MANJUNATH C. S. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the endorsement dtd. 6/5/2024 passed by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-A, whereby the request of the petitioner for regularization of his service has been rejected.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Driver on daily wages in the respondent No.5, Corporation, in the year 1996. He was working against the sanctioned post. Even after working continuously for 10 years, his service has not been regularized. Therefore, he had given a representation to the competent authority. Since the said representation had not been considered by the competent authority, he filed W.P.No.22489/2021. This Court by order dtd. 17/3/2023 disposed of the writ petition and directed the respondent Nos.3 to 5 therein to consider the representation of the petitioner taking into account the letter issued by the Directorate of Municipal Administration dtd. 15/6/2021 and to take a decision in the matter in accordance with law within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of representations that may be made by the petitioners. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 has issued the impugned endorsement dtd. 6/5/2024 vide Annexure-A. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that even though the petitioner is entitled for regularization of his service to the post of Driver in the respondent No.5, Corporation and even though the Directorate of Municipal Administration by letter dtd. 15/6/2021 has recommended for considering the case of the petitioner for regularization, the impugned endorsement has been issued by the respondent No.3 rejecting the request of the petitioner. The only reason given by the respondent No.3 for rejecting the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has not completed 10 years of service on or before 10/4/2006. The same is contrary to the law laid by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.