NAGESH ANNIGERI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari setting aside the endorsement issued by respondent 6 on 10-3-2012 vide Annexure-G and for a writ of mandamus to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for regularization. The contentions of the petitioner are that he passed M.Sc. in Mathematics from Karnatak University, Dharwad, in the year 1996 securing 65.30% and M. Phil., from the same University in the year 2001; that he was appointed as a guest lecturer in the Department of Mathematics in Karnatak Arts College, Dharwad, affiliated to Karnatak University and continued as such till today, and thus, he has completed more than eleven years of service; that, his services were not regularised inspite of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi and Others, 2006 AIR(SC) 1806 . Therefore, on 13-2-2011, he submitted a representation to the Registrar of Karnatak University, Dharwad, for seeking regularisation of his services as lecturer. When the said representation was not considered, he approached this Court in a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his representation. This Court, considering the writ petition filed by the petitioner and similarly placed persons, by order dated 25-2-2011 in W.P. Nos. 63264 to 63278 of 2009 and connected matters, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Umadevi's case and also the clarification made by the Apex Court in State of Karnataka and Others v. M.L. Kesari and Others, 2010 AIR(SC) 2587 , directed the authorities to consider the representation filed by the petitioners therein and pass appropriate orders.

(2.) It is further contended that pursuant to the said directions, the University without applying its mind, rejected the prayer of the petitioner and similarly placed persons, on the ground that he was not duly qualified on the day when he entered into the service. The said endorsement/communication issued to the petitioner was questioned before this Court in W.P. No. 63939 of 2011 and connected matters, which came to be allowed by order dated 2-1-2012, directing the authorities to reconsider the representation made by the petitioner in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the above referred cases. Thereafter, on consideration of representation, the University issued a communication as per Annexure-G stating that the petitioner was not duly qualified to be appointed as a Lecturer on the date of alleged appointment and that he has not completed ten years of service as held in the decision in Umadevi's case. Therefore, he is not entitled to be regularised. Aggrieved by the said communication, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the petition as well as documents.