SOMASHEKARA H.N. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider their case for regularization of their service.

(2.) The petitioners contend that they were working in various branches of the office of the respondent No.2 for more than 10 years continuously. They contend that they had approached this Court seeking regularization of their service in W.P.No.10745-10756/2012, which was disposed off directing the respondent No.2 to consider their case for regularization and as and when it became inevitable to recruit people then to provide preference and priority to the petitioners. They contend that the respondent No.2 had prepared a list of temporary employees and their names were found at serial Nos.33, 34, 17, 43, 18 and 46 respectively. They contend that the respondent No.2 had regularized the services of 17 persons in February 2011, as per the direction of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1486/2010 and connected matters. The employees who were similarly placed approached the respondent No.2 for regularization of their services, as they had put in more than 10 to 20 years of service. In that regard, the board of respondent No.2 met on 29/6/2015 and resolved to send proposals to regularize the services of 33 employees by authorizing the Managing Director to take appropriate steps. The same was communicated to the respondent No.2 vide a letter dtd. 10/7/2015.

(3.) The respondent No.2 addressed a communication to the respondent No.1 on 13/11/2015, informing it that it had generated profit during the year 2014-2015 and that it could regularize the services of 33 employees. The Commissioner for Industrial Development and the Director of the Department of Industries and Commerce addressed a letter dtd. 2/12/2015 to the respondent No.1 and opined that the regularization of 33 employees may be granted, subject to the condition that the respondent No.2 shall bear the salary of the employees so regularized. Following this, the respondent No.2 submitted a letter dtd. 28/4/2016 to the respondent No.1 enclosing therewith an extract of the resolution of the board meeting held on 28/9/2015 on subject No.129.11 and requested permission to regularize the services of the persons who had worked for more than 7 years. The petitioners contend that it was mentioned in the aforesaid resolution that the services of the 33 employees was necessary to the respondent No.2.