1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI

WRIT PETITION Nos.47587-47591 OF 2012 (S-REG) C/W

WRIT PETITION Nos.47435-47448/2012, 47461-47498/2012 AND 8713-8742/2013

W.P.Nos.47587-47591/2012:

BETWEEN :

1. P.Rajesh, S/o.Purushotam, Aged about 28 years, R/at No.66, Nandini Layout, Bangalore – 560 096.

2. Manu, S/o.Karigowda, Aged about 29 years, No.K-21, II Cross, Kallahalli, Mandya – 571 40. 3. H.T.Keshavamurthy, S/o.Thammaiah H.M. Aged about 32 years,

Hebbalu Extension & Post, K.R.Nagara – 571 602, Mysore District. 4. T.H.Dinesh, S/o.Honappa, Aged about 35 years,

R

2

No.374C, Shivakrupa Near Lalitha Mahal Gate,

Siddarthanagar, Mysore. 5. Vijaya Raj Urs T.V.

S/o.Vishwanatha Raju, Aged about 30 years, ‘Nagashri’ 11th Cross, Subhashnagar, B.Katihalli Koppalu, Hassan – 573 201. ... Petitioners

(By Sri Jayakumar S.Patil, Senior Advocate for

Sri Reuben Jacob, Advocate) AND: 1. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Kaveri Bhavan, K.G.Road, Bangalore – 560 009, By its Managing Director. 2. The State of Karnataka, Department of Energy, Vikasa Soudha, Bangalore – 560 001, By its Secretary. 3. The Director, Administration and Human Resources Karnataka Power Transmission

Corporation Limited, Kaveri Bhavan, K.G.Road, Bangalore – 560 009. …Respondents

(By Sri S.S.Naganand, Senior Counsel for Sri S.Sriranga for R1 & R3:

Sri A.S.Ponnanna, Additional Advocate General for R2)

3

These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the letter dated 15.11.2012 issued by the R2 in Annexure P and letter dated 19.11.2012, issued by the R3, in Annexure-Q and consequently, forebear the respondents from terminating or discontinuing the services of the petitioners, etc.

W.P.Nos.47435-47448/2012: BETWEEN : 1. Vinutha M.

W/o.Karthick S. Age: 28 years, # 30, NGO’s Colony, Rajendra Nagar, NR Mohalla, Mysore – 570 007.

2. Suma C.M.

W/o.Raghavendra N. Age: 28 years, # No.7, 3rd Cross, 1st Main, Behind Daisy Convent, Arvinda Nagar, Mysore – 570 023.

3. Sulthana Begum,

D/o.Abdul Salam, Age 29 years, # 786, 4th Stage, Kalyangiri, Mysore – 570 019.

4. Rajkumar E.Bijjaragi,

S/o.E.L.Bijjaragi, Age: 33 years, C/o.Dr.R.M.Honnutagi, Shanthiniketan Colony, Bagalkot Road, Bijapura – 586 103.

4

5. Shivanand D.Dashwanth, S/o.Lt.Danappa G.Dashavanth, Age: 36 years, Opp. to BLDEA Engg. College, Boy’s Hostel Gate, Mallikarjuna Nagar, Ashram Road, Bijapur – 586 103.

6. Ravikumar H.R.

S/o./Ramachandrappa, Age 30 years, # 132/1, 3rd Main, 9th Cross, TK Layout, Mysolre – 570 023.

7. Ramesh,

S/o.Annaiah, Age 28 years, # 75/C, Vishwakarma Colony, East of VAnigan Building, Gayathripuram, Mysore – 570 019.

8. Raghavendra S.

S/o.C.Singri Gowda, Age 32 years, RT Divisioin, Mysore Zone, KPTCL, FTS Compound, Mysore – 570 023.

9. Ayyappa M.B. S/o.Bheemaiah M.M. Age 29 years, No.87, KBL Layout, Nagaloka, Near Ring Road, Bannur Main Road, Mysore – 570 028.

5

10. V.Rudresh, S/o.Veerabhadraiah, Age 29 years, R.Yedehalli Dobbaspet (Post), Nelamangala (Tq.), Bangalore Rural (District).

11. Murali K.V.

S/o.Veerabhadraiah, Age 27 years, # LIG-59, E&F Block Vishwa Guru Marga, Ramakrishna Nagar, Mysore – 570 023.

12. Sanna Babu,

S/o.Braman, Age 28 years, Markandaiah Floor Mill, Near BN Temple, Gandhinagar Market, Bellary – 583 101.

13. Anil Kumar Savalasang,

S/o.Mallappa, Age 35 years, Near BLDE Hospital, Vidyanagar, Bijapur – 586 103.

14. Yogeesha U.

S/o.Late Shivarama Rao U. Age 29 years, ‘Akshatha”, Uddampady, Aivarnadu Post, Sullia Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District – 574 245. ... Petitioners

(By Sri B.V.Acharya, Senior Advocate for

Sri Vikas Rojipura, Advocate for M/s.Ravivarma Kumar Associates)

6

AND:

1. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Kaveri Bhavan, K.G.Road, Bangalore – 560 009.

2. The State of Karnataka, Represented by the Chief Secretary,

Department of Energy, Vikasa Soudha, Bangalore – 560 001. …Respondents

(By Sri S.S.Naganand, Senior Counsel for Sri S.Sriranga for R1: Sri A.S.Ponnanna, Additional Advocate General for R2)

These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India praying to quash the letter dated 15.11.2012 vide Annexure-R, dated 19.11.2012 in Annexure-S, forebear the respondents from terminating or discontinuing the services of the petitioners, etc.

W.P.Nos.47461-47498/2012:

BETWEEN : 1. Sri Gangadhara D.R.

S/o.Rangegowda, Aged about 38 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) TLM Section, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, TL & SS Division, Hassan.

2. Sri Range Gowda M. S/o.Marigowda, Aged about 35 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11, KV, Muss - Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Doddamogga, Arkalgud Taluk, Hassan.

7

3. Sri Praveen B.K. S/o.Late Kariyamma, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11, KV, Muss - Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Doddamogga, Arkalgud Taluk, Hassan.

4. Sri Puneeth Kumar M.N. S/o.Nataraj M.D. Aged about 25 years,

Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11, KV, Muss - Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Doddamogga, Arkalgud Taluk, Hassan.

5. Sri Ananda H.V. S/o.Venkatappa, Aged about 28 years,

Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11, KV, Muss - Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Doddamogga, Arkalgud Taluk, Hassan.

6. Kum.Vijayalakshmi A. D/o.Late Appajigowda, Aged about 29 years,

Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11, KV, Muss, TL & SS, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Rameshwarnagar, Hassan.

7. Sri Lakshmeeshaiah B.

S/o.Boregowda H. Aged about 28 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11 KV, MUSS, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited,

8

Kolala Hobli, Koratagere Taluk, Tumkur.

8. Kum.Shobha M.V.

D/o.Veerappa M.B. Aged about 29 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, TL & SS Division, Tumkur.

9. Kum.Smitha Swamy,

D/o.Veerappa M.B. Aged about 29 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Major Works, Tumkur.

10. Sri Mohammed Ifran,

S/o.Suban Sab, Aged about 28 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11 KV, MUSS, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, C.T.Kere, Tumkur.

11. Sri Basavaraju C.

S/o.Chikkanna, Aged about 35 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11 KV, MUSS, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Chelur, Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur.

12. Sri Pradeep T.

S/o.Thimmaiah, Aged about 28 years,

9

Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11 KV, MUSS- Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Kodigenahalli, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumkur District.

13. Kum.Hemalatha,

D/o.Gattishaiah, Aged about 30 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11 KV, MUSS, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District.

14. Kum.Jyothi A.R.

D/o.Ramakrisuhna Nayak, Aged about 32 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11 KV, MUSS, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Akkihebbal, K.R.Pet, Mandya District.

15. Sri Srirama,

S/o.Boranaika, Aged about 40 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11 KV, MUSS, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Saligrama, K.R.Nagara.

16. Sri Thontadarya M.

S/o.Murugendraiah M. Aged about 27 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11 KV, MUSS,

10

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Hiriyur, Davanagere.

17. Sri Chandrashekara H.R.

S/o.Raghavendra Rao T. Aged about 25 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11 KV, MUSS, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Hebbal II Stage, Hebbal, Mysore.

18. Sri B.J.Manjunatha,

S/o.Jayaprakasha, Aged about 27 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11 KV, MUSS, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, K.R.Nagara, Mysore District.

19. Sri M.Suresha,

S/o.Mahadeva Nayak, Aged about 33 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11 KV, MUSS, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, K.R.Nagara, Mysore District.

20. Smt.Komala S.

D/o.N.Shivaram, Aged about 42 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11 KV, MUSS, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Hebbal IInd Stage, Hebbal, Mysore.

11

21. Sri Panesha Babu R, S/o.Basavaiah, aged about 35 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) Kollegala Sub Division, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, O & M – 3, CESC, Kollegal, Chamarajanagar District.

22. Smt.Mamatha P.S. D/o.Swamy H.C. Aged about 35 years,

Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11 KV, MUSS, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Periyapatna, TL & SS Division, Hootagally, Mysore District.

23. Sri Yogesh T.S. S/o.Sidduregowda H.P. Aged about 25 years,

Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) O & M Section-1, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Nanjangud Sub-Division-1, CESC, Nanjangud, Mysore District.

24. Sri Rama,

S/o.Venkategowda, Aged about 42 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11 KV, MUSS, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Saligrama, K.R.Nagara, Mysore District.

25. Sri Raghavendra H.A.

S/o.Appaji Gowda,

12

Aged about 23 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, OESC, O & M, Hootagally, Mysore District.

26. Smt.Shobharani K.P.

D/o.Puttegowda, Aged about 28 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, No.66/11 KV, MUSS, Rameshwara Nagar, TL & SS, Hassan.

27. Smt.Manjula M.

D/o.Munigangappa, Aged about 24 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, CESCOM, O & M, Sub-Division, Belur, Hassan District.

28. Smt.Abhinaya,

D/o.Rajegowda, Aged about 27 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, No.66/11 KV, MUSS, TL & SS, Belur, Hassan District.

29. Sri Girish B.N.

S/o.Nanjegowda B.R. Aged about 25 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, No.66/11 KV, MUSS, TL & SS, Belur, Hassan District.

13

30. Smt.Thejashwini V.S. D/o.Srinivasa, Aged about 25 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11 KV, MUSS, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Ramanathapura, Arkalgud Taluk, Hassan District.

31. Smt.Madhura K.S. W/o.Ramesh D.B.

Aged about 38 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) No.66/11 KV, MUSS, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Ramanathapura, Arkalgud Taluk, Hassan District.

32. Smt.Asha K.C.

W/o.B.C.Chandrashekhar, Aged about 32 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical), O & M Division, CESCE, KPTCL, Holenarasaipura, Hassan District.

33. Sri Nagesh K.H.

S/o.Huchaiah, Aged about 30 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical), Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, O & M Division, CESCE, Mallipatna, Arkalgud Taluk, Hassan District – 573 130.

34. Sri Shridhara,

D/o.Boregowda, Aged about 28 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical),

14

66/11 KV, MUSS, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Shravanabelagola, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District – 573 316.

35. Sri Naveen Kumar J.K.

S/o.Krishna Gowda, Aged about 30 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical), 66/11 KV, MUSS, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Shravanabelagola, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District – 573 316.

36. Smt.Padmavathi R.

W/o.Dinesh M.R. Aged about 37 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical), 66/11 KV, MUSS, Didaga, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District – 573 316.

37. Kum.Deepika R.

D/o.Ramachandra, Aged about 24 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical), 66/11 KV, MUSS, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Shravanabelagola, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District – 573 316.

38. Smtr.K.S.Kavitha Bai,m

W/o.Anand, Aged about 27 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical),

15

66/11 KV, MUSS, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Shravanabelagola, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District. ... Petitioners

(By Sri M.S.Bhagwat, Advocate)

AND: 1. The State of Karnataka,

Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Energy, Vikasa Soudha, Bangalore.

2. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director,

Kaveri Bhavan, Bangalore – 560 009.

3. The Director (Admn. & HRD),

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Kaveri Bhavan, Bangalore– 560 009. …Respondents

(By Sri A.S.Ponnanna, Additional Advocate General for R1:

Sri S.S.Naganand, Senior Counsel for Sri S.Sriranga for R2 & R3)

These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated 15.11.2012 issued by the R1 vide Annexure-A consequently quash the impugned endorsement dated 19.11.2012 issued by R2 vide Annexure-B to Br in so far as petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 are concerned, etc.

16

W.P.Nos.8713-8742/2013:

BETWEEN : 1. Santhosh L.

S/o.Lokesha Reddy L.P. Aged about 30 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 66/11 KV MUSS, Sahakaranagar MUSS, Bangalore – 560 092.

2. Manu K.S.

S/o.Shamsundar K. Aged about 29 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 66/11 KV MUSS, Austin Town, Bangalore – 560 047.

3. Raghavendra T.V.

S/o.Virupakshappa H, Aged about 29 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 66/11 KV MUSS, CESC Channarayapatna Sub-Division, Hassan District.

4. Santhosh B.Hadapad, S/o.Basappa Hadapad, Aged about 28 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) CECS Bagur, C.R.Patna Division, Hassan District. 5. Lokesh, S/o.Shivanna, Aged about 33 years,

17

Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 66/11, KV MUSS, Ramanagaram. 6. Sunanda H.Machakanur, D/o.Hanamappa L.Machakanur, Aged about 34 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 110 KV Station, Navanagar Hubli, Dharwad District. 7. Umashree Y.Nittur, D/o.Yallappa M.Nittur, Aged about 26 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) R.T.Division, KPTCL Hubli,

Dharwad District. 8. M.V.Savadatti, D/o./Veeranna Savadatti,

Aged about 29 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 220 KV, SRS, KPTCL, Hubli, Dharwad District.

9. Parameshwarappa

S/o.Late Basavalingappa M.C. Aged about 39 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 110/11KV MUSS, Gercemara, Arsikere.

10. Mallesha S.T.

S/o.Thippeswamy S. Aged about 29 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 66/11 KV MUSS, Kukkuwada, Davangere.

18

11. B.T.Dhananjaya, S/o.D.Thimmappa, Aged about 33 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) Thallak, MUSS, Davanagere Division, Davanagere.

12. Adarsh S.J. S/o.Jayaram S.C. Aged about 27 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 110/11 KV MUSS, Kumsi, Shimoga, Shimoga.

13. Jayakara B.

S/o.Gopal B. Aged about 38 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 110/11 KV MUSS, Halady, Kundapur Taluk, Udupi District.

14. Jagadesha N.

S/o.Nanjegowda, Aged about 30 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 66/11, KV MUSS, Iqqwlur, Channapatna Taluk, Ramanagaram District.

15. Malathesha G.R.

S/o.Rudrappa H.G. Aged about 29 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 66/11 KV MUSS, Kukkawada, Davanagere.

19

16. S.Subramani, S/o.Srinivasappa, Aged about 25 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 66/11, KV MUSS, Chintamani, TL & SS Kolar Division KPTCL, Kolar.

17. Kiran Kumar B.V. s/o.Late Vittal Rao B.N. aged about 40 years, working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 110/11KV, MUSS (KPTCL) Hunsegatta, Tiptur Sub-Division, Tumkur District.

18. Murugesh T. S/o.Shamsundar K. Aged about 29 years, Working as Junior Engine (Electrical) 66/11 KV MUSS, Nayakanahatty, 220 KV SRS & SS Division, Chitradurga.

19. Ashok S.Raiker, S/o.Shripad Raiker, Aged about 38 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 110 KV S/S Macle, Belgaum.

20. Md.Taher Ali, S/o.Md.Hussain, Aged about 35 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) O & M Hadgil Harili RSD Gescom, Gulbarga.

21. Digamber, S/o.Vithalrao, Aged about 30 years,

20

Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 110/11, KV S/S Habsikote, Bidar.

22. Sagar K.Dhumale, S/o.K.Dhumale, Aged about 31 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical,) 110/11 KV S/S Shorabue, TL & SSM Division, Bijapur.

24. Sudharani N.

D/o.C.N.Narasimha Murthy, Aged about 26 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 66/11 KV MUSS Brindavan, TL & SS Division, SRS Peenya, Bangalore.

25. Imtiyajalam, Kalaburgi,

S/o.Husensaheb, Aged about 35 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 110/11 KV MUSS Mamdapur, Bijapur.

26. Manjula B.C.

D/o.Chowdappa B.V. Aged about 28 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 66/1 KV MUSS M.Gollahally, Chickballapura.

27. B.D.Prakash,

S/o.Devegowda, Aged about 30 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 66/11 KV MUSS Beroor, Chennapatana Taluk, Ramanagar District.

21

28. Chandu, S/o.Late G.A.Chikkaboregowda, Aged about 30 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 66/11 KV Iggalur MUSS Chennapatna Taluk, Ramanagar District.

29. Mahesh S.Patil,

S/o.S.Patil, Aged about 32 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 110 KV MUSS Shahapur, Shahapur Taluk, Yadagiri District.

30. Balavant B.G.

S/o.Basavanappa, Aged about 33 years, Working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) 110/33, 11 KV S/S Aland, Gulbarga District. ... Petitioners

(By Sri B.Roopesha and Sandeep M.K., Advocates)

AND: 1. State of Karnataka,

Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Energy, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore – 560 001.

2. The Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director,

Kaveri Bhavan, Bangalore – 560 009.

22

3. The General Manager (Admn. & HRD), Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, Kaveri Bhavan, Bangalore– 560 009. …Respondents

(By Sri A.S.Ponnanna, Additional Advocate General for R1:

Sri S.S.Naganand, Senior Counsel for Sri S.Sriranga for R2 & R3)

These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the letter dated 15.11.2012 vide Annexure-R and letter dated 19.11.2012 in Annexure S and consequently forbear the respondents from terminating or discontinuing the services of the petitioners. Etc.

These writ petitions, coming on for hearing, this day, the Court

made the following:

O R D E R

All these petitions are clubbed, heard together and are being

disposed of by this common order, as the questions of facts and law

involved are the same.

2. W.P.Nos.47587-47591/2012 and W.P.Nos.47435-

47448/2012 are filed by the contract Assistant Engineers.

W.P.Nos.47461-47498/2012 and 8713-8742/2013 are filed by the

contract Junior Engineers. The petitioners have raised the

challenge to the communication, dated 15.11.2012 issued by the

Government to the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation

23

Limited (‘K.P.T.C.L.’ for short), rejecting the latter’s proposal for

regularizing the services of the petitioners. They have also

challenged the consequential endorsement, dated 19.11.2012 issued

by the Government calling upon the K.P.T.C.L. to terminate the

contractual appointments in question. The petitioners have sought

the order forbearing the respondents from terminating the services

of the petitioners and further for a direction to regularize and

absorb their services retrospectively from the date of their

appointment.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the K.P.T.C.L. has

been appointing the Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers on

contract basis. The services of the contractual appointees of 2003,

2005 and 2006 batch were regularized. The present petitioners are

of 2007 batch. They took part in the recruitment process by

responding to the notification, dated 07.02.2007. The K.P.T.C.L.

held the written examination and conducted the interview. Further,

on satisfying itself that the petitioners are eligible and suitable for

holding the posts in question, it appointed them on 13.09.2007. It

24

is also to be noted that the KPTCL observed reservation and roster

norms. On the regularization of the contractual appointments of

the three earlier batches and on the same relief not being extended

to them, some of the petitioners filed W.P.Nos.21555-21605/2012

which came to be disposed of by this Court by its order, dated

04.10.2012 with a direction to the Government to take a decision in

the matter within two months. The Government was directed to

take a decision in the matter, as the K.P.T.C.L. had already passed a

resolution for regularizing the services of the contract Assistant

Engineers and Junior Engineers of 2007 batch and for obtaining the

approval of the Government for the same.

4. On the Government turning down the K.P.T.C.L.’s

proposal for the regularization of the petitioners’ services, these

petitions are filed.

5. Sri B.V.Acharya, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri

Vikas Rojipura appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.47435-

47448/2012 submits that the petitioners are appointed against the

sanctioned posts in accordance with the constitutional scheme for

25

the public appointments. He submits that the petitioners are not the

back-door entrants. They have taken part in the regular recruitment

process. He submits that the petitioners appeared for the written

examination and for the interview conducted by the K.P.T.C.L. It

is on the basis of their merit that they are selected for the posts in

question. He submits that there is no infraction of any rule in the

appointment of the petitioners. For all the practical purposes, they

are the regular recruitees. As the K.P.T.C.L. has shown the nature

of their appointment as on contract basis, they are facing the

vicissitudes.

6. Sri Acharya submits that even the Government vide its

letter, dated 14.02.2007 (Annexure-D in W.P.Nos.47435-448/2012)

has conveyed its approval for making the appointments of the

Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers on permanent basis. He

read out the following portion of the said communication:

“KPTCL and ESCOMs may consider the issue of

recruiting A.Es. and J.Es. on permanent basis instead of

contract basis if their services are required on permanent basis.”

26

7. In view of the said approval granted at the pre-recruitment

stage, the K.P.T.C.L. ought to have appointed the petitioners on

permanent basis, so submits the learned Senior Counsel. His

further submission on the approval aspect of the matter is that

there was no need for the K.P.T.C.L. to seek the nod of the

Government for regularizing the services of the petitioners. He

submits that neither the Cadre and Recruitment Rules nor any other

service regulations of K.P.T.C.L. prescribe the requirement of

taking the approval for regularizing the services of the employees of

K.P.T.C.L.

8. He submits that for regularizing the contractual

appointments of 2003, 2005 and 2006 batches, no approval from

the Government was ever sought; nor has the Government

objected to regularizing the services of the contractual appointees

of the said batches.

9. He submits that the Government has turned down the

K.P.T.C.L.s proposal for the regularization of services mainly on

27

the ground that the said regularization runs contrary to law declared

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SECRETARY, STATE OF

KARNATAKA AND OTHERS vs. UMA DEVI (3) AND

OTHERS reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. He submits that such a

perception is ill-founded, because the regularization of the services

of the contractual appointees of the earlier batches was challenged

in W.P.No.7425/2007. This Court by its order, dated 20.05.2010

(Annexure-J in W.P.Nos.47435-47448/2012) dismissed the writ

petition holding inter alia that the resolution for regularization is in

no way contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in UMA DEVI’s case (supra). He submits that the said

orders of the learned Single Judge were challenged before the

Division Bench and before the Hon’ble Apex Court but without

any rate of success. He submits that the regularization of the

services of the contractual appointees of 2005 and 2006 batches

itself was after 10.04.2006 on which date the Hon’ble Supreme

Court pronounced judgment in UMA DEVI’s case (supra). He

further submits that their initial appointments (of 2005 and 2006

28

batch) on contract basis itself was on 06.07.2006 and 23.11.2006,

that is long after the pronouncement of the order by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in UMA DEVI’s case (supra).

10. The learned Senior Counsel submits that in the impugned

order there is no reference to the regularization of the similarly

placed employees of the three batches. He submits that when the

petitioners are appointed in accordance with the constitutional

scheme, the judgment in Uma Devi’s case does not come in the

way of the regularization of their services. He relies on the Apex

Court’s judgment in the case of NIHAL SINGH AND

OTHERS v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS reported in

(2013) 14 SCC 65 to advance his submission that when the

petitioners’ appointments are neither illegal nor irregular and when

they are appointed against the sanctioned posts, they are entitled to

have their services regularized. Paragraph Nos. 23, 24 and 28 of the

said judgment, read out by him are extracted hereinbelow:

29

“23. Even going by the principles laid down in Umadevi

case, we are of the opinion that the State of Punjab cannot be

heard to say that the appellants are not entitled to be absorbed

into the services of the State on permanent basis as their

appointments were purely temporary and not against any

sanctioned posts created by the State.

24. In our opinion, the initial appointment of the appellants

can never be categorized as an irregular appointment. The initial

appointment of the appellants is made in accordance with the

statutory procedure contemplated under the Act. The decision to

resort to such a procedure was taken at the highest level of the

State by conscious choice as already noticed by us.

28. The abovementioned process clearly indicates it is not a

case where persons like the appellants were arbitrarily chosen to

the exclusion of other eligible candidates. It required all able-

bodied persons to be considered by the SSP who was charged with

the responsibility of selecting suitable candidates.”

11. Sri Vikas Rojipura, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners in W.P.Nos.47435-47448/2012 read out paragraph

Nos.3 and 6 of the decision in Uma Devi’s case (supra). They are

extracted hereinbelow:-

30

“3. A sovereign government, considering the economic situation in

the country and the work to be got done, is not precluded from making

temporary appointments or engaging workers on daily wages. Going by

a law newly enacted, The National Rural Employment Guarantee

Act, 2005, the object is to give employment to at least one member of

a family for hundred days in an year, on paying wages as fixed under

that Act. But, a regular process of recruitment or appointment has to

be resorted to, when regular vacancies in posts, at a particular point of

time, are to be filled up and the filling up of those vacancies cannot be

done in a haphazard manner or based on patronage or other

considerations. Regular appointment must be the rule.

……………………………

6. The power of a State as an employer is more limited than

that of a private employer inasmuch as it is subjected to constitutional

limitations and cannot be exercised arbitrarily (See Basu's Shorter

Constitution of India). Article 309 of the Constitution gives the

Government the power to frame rules for the purpose of laying down

the conditions of service and recruitment of persons to be appointed to

public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or

any of the States. That Article contemplates the drawing up of a

procedure and rules to regulate the recruitment and regulate the service

conditions of appointees appointed to public posts. It is well

acknowledged that because of this, the entire process of recruitment for

services is controlled by detailed procedure which specify the necessary

qualifications, the mode of appointment etc. If rules have been made

under Article 309 of the Constitution, then the Government can

31

make appointments only in accordance with the rules. The State is

meant to be a model employer. The Employment Exchanges

(Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 was enacted to

ensure equal opportunity for employment seekers. Though this Act

may not oblige an employer to employ only those persons who have

been sponsored by employment exchanges, it places an obligation on

the employer to notify the vacancies that may arise in the various

departments and for filling up of those vacancies, based on a procedure.

Normally, statutory rules are framed under the authority of law

governing employment. It is recognized that no government order,

notification or circular can be substituted for the statutory rules framed

under the authority of law. This is because, following any other course

could be disastrous inasmuch as it will deprive the security of tenure

and the right of equality conferred on civil servants under the

Constitutional scheme. It may even amount to negating the accepted

service jurisprudence. Therefore, when statutory rules are framed under

Article 309 of the Constitution which are exhaustive, the only fair

means to adopt is to make appointments based on the rules so

framed”.

12. Based on the above-extracted portions of the Apex

Court’s decision, it is the submission of Sri Vikas Rojipura that the

regular appointment must be a rule when the sanctioned posts are

indeed available. He submits that it is not known as to why the

32

petitioners were not appointed on regular basis even when they are

appointed against the sanctioned vacancies after holding the written

test and viva-voce. He submits that the procedure followed for

appointing the petitioners is not in violation of the constitutional

scheme. Nobody is to be deprived of any opportunity to take part

in the recruitment process. Even when the petitioners are selected

based on their merit, which itself is determined by holding the

competitive examination, they are made to suffer. Viewed in this

perspective, the petitioners are the victims and not the beneficiaries

of contractual appointments.

13. Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, the learned Senior Counsel

appearing for Sri Reuben Jacob for the petitioners in

W.P.Nos.47587-47591/2012 submits that the delay in the

regularization of the services of the contractual appointees of 2007

batch is only on account of the pendency of the matter of

regularization of the contractual appointments made in 2003, 2005

and 2006. He submits that it is the nomenclature ‘contractual

appointment’ which has created all the problems, though the

33

petitioners are appointed in the same way as are the other

employees of the KPTCL.

14. He submits that the KPTCL’s Service Rules and

Regulations do not require the prior approval of the Government

for regularizing the services of its employees. He submits that out

of 338 contractual Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers, only

284 have stayed back in the service.

15. He sought to draw support from the Division Bench

judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of SACHIN

AMBADAS DAWALE AND OTHERS v. STATE OF

MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER reported in 2014 (2)

Mh.L.J. 36, wherein it is held that the contractual appointees

cannot be deprived of the right of regular employment when their

entry in the service is not illegal or through the back-door.

Paragraph Nos. 19 and 22 of the said decision read out by him are

as follows:

34

“19. One more fact that needs to be taken into consideration

is that even according to the respondent - State there are more

than 5000 teaching posts which are still vacant and the

advertisement issued by the MPSC is only for 400 posts. It can,

thus, be clearly seen that even after the candidates who would be

selected through the selection process conducted by the MPSC are

available, more than 4500 posts will be vacant. It is, therefore,

clear that the petitioners' absorption would in no way affect the

candidates who would now be selected through the MPSC. It is,

thus, clear that the petitioners' continuation in service would not

adversely affect the fundamental right guaranteed under Article

16 to the citizens. We are of the considered view that the

respondent – State having extracted the work from the petitioners

for years together, the petitioners cannot be deprived of the right of

regular employment particularly when their entry can neither be

termed as "illegal" nor "back door".

22. The respondents are directed to regularize the services of

such of the petitioners and confer permanency on such petitioners

who have completed three years' service with technical breaks. The

respondents shall absorb the petitioners within a period of six

weeks. Needless to state that the petitioners who are in

continuous employment till 15.10.2013 shall be continued in

service as regular employees.

35

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct

that the petitioners shall be entitled to regular salary from 1st

November, 2013 and would not be entitled to claim any

monetary benefits for the past services rendered by them in spite of

their regularization. Needless to state that since the petitioners'

services are regularized, they shall be entitled to the continuity in

service for all other purposes except monetary purposes from the

date of their first appointment.”

16. Sri M.S.Bhagwat, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners in W.P.Nos.47461-47498/2012 submits that the

Government has already indicated its clearance to KPTCL to make

the appointments on regular basis. He read out the following

portion from the letter, dated 14.2.2007 (Annexure-F) issued by the

Government to the KPTCL:

“(B) III) KPTCL and ESCOMs may consider the issue of

recruiting AE’s and JE’s on permanent basis instead of contract

basis if their services are required on permanent basis.”

17. Sri Bhagwat also brings to my notice the resolution

passed by the Board of KPTCL on 29.12.2010 (Annexure-V). The

relevant portion reads as follows:

36

“Further, based on approval from Government of

Karnataka, the above Engineers have been recruited duly

following all the procedures and reservation policies of government.

Retention of such experienced engineers would become difficult if

they are not considered for regularization.

………………….

RESOLVED that the proposal to regularize the services of

Contract Assistant Engineers and Contract Junior Engineers

working in KPTCL and ESCOMs be and is hereby

recommended to Government for necessary approval.

FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director (Admin and

HR)\, KPTCL be and is hereby authorized to address GoK

accordingly.”

18. He submits that the Cabinet itself has left the matter to

be decided by the KPTCL.

19. He also relies on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision

in the case of STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS v. PWD

EMPLOYEES UNION AND OTHERS reported in (2013) 12

SCC 417 and contends that the decision in Uma Devi’s case

(supra) is inapplicable to the persons whose initial recruitment

37

does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. Paragraph Nos.27

and 30 of the said decision read out by him are extracted

hereinbelow:

“23. The decisions in Umadevi and A. Umarani were

regarding the question concerning regularization of employees

entered by back door method or those who were illegally appointed

encouraging a political set up, in violation of Articles 14 and 16

of the Constitution of India. We are of the opinion that both the

aforesaid decisions are not applicable in the present case i.e. to the

members of the respondent- Employees’ Union for the following

reasons:

(i) The Secretary, Forest and Environment Department of

the State of Gujarat by his order dated 3.5.2008 held that

initially the entry of the daily wagers do not suffer from any

illegality or irregularity but is in consonance with the provisions of

Minimum Wages Act. Therefore, the question of regularization

by removing procedural defects does not arise.

(ii) The Gujarat High Court by its judgment dated

29.10.2010 passed in PWD Employees Union v. State of

Gujarat while noticing the aforesaid stand taken by the State

also held that the nature of work described in the order dated

38

3.5.2008 shows that the daily wage-workers are engaged in the

work which is perennial in nature.

(iii) The case of A.Umarani related to regularization of

services of irregular appointees. In the said case this Court held

that:

“when appointments were made in contravention of mandatory provisions of the Act and statutory rules framed therein and in ignorance of essential qualifications, the same would be illegal and cannot be regularized by the State.

30. Considering, the facts and circumstances of the case, the

finding of the Gujarat High Court dated 29.10.2010 in PWD

Employees Union v. State of Gujarat and connected matters and

the fact that the said judgment is binding between the parties, we

are of the view that the appellants should be directed to grant the

benefit of the scheme as contained in the Resolution dated

17.10.1988 to all the daily-wage workers of the Forest and

Environment Department working for more than five years,

providing them the benefits as per our finding at para 29 above.

The appellants are directed accordingly. The judgment and order

passed by the learned Single Judge dated 29.10.2010 as affirmed

by the Division Bench by its order dated 28.2.2012 stands

modified to the extent above. The benefit should be granted to the

eligible daily-wage workers of the Forest and Environment

39

Department working for more than five years including those who

are performing work other than building maintenance and

repairing but they will be entitled for the consequential benefits

w.e.f. 29.10.2010 or subsequent date from which they are so

eligible within four months from the date of receipt/production of

the copy of this order. The appeals stand disposed of with the

aforesaid observation and directions to the appellant State and its

authorities. There shall be no separate orders as to costs.”

20. Sri S.S. Naganand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing

for Sri S.Sriranga for the respondent KPTCL submits that the

recruitment notification, dated 7.2.2007 (Annexure-A) itself states

that the appointment would be on contract basis and that therefore

the petitioners have no legally vested right to demand that their

services be regularized. He brings to my notice the appointment

orders issued to the petitioners. They specify their appointments as

contract Assistant Engineers or contract Junior Engineers. He

submits that the KPTCL has taken a conscious decision not to

regularize the services of the contractual appointees after the

Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in Uma Devi’s case (supra).

40

21. He submits that the approval of the Government is

sought, as KPTCL is a Government undertaking. That there was no

need to take the prior approval of the Government for regularizing

the services of the petitioners is not one of the grounds raised in the

memorandum of the writ petition, so submits the learned Senior

Counsel. Only because the services of the contractual employees of

the earlier three batches came to be regularized, the contractual

appointees of the next batch cannot claim them as binding

precedents. To advance the submission that the regularization of

the petitioners runs contrary to the legal position declared by the

Apex Court in Uma Devi’s case (supra), he relies on the Apex

Court’s judgment in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND

ANOTHER v. ARULMOZHI INIARASU AND OTHERS

reported in (2011) 9 SCR 1. Paragraph No.20 of the said decision

read out by him read as follows:

“20. It is plain from the terms of the letter of appointment

that the respondents were told in unambiguous terms that their

appointments were temporary and would not confer any right to

claim any permanent post in the department. It is not the case of

41

the respondents that at any point of time, during their

engagements with the appellants, a promise was held out to them

by the appellants that they would be absorbed as regular

employees of the department. In fact, no such promise could be

held out in view of the Government O.M. dated 7th June, 1988

banning the employment of persons in regular posts.”

22. He submits that the petitioners’ reliance on the

Government’s letter, dated 14.2.2007 (Annexure-D) in

W.P.Nos.47435-47448/2012 does not come to the rescue of the

petitioners in any way because it is issued one week after the

issuance of the recruitment notification, dated 7.2.2007. He submits

that some regular recruitments have indeed taken place pursuant to

the Government’s letter, dated 14.2.2007 on 26.8.2009 and

12.4.2015 for the posts of Assistant Engineers and Junior

Engineers.

23. Sri A.S.Ponnanna, the learned Additional Advocate

General appearing for the Government submits that the KPTCL

had regularized the services of the contractual appointees of the

2003, 2005 and 2006 batches without seeking the approval of the

42

Government. On being asked as to whether the Government raised

any objection subsequent to the said regularization, he answers in

the negative. He submits that the Government’s letter, dated

14.2.2007 (Annexure-D in W.P.Nos.47435-47448/2012) would

apply for all the ongoing recruitments too.

24. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that

the proposal for the regularization of the petitioners’ services is

rejected by the Government, as the regularization move is in

contrast to the Apex Court’s judgment in Uma Devi’s case

(supra). He submits that it is open to the KPTCL to take its own

decision without seeking the approval from the Government. On

being specifically asked as to whether the KPTCL can regularize the

services of its contract Engineers in the wake of the Government’s

disapproval for the same, he submits that the KPTCL is at liberty to

take its own decision.

25. In the course of rejoinder, Sri B.V.Acharya submits that

the facts and circumstances of this case warrant the issuance of the

43

positive direction to regularize the services of the petitioners from

the date of the passing the resolution, dated 29.12.2010. This is not

a case for remanding the matter to the KPTCL, because KPTCL

has already passed a resolution for regularizing the services of the

contract Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers and because it is

the stand of the Government that it is open to the KPTCL to take a

decision on its own without insisting for the approval from the

Government.

26. He brings to my notice the Apex Court’s judgment in the

case of MALATHI DAS AND OTHERS v. SURESH AND

OTHERS reported in (2014) 13 SCC 249, in which case the

services of 371 employees were regularized out of 445 employees;

the request for the regularization of remaining 74 employees was

turned down on the ground that it would be against the ratio laid

down by the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra). The

Hon’ble Supreme Court negatived such a contention and directed

the Government to regularize the services of the remaining 74 daily

44

rated employees. Paragraph No.13 of the said decision read out by

him is extracted hereinbelow:

“13. In the aforesaid undisputed facts it is wholly unnecessary for

us to consider as to whether the cases of persons who were awaiting

regularization on the date of the decision in Umadevi is required to be

dealt with in accordance with the conditions stipulated in para 53 of

Umadevi inasmuch as the claims of the respondent employees can well

be decided on principles of parity. Similarly placed employees having

been regularized by the State and in case of some of them such

regularization being after the decision in Umadevi we are of the view

that the stand taken by the appellants in refusing regularization to the

respondents cannot be countenanced. However, as the said stand of the

appellants stems from their perception and understanding of the

decision in Umadevi we do not hold them liable for contempt but

make it clear that the appellants and all the other competent

authorities of the State will now be obliged and duty-bound to

regularize the services of the respondents (74 in number) which will

now be done forthwith and in any case within a period of two months

from the date of receipt of this order.”

27. Sri Jayakumar S.Patil submits that no fresh decision is

required to be taken by the KPTCL. It has to only implement its

resolution from the date of its passing. He brings to my notice that

the agenda notes for the earlier resolution for regularizing the

45

services of 2003, 2005 and 2006 batch contract employees and the

agenda notes for the resolution for regularizing the services of 2007

contract employees are exactly the same.

28. Sri S.S.Nagananda joins issue with Sriyuths B.V.Acharya

and Jayakumar S. Patil and submits that if this Court is inclined to

hold that the Government’s approval for regularizing the services

of the petitioners is not required, then KPTCL would consider all

the relevant aspects of the matter and take a decision in the matter

of regularization. He resists the issuance of the positive direction to

KPTCL to regularize the services of the petitioners.

29. The submissions of the learned counsel have received my

thoughtful consideration. The question that arises for my

consideration is whether the services of the petitioners are to be

regularized. For examining this question, the following facts and

circumstances are of utmost importance:

(i) The services of the similarly appointed contract

Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers have come to

46

be regularized. It is also not in dispute that the

appointments of 2005 and 2006 batch of Engineers

themselves were on 6.7.2006 and 23.11.2006. The

appointments of contract engineers of both the batches

are thus after 10.4.2006, the date of the Apex Court’s

decision in the case of Uma Devi (supra). It is trite

that the similarly placed persons cannot be treated

dissimilarly. Some of the Engineers of KPTCL had

challenged the decision to regularize the services of the

earlier batches of contract engineers by filing

W.P.No.7425/2007. One ground specifically raised by

the petitioners in the said case was that the resolution

for regularizing the services is contrary to the law laid

down by the Apex Court in Uma Devi’s case (supra).

The said contention is negatived. The unsuccessful

petitioners therein took up the matter to the Division

Bench and the Hon’ble Supreme Court but without any

rate of success.

47

(ii) The petitioners are not the back-door entrants. They

have taken part in the recruitment process which was

lawfully initiated. It is not that they are appointed

arbitrarily to the exclusion of the other aspiring, eligible

candidates. The KPTCL issued the notification calling

for application for filling up the posts in question, held

the written test and viva-voce also. It has also complied

with the reservation and roster requirements. Further, it

is also not in dispute that the petitioners are appointed

against the sanctioned vacancies. All these factors

clearly show that they were appointed in accordance

with the constitutional scheme for public

appointments.

(iii) No provision of KPTCL Service Regulations or Cadre

and Recruitments Rules is pointed out to me to show

that the prior approval of the Government is necessary

for the regularization of the services of its contract

employees. It is also worthwhile to notice that for

48

regularizing the services of the earlier three batches of

the contract employees, neither the KPTCL sought the

approval of the Government nor the Government

subsequently raised any objection to the said

regularization.

(iv) As is evident from the Government’s letter, dated

14.2.2007, the option/clearance/permission is already

granted to the KPTCL to consider the issue of

recruiting the Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers

on permanent basis instead of contract basis if their

services are required on permanent basis. The general

clearance accorded by the Government cannot be

restricted only to one or two rounds of recruitments,

which are stated to have been taken immediately after

the issuance of the letter, dated 14.2.2007. As the said

letter does not restrict or specify the period of its

operation, it has to be taken that it would continue to

be in force until such time that it is withdrawn. In the

49

instant case, it is not in dispute that the services of the

petitioners are required. In this regard, the relevant

proceedings may be seen. The proceedings of the

meeting of the Board of Directors of KPTCL held on

29.12.2010, inter alia, read as follows:

“The details were perused. It was noted that the above

engineers have completed 3 years of service and have hand

hands on experience in the utility. KPTCL and ESCOMs

have spent substantially on their salaries over the last three

years. It is difficult to get experienced hands in the power

sector since such experience are rarely available.

Further based on the approval from Government of

Karnataka, the above Engineers have been recruited duly

following all the procedures and reservation policies of

Government. Retention of such experienced engineers would

become difficult if they are not considered for regularization.”

(v) The perusal of the afore-extracted portions of the

proceedings clearly indicate that the petitioners’

services are required. The observation of the

Government in its letter, dated 14.2.2007 that the

50

KPTCL may consider the issue of recruiting the

Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers on

permanent basis instead of contract basis, if they are

required on permanent basis has to be seen in

conjunction with the assessment of the Board of

Directors of KPTCL.

30. Now let me examine the applicability of the authorities,

cited by either side, for the factual matrix of these cases. The

Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Uma Devi (supra) is a

direction to resort to the process of regular recruitment, as

following any other course would be disastrous in as much as it

would deprive the security of tenure, right of equality conferred on

civil servants under the constitutional scheme. As clarified by the

Apex Court and other High Courts subsequently, the decision in

Uma Devi’s case (supra) lays down the principle that the services

of the back-door entrants cannot be regularized. It does not in any

way come in the way of regularizing the services of the employees,

who are appointed against the sanctioned vacancies, where publicity

51

is given to the process of making the appointment, applications are

called for, written test and viva voce are held, the candidates’ merit

is determined and their suitability is ascertained.

31. In the case of PWD Employees Union (supra), the

Apex Court has expressed the considered view that if the process of

recruitment is consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution

of India, the employees are entitled to all the benefits of service

including the regularization of service. It has further held that the

decision in Uma Devi’s case has no application for the daily wage

employees who are engaged in jobs which are perennial in nature

and whose initial appointments are not illegal and irregular.

32. In Nihal Singh’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has observed that the judgment in Uma Devi’s case cannot

become a licence for exploitation by the State and its

instrumentalities. Further, it has come down heavily on the public

sector banks for enjoying the cheap labour over a period of

decades.

52

33. When the initial appointment of the petitioners cannot

be categorized as irregular or illegal, the relief of the regularization

of their services cannot be denied to them. In a more or less similar

case but falling under the contempt jurisdiction, the Apex Court has

directed the regularization of services of 74 employees, as the

services of the similarly placed 371 employees were regularized.

34. The Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the case

of Sachin Ambadas Dawale (supra) has directed the Maharashtra

State Government to confer permanency in service on the

employees, who were appointed on contractual basis, as they were

through the selection process conducted by the Maharashtra Public

Service Commission.

35. The facts of the cases on hand and of Arulmozhi

Iniarasu (supra) are entirely different. In Arulmozhi Iniarasu

case (supra), the workmen were engaged as part-time contingent

casual labourers purely on temporary basis. They were engaged on

the basis of the need of the office for which they were paid on

53

hourly basis. That is why they were held as not eligible for the

regularization of their services.

36. The impugned communication, dated 15.11.2012 turning

down the KPTCL’s request for the regularization of services is not

sustainable for one simple reason. It does not refer to, much less

consider the regularization of the earlier three batches of contract

employees. It is therefore difficult to hold that the Government has

taken an informed or well-considered decision. Although the

impugned communication issued by the Government is not

supportable and sustainable, I do not find the need to quash it in

view of the submission made on behalf of the Government that it is

open to KPTCL to take its own decision in the matter of

regularization of its employees.

37. In the result, I allow these petitions by holding that the

petitioners are entitled to the regularization of their services. The

KPTCL is directed to regularize the services of the petitioners with

effect from 29.12.2010, the date of passing the resolution in that

54

regard and on the same terms on which the services of the contract

Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers of 2003, 2005 and 2006

batches were regularized. The KPTCL shall comply with these

directions within three months from the date of the issuance of the

certified copy of today’s order. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE Cm/-MD