B N SWAMY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) these group of petitions relates to the year 1992 and 1993. In fact, despite the fact that the subject-matter of these petitions is something like eight years old, the earlier orders passed by this court will indicate that the grievance of the entire set of petitioners who are law officers of the b.d.a. was to the effect that they are kept in a state of uncertainty insofar as no regulations had been framed as far as their employment is concerned and that therefore, they were highly prejudiced. The added circumstances to my mind which also requires to be taken into account is the fact that the petitioners are all performing various legal functions and are effectively advocates which is a matter which this court requires to take special cognizance of. Pursuant to the earlier orders passed, the government finally approved the regulations and the basic grievance therefore is redressed. At that stage one further difficulty emerged which I shall briefly summarize. In the entire group of petitions that are before me, there are in all 23 persons who have been appointed at different points of time. The government in all has sanctioned 10 posts and therefore as far as the subsidiary relief claimed in the petitions is concerned this court is required to further examine the matter. Petitioners have contended that they have been serving the respondent authority and that therefore their services should be regularised and that they should not be discontinued. If the number of posts is limited to 10, undoubtedly the question would arise as to what happens to the remaining 13 petitioners. As far as this aspect of the matter is concerned the b.d.a. has adduced a variety of reasons which I shall deal with in support of its plea that the approved strength of 10 posts is more than adequate and that it is unnecessary to increase that strength. That position has been seriously disputed by the learned counsel who represent the various petitioners who have also placed on record their replies and certain material.

(2.) this group of petitions have been coming up before the court from time to time and they have once again corne for orders today. I have heard the learned advocates who represent the different petitioners and the learned Advocate who represents the b.d.a. with regard to every aspect of the matter, as also the learned government Advocate who has also made his submissions.

(3.) normally, there would have been no necessity to issue any further directions after the regularisation in question have been approved by the government. However, as indicated by me, since the petitions contain a subsidiary relief to the effect that the services of the petitioners should have to be regularised, the need has arisen for the court to examine the question as to whether or not this prayer can be granted and if so, in which of the cases. Learned counsel who represent the b.d.a. have submitted that the regulations have been promulgated; that the b.d.a. will ACT in consonance with those regulations and that out of a sense of abundant fairness to all the petitioners, that the posts will be advertised and that it will be open to the petitioners if they so desire to apply for those posts. Learned counsel has also pointed out that the petitioners having worked for several years in the legal department that this will be given due weightage while selecting the candidates. They have also emphasised the fact that in keeping with the regulations, various factors have to be taken into account such as the question of in-service/promotion/reservation etc., and that these are aspects which cannot be by-passed. In sum and substance they have contended that the court may fix a prescribed dead line within which time all these formalities will be completed.