MALLIKARJUNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner entered the services of the Second respondent university on daily wages prior to 1984 as admitted by the respondents in their statement of objections. In the year 1985, the petitioners were all appointed as Field Assistants on a regular pay scale temporarily for a period of one year. Thereafter, the respondent university by its Circular dated 25. 4. 1996 instead of continuing the petitioners in the post held by them were asked to work on daily wages. Accordingly, the petitioners were all continued in the service as Field Assistants on daily wages. . 2. The Board of Regents in the 75th meeting resolved to absorb the petitioners in the vacancies coming under C group category. But the Vice Chancellor dissented the decision of the majority stating that the majority decision would be implemented only after seeking clarification front the Government. The proceedings of the meeting is extracted below:-ITEM ; 34 Absorption of daily wage workers on regular basis as per Government. Order No. DPAR/2/slc/90 dated 6. 8. 1990 the Board by majority approved absorption of the following eleven farm labourers under C Group Category against the existing Vacancies:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_4515_ILR(KAR)_2000Html1.htm</FRM> However, the Vice Chancellor dissented the decision for the reason stated in the agenda and also in view of the letter No. 34:99 dated 20/21,9. 1999. For these reasons, the Vice Chancellor made it clear to the Board that the majority decision in this regard would be implemented only after seeking clarification again from the Government. The discent of the Vice Chancellor and not taking action to implement the resolution passed by the majority seeking clarification from the Government made the petitioners to come to this Court seeking for a direction to the respondents to implement the resolution to regularise their services.

(2.) SRI B. V. Puttegowda, learned Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submits that the Vice Chancellor has the power to withhold the implementation of the resolution seeking clarification of the Government and therefore, this Court has no power to issue any such directing the University to implement the resolution resolving to absorb the services of the petitioners in the existing vacancies. He neatly contended that since the petitioners have not worked for ten years as Field. Assistants on daily wages, they are not entitled for regutarisation as per the Government. Order dated 6. 8. 1990.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that under the scheme of the Act, when the subject matter is placed before the board of Regents, the Board of Regents by majority passes a resolution, there is no reason for the Vice Chancellor to postpone the implementation of the said resolution awaiting the clarification from the State Government.