Smt. Jayashri L Jattayan vs. The State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, appointed on daily wages as Typists or Stenographers between 1985-86, had their services regularized by an OM dated 06.01.2007. Subsequently, an OM dated 14.11.2014 (Annexure-A8) postponed the date of regularization from their initial appointment date to the date they passed the typing examination. Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) seeking to quash Annexure-A8. The KSAT dismissed their applications, citing delay and laches, and holding that regularization from the date of acquiring the prescribed qualification was proper. The petitioners filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging the KSAT's order.
Held
The High Court held that the petitioners were appointed on daily wages and required requisite qualifications for regularization. It was undisputed that the petitioners acquired the typing qualification only on the dates mentioned in the impugned OM dated 14.11.2014. The Court found that none of the petitioners possessed the qualification as on the date of their initial appointment as daily wagers. Therefore, the authorities were correct in regularizing their services from the date they acquired the qualification. The Court reasoned that a person without the necessary qualification for a post cannot seek regularization prior to acquiring such qualification. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the writ petition and rejected it.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal erred in dismissing the petitioners' applications on grounds of delay and laches, considering the subsequent OM dated 14.11.2014 altered the regularization date more than eight years after the initial regularization? 2. Whether the respondents acted arbitrarily and without authority of law by postponing the date of regularization from the initial date of appointment to the date of passing the typing examination, thereby discriminating against the petitioners? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioners argued that the respondents' action of altering the regularization date after more than eight years was unreasonable and discriminatory, especially since similarly situated persons had their services regularized from their initial appointment dates. They contended that the respondents could not re-open the issue of regularization date after such a long period. Revenue's Contentions: The State of Karnataka supported the KSAT's order. They argued that the petitioners were entitled to regularization only from the date they possessed the requisite educational qualification. The authorities had made a mistake in regularizing their services without the necessary qualification, and the impugned OM corrected this error.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
Petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 31.08.2021 in Application Nos. 6684 to 6695/2020 by which, petitioners request to quash 'Annexure-A8' impugned OM dated 14.11.2014 postponing the date of regularisation, is rejected.
Heard learned counsel Sri Upadhye D.Aravind for petitioner through Video Conference and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri H.K.Kenchegowda for respondents. Perused the writ petition papers.
Learned counsel Sri Upadhye D.Aravind for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were appointed on daily wage basis during the year 1985-86 as Typists or Stenographers.
It is submitted that subsequently, under 'Annexure-A1'-OM dated 06.01.2007, the services of the petitioners were regularised as Typists or Stenographers. More than eight years thereafter, 'Annexure-A8'-OM dated 14.11.2014 is passed postponing NC: 2024:KHC:45312-DB the actual date of regularisation from the initial date of appointment to the date of passing the Typing Examination. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners were before the Tribunal in Application Nos.6684 to 6695/2020. The Tribunal on hearing the parties dismissed the application not only on the ground of delay and latches but also holding that the action of the respondents in regularising the services of the petitioners from the date of acquiring the prescribed qualification is proper and correct.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the action of the respondents is wholly unreasonable and further submits that more than eight years after the regularization, respondents could not have alternated the date of regularisation. Learned counsel would submit that similarly situated persons have approached the Tribunal and their applications are allowed by regularizing their services from the date of their initial appointment. Dismissing the applications of the petitioners by the Tribunal is discrimination and submitted that the NC: 2024:KHC:45312-DB respondents, after more than eight years could not have re-opened from the date of petitioners' regularisation. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioners would pray for allowing the writ petition.
Per contra, learned AGA Sri H.K.Kenchegowda would support the order passed by the Tribunal and further submits that, the petitioners would be entitled for regularization only from the date they possess the educational qualification. Learned counsel would further submit that the authorities had committed mistake by regularising the services of the petitioners even though they had no qualification and the same is corrected under the impugned OM. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
It is not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed on daily wages initially during 1985-86 as Typists or Stenographers. For regularisation of their services, they shall possess requisite qualification prescribed for the posts to which, they were initially NC: 2024:KHC:45312-DB appointed by the competent authority against sanctioned posts.
Admittedly, the petitioners acquired the qualification of Typing only on the dates indicated in the impugned order at 'Annexure-A8' dated 14.11.2014. The impugned order makes it clear that none of the petitioners had qualification as on the date of their initial appointment as daily wagers. The petitioners acquired qualification of Typing only on the dates mentioned in Column No.4 of the impugned order. The authorities are right in regularising their services from the date they acquired the qualification. A person who has no qualification to hold the post cannot seek regularisation earlier to his acquisition of qualification. Thus, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected. (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE PSJ, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.