LAWS(KAR)-2016-3-418

MEERA DSOUZA Vs. MANGALORE UNIVERSITY

Decided On March 23, 2016
Meera Dsouza Appellant
V/S
MANGALORE UNIVERSITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the learned counsel for parties, these petitions are being decided at this stage itself.

(2.) The petitioners have challenged the legality of the order dated 28.09.2015 passed by the Registrar of the Mangalore University, whereby the Registrar claims that he has been informed to take necessary steps to pay the salary at pre-revised rates from the month of September, 2015 onwards until further orders.

(3.) Briefly the facts of the case are that, the petitioners were initially appointed between the period 1988 to 1995 on temporary basis to different posts, such as Peons, Typistcum- Clerks, First Division Assistants and Stenographers under Section 51-B of the Karnataka State Universities Act ('the Act' for short). In 1997, since the petitioners had completed three years of service, some of the petitioners approached this court by filing a writ petition, namely W.P.Nos.37787-37805/1997, wherein they had sought a writ of mandamus for regularisation of their services. However, this court directed that the petitioners shall be continued in service and their case for regularisation shall be considered after they complete ten years of service. Upon receiving the said direction passed by this court, on 03.02.2004, the State Government directed the Finance Officer, Mangalore University to consider the petitioners case for regularisation under the Act. By a resolution dated 25.03.2004, the Syndicate decided to regularise the petitioners' service, as they had completed ten years of service by then. A similar resolution was also passed by the Syndicate on 29.04.2004. Both these decisions were intimated to the Government, and the approval of the Government was sought. On 20.09.2005, the respondent issued an Official Memorandum, regularizing the services of the petitioners with immediate effect subject to the petitioners completing a provisional period of two years. By 30.07.2007, the petitioners had successfully completed the probationary period, and they were declared to have successfully completed the said period.