUNIOR E.NGINEER(E2 LE;) UNDER ‘r;m_’*1r_j
\nmam\u00bb; 01:’ COMPUTER SCIENCE IN RES–PONSE.”,~AT() ‘rma: <\/p>\n
NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY ‘I’HE”–~,R3 ‘mag. A’r~;N;g;–….::)T:.
\n26.8.’2()O9;AN{) ETC.\n<\/p>\n
THESE PE’i’I’I’IONS,, C<)MI1~m"<5'Nj' 50.8 PRLHEARING
\nIN 'E' GROUP, THIS DAY' _TH1~:;g   MADE THE
\nFOLLOWING:    =<\/p>\n
 ''''
\nThevVV".i5i   .to be appointed as a<\/p>\n
Gauging}; for 5: months ifmm Ja1:1uary 2000<\/p>\n
  .J1:11;:=; 2O(30"U11\u00a7vards, was posted to work as a<\/p>\n
 aiong with the 211*' petitioner a<\/p>\n
'   Ledg'er44:VALitcr\u00e9\ufb01\u00a7:  Assista1":tt, when terminata\u00e9 by order<\/p>\n
" j – d; a;txij:ci };7%1?~2003 of the Chief Engineer, questioned the<\/p>\n
  W.P.No.71:'2\/2004 which when ciubbed amg<\/p>\n
 other Writ petitions, was rejected by common Carder<\/p>\n
 A"–\u00abdated 23–~03-2(){}4 A1mexur6–"A", issuing \u00e9irectiens ta<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
frame a. scheme as set out in Paragraph 15 to entit\u00a7je”‘?}_i\u20ac::”‘*.,’<\/p>\n
petitioners who are medicaily \ufb01t, subject to   ”<\/p>\n
and possessing \ufb02ecessary quali\ufb01es .3011-to  cQi}Isi;1ei”e(ij. <\/p>\n
not only for the said }ob but also   <\/p>\n
the memo {Bed in the Court  ‘sags.\n<\/p>\n
In addition, a further    cf\nSection 12 of the  Act,\n1999,      therein to\nmake 3.   by the\nBangalorcs   Limited (for short\n<\/pre>\n
‘BESCOM5.  \u00abthe petitioners, though a<\/p>\n
representatio1″\u00a5 w\u00a7\u00a7s’I$ia<Ai\u20ac  8-3-2004 and 22-03-2004,<\/p>\n
 n\u00e93'Aa(:\u00e9im.:1 '53%as'%'taken t\u00e9hhsorb them into its services but<\/p>\n
 3.6-\u00abO6-2004 of the Assistant General<\/p>\n
  Manager (A&.i'.VP), BESCOM irxfmrmed the 2nd petitioner<\/p>\n
"  his.'  wouid be considered as and Wh\ufb01\ufb01<\/p>\n
 ariss. The 21*' petitioner asserts that details<\/p>\n
  previous employment, was made ava;i.1ab}\u20ac an 2-2\u00bb<\/p>\n
 ".2Vf)09 and 7~2~2(){)9 to the Exczcutivs Engnesr. it: is<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
stated that the 3!” respondent by no\ufb01\ufb01cation dated”.<\/p>\n
08-2009, AImexur<?:~"J", invited appiic34ti0I1\u00a7""'*\u00ab'\u00a3'ijg"$3;1f,\u00a7V'1' " <\/p>\n
eligible candidates for appointment to vari\u20ac)_13:3  it)<\/p>\n
which the petitioners responde\u00e9 by   ;  <\/p>\n
on 7-9~\u00bb20\u20ac)9. it is the a11egat:':m*3.__pf   <\/p>\n
their request for consideration Gfcas\u00e9  \ufb01el\u00e9c\ufb01on
\nand appoitamlent on   the post of
\nJunior 'Engineer (E!c(:tI'i<;a\u00a7}– v\u00e9\ufb01ong .}itit}{'o\ufb01\u00a5i\u00a7i.~~~J;g;}didates<\/p>\n
in terms of the.   when not<\/p>\n
c0nsideIV&t5t'1",%\u00e91'1'dViVi\u00a71\u00a7\u00bb\\riI1g no\ufb01\ufb01ed the list
\nof e\ufb01gib1ev"'CanI:1 is opposed by \ufb01ling Statement of<\/p>\n
  objecticiis V  corrien\u00e9ing that in terms of the<\/p>\n
jttdgin\u00e9izt  {his Court, a sacileme Am’1ex1;13:e~”R 1″ was<\/p>\n
 v4A_f;*\u00a7i*:1ixi13;tedV’ an 6-5-2004 and a noti\ufb01cation dated 21\u00bb-12~<\/p>\n
  A11nex11re=–“R2″ was issued in exercise of<\/p>\n
  if-_1:isdictio;”} under Sec\ufb01mta 12 of the Karnataka<\/p>\n
EEK<\/p>\n
Eiectricity Reforms Act, 1999 (for Sh{)1″t ‘Act’). it is the<\/p>\n
specific case of the respondents; that the <\/p>\n
mtitioners, amongst others similarly  -2 \u00e9 <\/p>\n
were considered and despite extendiggg the  cf  u <\/p>\n
the scheme, nevertheless did noti.__meet 3  :;_*<\/p>\n
standards, in competition  d1he1*VI11::\u00a7fi1:e:<#iQ;J_is<\/p>\n
candidates and tllerefore, thCI_'{3 iS 2.110 merit  the<\/p>\n
contention that their  were \u00a7.:1c;i"'*ee{1eidered in the '<\/p>\n
matter of recretitmen\ufb01; in,e:mi.js; ef\ufb01he  dated<\/p>\n
2e\u00bb03\u00bb20\u00a7;)\u00e9)%<A:+u\u00e9;%:xu\u00a3\u00a3\u00e9\u00a7%I\u00a5.e\u00bb[Qf\n<\/p>\n
3. Learned fkie petitioner points em: to<\/p>\n
Paiagajph _   j\ufb01ielgment dated 23-{)2-2004<\/p>\n
\ufb01””n.=eXi}{4e;-.\u00a2’g:g_”‘VA’@f tI1eW1ea”‘ rned Single Judge te contend<\/p>\n
 was to bene\ufb01t the petitioners<\/p>\n
 ::-juteexzget  en the basie of reported 0\u00a7iI}i(}I1S of the<\/p>\n
..   in the matter of pmviding employment as<\/p>\n
VT  and therefere, the gpetitiozxers have a vested<\/p>\n
wuen future vacancies arise in the respendent —-<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
right to appoinment in any form in I’6CI”\u00a3),itII}\u20ac{_1t,<\/p>\n
absorption, regularisattion, permanency, etc. <\/p>\n
additien, learned counsel submits that if the    *<\/p>\n
petitioners have in fact been .a:en.side:=;4ed ‘   <\/p>\n
respondent, a iegai duty is cast  “7:<\/p>\n
make lmown the petitionef  f\u00e9;te__ of
\nconsidera\ufb01on. z A A  . .<\/p>\n
4. Sri. N.K.  T —  R’  sel for the<\/p>\n
reepondent —~ BESSQM,    6 and<\/p>\n
7 of the V”State211e:iit’:’ e\u00e9bjtectie\ufb01s, to contend that the<\/p>\n
echeme fomv\ufb01atlatyeti’  of the directions of the<\/p>\n
–S_’1ngle\u00bb   “as_a.ppreved by the State Govemment<\/p>\n
 i-:3 ‘ eXerc1se”ei’\u00ab._pewer under Section 12 01’ the Act was<\/p>\n
   B;1aCie.\u00e9t1jplViC\u00e93f;:1e5t’t1’tt) the petitioners amongst others in the<\/p>\n
 _ iz1_a.tter’\u00a7:\u00bbf  pursuant to the no\ufb01\ufb01ca\ufb01en dated<\/p>\n
  Amzexnre-“J” and the petitieners were<\/p>\n
  to be wantirlg in merit. It is next contended that<\/p>\n
   the light ef the iaw iaid ciewn by the Censtittition<\/p>\n
Lek<\/p>\n
we<\/p>\n
Bench ef the Supreme Court in SECRETARY, STATE<\/p>\n
or KARNATAKA Am) on-mas vs. UBEABEVI <\/p>\n
OTHERS 1, the petitioners are disentit}eci_;”‘\u00a3($ ” <\/p>\n
appointmerlt eemrary to the constimtjonai   3<\/p>\n
if the petitioners claim under the eover\u00e9eei’ ‘i;he4._()rr,iez* eve <\/p>\n
this Court which cannot but.be___ eoxisimed ‘%’}’iti,gio11_}3 V<\/p>\n
employment.\n<\/p>\n
5. Having heard thethe parties<\/p>\n
and perused ti1e..p\u00a5.eadings,  cc>e:it;e;1tief;s\u00bbVadvanoed by<\/p>\n
the iearz\ufb01ed *  “petitioner must stand<\/p>\n
repelled    the observations of the<\/p>\n
 Be;1ef1Ai11…IJmadevi’s case at paragaph 43<\/p>\n
V made  _<\/p>\n
V  V\ufb01ius, it is clear that adherence to
\n r’@e’ eff equaiity in public employment is<\/p>\n
 .. ,a_ base feature of our Constitu\ufb01on and since
\nnu *  rule of law is the core of our
\n Censtitutien, a Court would certamly be<\/p>\n
‘ disabled from passing an order upholding a<\/p>\n
111,12 2035 KAR 269’? : :200e{4} see 1 EKK<\/p>\n
\/2<\/p>\n
violation of Article 14 or in or\u00e9ering the<\/p>\n
overlooking of the need to comply with the <\/p>\n
r6quireI11erits of Article 14 read with <\/p>\n
16 of the Const\ufb01ution. Therefore, coneisteiat ‘.  “”<\/p>\n
W-‘ith the scheme for public emp\u00a7eyment,”‘\u00a31–“{ie\u00bb  .<\/p>\n
Court While laying down   4′<\/p>\n
necessarily to hold that l?_u:.t1l_ess  2 V’ <\/p>\n
appointment is in terms  rele1\u00a5e11t.VVArule1\u00e9V”‘  <\/p>\n
and after a proiper ce\ufb01\ufb01e\ufb01tipn  ameM11gVf5
\nquali\ufb01ed persons, tl1e:%\u00ab-saxiie fist: confer
\nany night on the   is a
\ncontractual l   V. _aj)peli1unent<\/p>\n
comes td l’aIji_en{\u00a7.4a\u00a3_\u20acl’1e end. 51* the contract, if
\nit Were’  eVI1g::\u00bb:.ge:3,_1 e:11\u00a7’V…or appoirltxnent on
\ndaily W”agee_of Ca’eu}:\u00bb3}\u00a7_”\\.basis, the same would<\/p>\n
ecgrlrieu. te an-..__e1id when it is discontinued.<\/p>\n
. V.   teeijierary employee could not<\/p>\n
‘  ,_\u00a7e\u00bb.4be’\u00a3egeade pezmanent en the expiry ef<\/p>\n
” \ufb01le –:_c\u00a7i’-‘lappointznent. It has also to be<\/p>\n
 that merely because a temporary<\/p>\n
 .. Vemelejzee or a casual wage worker is
\n” – _eei1\ufb01nued for a \ufb01me beyomi the term of his<\/p>\n
 apmintment, he would not be entitled to be<\/p>\n
‘absorbed in regular service or made<\/p>\n
permanent, merely on the strength of such<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
continuance, if the 0rig7J:1ai appoinmlent was
\nnot made by fellowing a due process of<\/p>\n
selec\ufb01en as envisaged by the relevant rules.<\/p>\n
It is not open to the Court 1:0 prevent regular <\/p>\n
remuitment at: the instance of temp0ra;j\u00a3– f  A’<\/p>\n
employees whose period of employment h{\u00a7lSv  <\/p>\n
come to an end or of ad has employees   l<\/p>\n
by the very nature of their ajlpoilitrlieixi,  ‘V  _
\nnot acquire any right.  {Ifhe ‘I–ii_@   .<\/p>\n
acting under Article 226 eif. me
\nshould not, ordinggilv iSS{1e”_:’dii’ectienS”–ferV4
\nabsorption. reg111ai*i:\u00a7a\u00a7;it31f;,f’i-.’ 10z4’= f\ufb02\ufb01rmanent<\/p>\n
contiI1u\u00e9i1ee.,  xeemjitxnent itself
\nwa.s\u00b0made .re’g”uJa73’lvl’ee—af:.d in terms of the
\nconstifimenall sc1:t_eme,; Merely because an<\/p>\n
etiipleyee  eonimued under cover of an<\/p>\n
.  . c)’i’dei;  which we have described<\/p>\n
  _\u00a33fsf ”_*employment” in the earlier part
\n.’ . ciiftixe _iiis;l.gtx1ent, he would not be entitled 1:0<\/p>\n
@113: ts be absorbed 91* made permanent<\/p>\n
 .. Vein {lie service. In fact, in each Cases, the<\/p>\n
V’ ‘~  Court may not be justified in issuing<\/p>\n
 interim \u00e9ire<::tie::n:1e, since, after all, if<\/p>\n
Iiltimately the employee approachi\ufb02g it is
\nfound entitled te relief, it may be possible for<\/p>\n
Eek<\/p>\n
_ thus: " _{ l "\n<\/p>\n
E0<\/p>\n
it to moulci the reiief in such a manner that<\/p>\n
ultimately no prejudice will be caused to<\/p>\n
him, whereas an interim dileetiorz <\/p>\n
continue his employment would hold 1~1p_.”tl<1e '.  :"<\/p>\n
regular procedure fer selectioripr   <\/p>\n
the State the burden of payiilg a1}4T'e_m\u00a71eye{g'*.V <\/p>\n
who is really not required.  mm; * V' K
\nbe careful in ensuring  tliey_ 6.9:
\ninterfere unduly _ with' ego\ufb01gmie
\narrangement of its  by vlti1e'\u00bbSLate or its
\ni11str1iIeenta}ities or    the<\/p>\n
iI1stI1nneI;t5\u00ab:te- _   V'p'aesing of<\/p>\n
the,  stat: mandates. "\n<\/p>\n
 Pata\ufb01\u00e9;t)\u00a7l. til’ the said. judgment reads<\/p>\n
_   hile directing the’: appointments,
\n casual, be regularised or made
\n the Courts are swaye\u00e9 by the<\/p>\n
fee: Vltljxat the person concerned has Worked
\n ‘f\u20ac)_”:i’ eeme time and in some cases fer a
\nA’  ‘ee\ufb01sidemble length at” time. It is not as if
\n the person who aoeepts an engagement
\neither temporary or casual in nature, is not<\/p>\n
aware of the nature ef his employment. He<\/p>\n
MK<\/p>\n
\u00a31<\/p>\n
accepts the employment with open eyes. It<\/p>\n
may be true that he is not in a position to  <\/p>\n
bargainvnot at arm’s le:I1gth~sim:e he mig\u00a51t.’4″_\u00bbV.’:  ”<\/p>\n
have been searching for some ernploymieijt, “-”<\/p>\n
so as to eke out his iivelihooi aeoepfs\u00bb  ‘<\/p>\n
whatever he gets. But on tlxaf, m*om:id a1o3;1e, ‘<\/p>\n
it would not be avsropriate to  A’<\/p>\n
constitutional scheme of ap\ufb01einmen\ufb01   ‘<\/p>\n
take the View that a  who ‘vheasj
\ntemnoraliiv or easssi\ufb01ygot  should
\nm directed to be c:oz;g’B’i1me\u00a2iiV.VD<\u00a7:H:\u20aci'af1e'r;!tIVV. sv
\ndoing so. it  of<\/p>\n
public   hof, permissible.\n<\/p>\n
If t:he'”‘ :%Yer\u00e9~..\u00abVto   contractual
\nems1{)y’menii  on the gound
\nthat ‘the – pai\ufb01es’  not having equal<\/p>\n
bai”‘gaini14ig..pow’er, ‘th2w1t too would not enable<\/p>\n
  tb….._gfgnt any. relief to that<\/p>\n
‘ Dem_p=1oyee_  total embargo on such casual<\/p>\n
 ~. ery  empioyment is not possible,<\/p>\n
giveI;”1ihe” exigencies of administration and if<\/p>\n
im\ufb01esed, would only mean that some people<\/p>\n
”   at least get empleyment temporarily,
\n eentractualiy or casually, would mot be<\/p>\n
 getting even that employment when securing<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
ef such employment brings at least some   <\/p>\n
succeur to them. After all, irlnullierahlej   ”<\/p>\n
Citizens of our vast country are in Search-,.__i)f.  <\/p>\n
employment and ene is net. ”  ‘<\/p>\n
accept a casual or {emporaxyl’\u00bb.:emplof\u00a2ii1e_i1t’if  <\/p>\n
one is not inclined to  i11’fQr”–suchv5aI;’ ‘<\/p>\n
employment. It is in tha’t4c,centext’*–fl:1at  H <\/p>\n
has to proceed .01}   t1’1af’~t,l]e’3
\nemplovment was accepted  the
\nnature of it and t11.e..”cen\u00a7\u00a7e<\u00a7u<\u00a3race\u00e9\u00a7' ;filbwiz1e
\nfrom it. ln~'o{;'}e1' we-rds,–v.evezl.'\\$?i1ile_V}}ieeeptjng<\/p>\n
the em151cy*\u00ab1\ufb01ee;:,:   concerned<\/p>\n
  ellfdlfiioyment. It is
\nnotla\u00e9xzl  post in the real
\nsense loll t;1'1elV"tef1'If1_." .e::_?\u00a7'he claim acquired by<\/p>\n
 ifl the"  if} which he is temporarily<\/p>\n
.  _ 'eIe};iieye<i_er thelllijiterest in that post eaimot<\/p>\n
l  VA  to be of such a magnitucie as<\/p>\n
" . hie'  giving up of the preeedure<\/p>\n
e'etai*-i:liSi"ied, fer maleing regular<\/p>\n
 e Veapieoiiimlenta 116 available posts in the<\/p>\n
V' 2 _sze;:viee of the State. The argument that<\/p>\n
 einee one has been working for sometime in<\/p>\n
the post, it will act be just to discontinue<\/p>\n
him, even thcugh he was aware of the nature<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
E3<\/p>\n
of the empieyment when he \ufb01rst; took it up,<\/p>\n
is not {sic} one that woulci enable the H <\/p>\n
jettisoning of the procedure established \u00a7:)y ' <\/p>\n
law for ynblie employment and would I:-\ufb01vrey  <\/p>\n
to faii when tested en the _JtM<31;{ff\u00a7.:’ti\u00a7:=le..’21 of the Constitution.<\/p>\n
 :,.’the\u00ab}rery “a1*gu’n1en’\u00a3 indicates that there<\/p>\n
‘   for employment and an<\/p>\n
 ~.  for eempeting for<\/p>\n
emplwment anti it is in that context that the<\/p>\n
Ce\ufb01sfitution as one of its basic features, has<\/p>\n
”  iifzeiucied Articles 14, 16 anci 369 so as to<\/p>\n
 efisure that public employment is given only<\/p>\n
 in a fair and equitable manner by giving al}<\/p>\n
those who are quali\ufb01ed, an o\u00a7p0rt1mity to<\/p>\n
UK<\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
seek employment. in the guise of upholding<\/p>\n
rights under Article 21 of the Constitu\ufb01on, a W <\/p>\n
set of persons cannot be preferred 0Ver_Ha,_’4″  <\/p>\n
vest majetfitji of peeple waiting for   <\/p>\n
opportunity to cempete__…. for   ‘<\/p>\n
employment. The acceptencee  fl  _ 1 the 4′ * <\/p>\n
argument on behalf of _ the responde:.:te’ A’ ‘
\nwould really negate the ‘is of 3 the etl*;;efs>4’V S<\/p>\n
conferred by Article. 21 Qf–..the_ \u20ac3e12etit’:1–tiQnA,v\u00a7
\nassuming that We  _ in 3;  to held
\nthat the right to emVpley_m.ei1t   right<\/p>\n
coming the 2 1 of<\/p>\n
 Tl1eVV__atg_iunent that Article
\n23 6f the  breached because
\nthe enipleyment   wages ameunts ta<\/p>\n
fdyeed labemi, ieangrlot be accepted. After all,<\/p>\n
 ”  the :’etej$\u00a7eyees accepted the employment at<\/p>\n
  and with eyes caper; as te<\/p>\n
   of their employment. The<\/p>\n
(}e’\u00a7Ierj mu’ tents else revised the m1’m’m:1m<\/p>\n
 A. egageeh payable \ufb01em time te time in the light<\/p>\n
”  all relevant eircumetaneess. It also<\/p>\n
 appears to us that importing ef these<\/p>\n
theeries to defeat the basic requirement of<\/p>\n
public employment would defeat the<\/p>\n
lralt<\/p>\n
IS<\/p>\n
constimtionai scheme and the constitutional<\/p>\n
gcai of equality.”\n<\/p>\n
(Emphasis suppliecgf.’ ” ‘   jj — : E is A4 <\/p>\n
At Paragaph 54, it is held \u00a5:h1;s:~~ <\/p>\n
“54. It is alst)      <\/p>\n
decisions which run couiitay to
\nsettled in this decisio1 i;.\n<\/p>\n
directions running ‘:C9un1_:t\u00a7i;   . we <\/p>\n
held herain, wili s;t;a;1d’ %r1%:a:1u\u00a2\u00a71je::%%%j%.i;srkL their
\nstatus as pr\u00a2ce\u00a71entS;””–::’; V’ V’ ‘  ”<\/p>\n
6.  PaI9VV”L’\u00ab’r;:::p:’fz%  .Co:1stit1::.tion Bench, in<\/p>\n
exereiae of   142 of the Constitution,<\/p>\n
__in ordegf tudo jtisii\u00e9\u00e9, directed that if sanctioned posts<\/p>\n
V.   would take immediate steps by<\/p>\n
 a reguiar process of selectioiz and<\/p>\n
in smith a’ pi’0ces$, smch of mass employee: in thf:<\/p>\n
 ”  Tax Department on temporary casual basis,<\/p>\n
   aliewed to campete waiving the age restriction<\/p>\n
” for the I’\u20ac5CI’1J.iEII1\u20acI1’\u00a3 and giving some Weightage<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
for their having been engaged for walk in the<\/p>\n
Department fer a signi\ufb01cant period ef time.<\/p>\n
7′. A three judge beach of the Apex Ceuxjt,<\/p>\n
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR vs. DAYANAND2, n\u00e9l\u00e9i 4%  ~<\/p>\n
Paragraph 55 of the judgment in Umadevi’sI_4ed$e”edid.Vn<\u00a7i;. <\/p>\n
iay down a iaw. In that View of the :i::;a.t'ijet';  77:<\/p>\n
scheme formulated at   'ag\ufb01prd\ufb01fed
\nthe State is in violation  the ,e'<3;;1.$:\u00a3iti;tionai' sehefae in<\/p>\n
public empioyment and tk1:eee'V:}3eti'tioners were<\/p>\n
disentitieizlt tcav a  tzftheir claime in terms of
\nthe scheme.  "\n<\/p>\n
 firevm any angle, the claim of the<\/p>\n
A’-petitienere \u00a3923 issue of a writ of mandamus directing the<\/p>\n
re\u00e9pe<)Vit'::dee;r"1i;\u00e9."_*v.v.tg:)'\ufb01tinsider their case for selection and<\/p>\n
 V   the pest ef' J 1121101' Engneer (Electrical),<\/p>\n
 ' '  trade Computer Science, pursuant to the<\/p>\n
d  ' ~ :%f{20a9; 1 sec fbabeur e Service) 943 <\/p>\n
:1?\n<\/p>\n
notification dated 26-08-2009 Annexure–“J”, is<\/p>\n
unavaiiabla.\n<\/p>\n
9. in the result, Writ petitions are   _<\/p>\n
and are rejected.\n<\/p>\n
Sri. N.K. Gupta, learned co11Vi1sei i\u00a7::’ if <\/p>\n
\ufb01ie his memo of appearance “;l_\u00a7~\u00bb1 fa. .,1.'{}1_1i”<\/p>\n
weeks.\n<\/p>\n
KS<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Harish R vs The Managing Director on 17 December, 2009 Author: Ram Mohan Reddy E IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BAIVIGALORE DATED THIS THE 17″‘ DAY OF’ DECEMBER, 2909 mm HOWBLE hm. JUSTICE mm MORAN R1i;\u00a7i)Bj$r%LIi L? % WRIT I>E’rI’rIo1~t N0.36202~2o3 QF}2oo9″;%s\u00a7i\u00a7t1%V:si: _ Q h BEFORE BETWEEN 1 i~lARISI\u00bb-I R – […]<\/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-245320","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nHarish R vs The Managing Director on 17 December, 2009 - 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\/harish-r-vs-the-managing-director-on-17-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Harish R vs The Managing Director on 17 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-r-vs-the-managing-director-on-17-december-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-12-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-17T23:19:25+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-r-vs-the-managing-director-on-17-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-r-vs-the-managing-director-on-17-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Harish R vs The Managing Director on 17 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-17T23:19:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-r-vs-the-managing-director-on-17-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2512,\"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\/harish-r-vs-the-managing-director-on-17-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-r-vs-the-managing-director-on-17-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-r-vs-the-managing-director-on-17-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Harish R vs The Managing Director on 17 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-17T23:19:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-r-vs-the-managing-director-on-17-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-r-vs-the-managing-director-on-17-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-r-vs-the-managing-director-on-17-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Harish R vs The Managing Director on 17 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Harish R vs The Managing Director on 17 December, 2009 - 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\/harish-r-vs-the-managing-director-on-17-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Harish R vs The Managing Director on 17 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-r-vs-the-managing-director-on-17-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-17T23:19:25+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-r-vs-the-managing-director-on-17-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-r-vs-the-managing-director-on-17-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Harish R vs The Managing Director on 17 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-17T23:19:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-r-vs-the-managing-director-on-17-december-2009"},"wordCount":2512,"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\/harish-r-vs-the-managing-director-on-17-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-r-vs-the-managing-director-on-17-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-r-vs-the-managing-director-on-17-december-2009","name":"Harish R vs The Managing Director on 17 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-17T23:19:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-r-vs-the-managing-director-on-17-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-r-vs-the-managing-director-on-17-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harish-r-vs-the-managing-director-on-17-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Harish R vs The Managing Director on 17 December, 2009"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/245320","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=245320"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245320\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=245320"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=245320"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=245320"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}