B C RAMAKRISHNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the writ petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 27208 of 1999, dated 2-12-1999 dismissing the writ petition.

(2.) IN the above writ petition, the appellant herein sought for a relief of regularisation of his service in the cadre of driver. From the materials placed before the Court, it could be seen that the appellant was appointed by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bangalore, as a 'driver' on daily wage basis and he worked during 5 spells: for a period of 9 months with effect from 15-5-1986; for a period of 2 months with effect from 16-2-1987; for a period of 9 months with effect from 18-4-1987; for a period of one year with effect from 22-1-1988 and for a period of one year with effect from 24-1-1989. It is stated that when the matter stood thus, the respondents sought to terminate the services of the appellant with effect from 23-1-1990. At that stage, the appellant herein preferred W. P. No. 1505 of 1990 and the learned Single Judge of this court granted an interim direction to continue the services of the appellant. The said writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 19-1-1996 with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the appellant for regularisation of his services in accordance with law. Accordingly, the State Government considered the claim of the appellant and by order dated 3-6-1999, the claim of the petitioner was rejected. In pursuance of the above Government order, the 3rd respondent issued endorsement dated 22/23-7-1999 dispensing with the services of the appellant. Being aggrieved by the said action of the Government and that of the respondent 3, the petitioner/appellant preferred the writ petition. Learned Single Judge refused to grant relief of regularisation to the petitioner/appellant by opining as under.

(3.) HOWEVER, while dismissing the writ petition learned Single Judge was pleased to observe that his order does not come in the way of respondent 3 in considering the case of the petitioner for continuation of temporary appointment, if such temporary service is required during any period. Hence, the present appeal is preferred by the unsatisfied writ petitioner.