JAYANTHA, S/O. NARAYANA POOJARY, Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (UNIVERSITIES), M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE -560001 AND MANGALORE UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR MANGALAGANGOTHRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) These petitions are heard and disposed of together by this common order as the issues that arise for consideration are identical.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the impugned order is illegal and is violative of Articles 14, 16, 19 as well as 21 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order proceeds on the basis that the regularisation of the services of the petitioners was contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court, which is wholly incorrect. Firstly, as on the date of regularisation of the services of the petitioners, they had completed 10 years of service. Therefore, their appointments were against duly sanctioned posts, by following the recruitment rules. They were appointed on temporary basis in terms of the statutes framed by the second respondent, which were duly assented to by the Vice-Chancellor of the University as early as 1-6-1985. The initial appointment of the petitioners was certainly in conformity with the law laid down by the Apex Court. Secondly, it is pointed out that this Court in W.P. Nos. 37787 to 37805 of 1997, was pleased to issue directions which would safeguard the interest of the petitioners. Inspite of those directions, the second respondent had failed to regularise the services of the petitioners which provoked them to file yet another set of writ petitions in W.P. Nos. 23303 and 23304 of 2004. It was during the pendency of those petitions that the official memorandum dated 28-9-2005 was issued by which the services of the petitioners and others were regularised and those writ petitions were disposed of to the knowledge of the Counsel representing the State Government as well as the University and there was no demur insofar as the contention that the services of the petitioners had been regularised as on the date of disposal of those petitions as having become infructuous. It is also contended that the second respondent had, before regularising the services of the petitioners and others, had sought direction from the first respondent and the first respondent in terms of letter dated 3-2-2004 Annexure-G, had directed the second respondent to take suitable action in terms of the directions issued by this Court keeping in view they are made aware of the intention of regularisation of the services of the petitioners and the State Government had been non-committal about the same. The second respondent however had proceeded to regularise the services of the petitioners in view of the circumstances, namely, that the petitioners had been appointed even prior to 1995 and therefore they had continued in service for over 10 years and their services were duly regularised which was approved by the Syndicate as well as the Vice-Chancellor. Therefore, it is all along presumed that the action of the second respondent was proper and legal and the State Government which was aware of the developments, has only in the year 2007, taken exception to the regularisation of services of the petitioners when approval was sought of the Statutes providing for pensionary benefits to the petitioners. It is further contended that the regularisation of services of the petitioners being within the knowledge of the first petitioner as early as in the year 2005, the contention now put forward that the action of the second respondent is illegal and contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court, five years after the act on the part of the second respondent, is unreasonable and when the action of the second respondent can at best be construed as being irregular, but not illegal. In that, the law laid down by the Supreme Court has made a distinction between irregular appointments and illegal appointments. The State Government, proceeding to hold that the regularisation of the petitioners, is illegal, would be a basic error. It is reiterated that the petitioners' initial appointment on temporary basis was against duly sanctioned posts and they were appointed in terms of the Statutes framed by the University after undergoing a full-fledged selection process. The repeated demand on the part of the second respondent seeking approval of the appointment of personnel, was overlooked by the State Government and it had dithered in according approval for such appointments which compelled the University to recruit them on temporary basis in the initial stage and their services being continued, since there was need for such services, over the years and it is only on completion of 10 years that regularisation was sought to be made which was to the knowledge of the first respondent-State Government and therefore, the present stand of the State Government is wholly unreasonable and would result in miscarriage of justice if the impugned orders are allowed to stand.