SUNIL S. PUJARI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioners filed a memo for amendment of prayer with regard to direction sought in terms of W.P.No.104429/2013, dated 09.08.2016. The said memo is allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to amend the prayer suitably.

(2.) It is the specific case of the petitioners that they were appointed during the year 2004-05 as Junior Engineers on contract basis for one year or on completion of project whichever is earlier. According to petitioners they have been appointed again and again every year and they were continued in service till 18.06.2016. On 18.06.2016 their appointment was made for one year which would expire on 17.06.2017. It is further case of the petitioners that they are working from 2004-05 till today continuously without any interruption and they have been continued by separate orders issued by respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Though the petitioners made their representations on 01.09.2014 through official correspondence, the respondents in particular 1st respondent have not considered the same nor passed any orders till today. It is further case of the petitioners that they are working more than 13 years continuously without any interim order of the court of course with an artificial break till today. It is further contended that the project is on going till today and their services are required. In spite of the representation, the respondents have not considered the same nor passed any orders. Therefore, petitioners are before this court for writ of mandamus as prayed for.

(3.) Respondents-State Government has filed statement of objections by denying the averments made in the writ petitions and contended that though petitioners were appointed in a particular project and as soon as the project was completed, the petitioners were appointed again and again for more than 13 years and they were engaged on contract basis. They have no right to demand for regularization of their services. It is also contended that one of the appointment order were issued on the condition that persons appointed on contract basis for one year should not claim any permanent job or regularization etc. It is specifically contended that respondents doing scheme under ' Police Gruha 2020' and other schemes. It is further contended that for speedy employment of work the Managing Director engaged the employment on request. Hence, employer appointed on contract basis for another one year on 16.06.2016 by an official correspondence with similar basis as stated supra. Petitioners have given their consent. The petitioners along with others were also appointed for one year on 16.06.2016. It is specifically contended at Para No. 17 that contract employees including, present petitioners have given a representation, dated 01.09.2014 requesting for regularization of their services. The said request was placed before 150th Board meeting held on 209.2015 and the matter was discussed in detail and it was decided in the Board Meeting to submit a proposal to the Government. Accordingly, a letter was addressed to the Government of Karnataka vide letter, dated 20.12.2014. The State Government has replied to the said letter stating that the contract employees cannot be regularized. Therefore, respondents sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.