JAYASHREE NAYAK Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the petitioner who was appointed as a Physical Culture Instructor in the 5th respondent-College has sought for a direction to regularise her services as a Lecturer in the 5th respondent-College.

(2.) A few facts which are not in serious dispute may be stated as hereunder: the petitioner was appointed as a Physical Culture Instructor on llth September, 1989. She continued in that position till 31st March, 2002 and her appointment was being renewed on contract basis every year and she was being paid a sum of Rs. 1,040/- p. m. A fresh option was given to the petitioner to continue her service on contract basis by means of communication dated 29th June, 2001, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-C. Subsequent to the communication (Annexure-C) dated 29th June, 2001, during the term of her appointment as per Annexure-C the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 6,000/- p. m. as her salary. In the appeal filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent seeking for regularisation of her service as a Lecturer in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka State private College Stopgap Lecturers Association v State of Karnataka and others, the 2nd respondent-Commissioner by means of his order dated 19th September, 2000 had taken the view that it is for the State Government to make an order for her regularisation, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-A. However, in the course of order (Annexure-A), the 2nd respondent has recorded a finding that the service rendered by the petitioner as a stopgap Physical Culture Instructor during the period from 1989 to 1997 should be treated as a stopgap lecturer. It is useful to refer to the relevant portion of the observation made in Annexure-A which reads as follows:

(3.) IN the course of the proceedings before the 2nd respondent, the administrative Officer of the 5th respondent-College also stated that the 5th respondent-College has no objection to regularise the service of the petitioner. Thereafter, in the light of the order (Annexure-A), the 5th respondent-College made a recommendation through the 3rd respondent for regularisation of the service of the petitioner; and without any basis the 2nd respondent by means of his communication dated 19th June, 2001, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-B recommended to the 1st respondent to regularise her services. It is useful to refer to the said communication which reads as follows: