RAGHAVENDRA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Conglomeration of these cases seek a common prayer though the petitioners are different. The prayer that is sought is quashment of endorsement issued declining to accede to the request of the petitioners for regularization of their services and seek a consequential direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to regularize the services of the petitioners with all benefits and in cases of those who have retired from service to extend all terminal benefits.

(2.) The Facts that lead the petitioners to this Court, in the subject petitions, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows: The facts narrated in all these petitions are common except the dates of entry of the petitioners into service of N.A. Muttanna Memorial Police Children's Residential School, Police Head Quarters, Dharwad ('the School' for short). On 14/5/1997 a decision was taken by Government to establish the School. In furtherance of the said decision on 5/6/1997 a Government order comes to be issued establishing the said School. The Government order captured the fact that Education and Finance Departments were consulted and then a decision was taken. Staffing pattern was also appended to the Government order dtd. 5/6/1997. The Government then issues a notification calling for applications for appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff for the children of Police at Dharwad. Accordingly, another notification dtd. 7/7/1997 comes about calling for applications for the sanctioned 27 posts in the School. Call letters were issued on 10/7/1997 to all the eligible persons for attending the interview on 17/7/1997. In terms of the interview so conducted, the petitioners were selected and appointed on different dates. The details of their appointments viz., dates of appointment and the cadre to which they are appointed are as shown in the following tabular statement: <IMG>JUDGEMENT_91_LAWS(KAR)3_2024_1.jpg</IMG> It is the case of the petitioners that they have been working in the respective cadres without any break from the date of appointment. It is also their case that they have been requesting/ seeking/representing for regularization of their services on several occasions and when that claim of the petitioners was not considered, had approached this Court and this Court had directed consideration of the representation within 6 months. Claiming to be considering the representations, the impugned endorsement comes to be issued declining to accept the claim of the petitioners, which has led the petitioners to knock at the doors of this Court yet again in the subject petitions.

(3.) Heard Sri Raja Raghavendra Naik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri V.S. Kalsurmath, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.