GURUPADAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioners have challenged the endorsement dtd. 4/12/2021 (Annnexures-L, M and N to the writ petition). The petitioners are claiming regularization of their services with the respondent No.4-institution.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into consideration the impugned letter dtd. 4/12/2021 (Annexures-L, M and N) would indicate that the petitioners have been appointed through a security agency by the respondent Corporation and not against the sanctioned posts and therefore in view of paragraph nos.53 of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi & Others (2006 (4) SCC 1), I am of the view that there is no infirmity in the letter dtd. 4/12/2022 issued by the respondent Corporation. In that view of the matter, writ petition is dismissed.