LAWS(KAR)-2007-8-36

STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. AYYANNA

Decided On August 03, 2007
STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT Appellant
V/S
AYYANNA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is filed against the judgment dated 25. 01. 2006 in Writ Petition No. 849 of 2004. The appellants are the respondents in the writ petition. The respondent herein was the petitioner in the writ petition.

(2.) THE respondent was appointed as Hostel Superintendent of Boys Hostel, Kuradi, Manvi Taluk, Raichur District on 05. 02. 1986 on daily wages. Since then he has been continuing as Hostel superintendent appointed on daily wages.

(3.) THE respondent filed Writ Petition No. 25912 of 2002 praying for a direction to regularise his service as he had completed about 16 years of service as a daily waged government employee. The said writ petition was disposed of on 24. 07. 2002 in the following terms: "both the counsels say that this matter is fully covered by the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 42096 to 42113 of 2001 dated 29. 11. 2001 permitting the petitioners therein to file additional representation and directing the respondents therein to consider the representation in accordance with law and in accordance with the judgment of this High Court in Writ appeal Nos. 5697 of 2000 and 6677 to 7124 of 2000 dated 24. 01. 2001. Writ Appeal Nos. 5697 of 2000 and 6677 to 7124 of 2000 were disposed by a Division Bench of this Court on 24. 01. 2001 holding that an employee who has put in ten years or more of service is entitled to be considered for regularisation of his service. For taking the said view, the Division Bench relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble supreme Court in Dharwad District P. W. D. Literate Daily Wage employees Association's case and Piara Singh's case and various other judgments to which reference had been made by the learned single Judge in the order impugned in the writ appeals. Since the respondents therein had put in more than 10 years of service, the division Bench held that the learned Single Judge had rightly directed the respondents in the writ petition to consider the question of regularising the service of the respondents subject to their fulfilling the eligibility criteria.