SMT. SHRIDEVI BASAVESHWAR UDAGATTI v. SRI. VINAYKUMAR BHAT, ADVOCATES)

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “Wherefore, the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to: a) Issue writ of Certiorari or any other writ or order quashing the order dated: 16/09/2021, in Order no:VTU/BGM/DPAR/CR- (4)/2021-22/3418, passed by the Respondent no.1, vide ANNEXURE-S, and b) Consequent upon quashing the order aforesaid, issue writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to absorb/regularize the services of the petitioner in the post of Junior Assistant, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11911 WP No. 104872 of 2021 HC-KAR from the date on which other employees have been absorbed together with all monitory benefits by fixing outer limit, and c) Issue any other writ or order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in circumstances of the case including the cost, in the ends of justice.”

2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner is the wife of the late Basasveshwar Udagatti, an ex-serviceman who passed away while in service on 25.01.2007. On 27.07.2013, the petitioner was considered for employment by the respondents through an Outsource Agency, consequent upon which, on 15.10.2015, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the office of the Registrar on contract/temporary basis with the consolidated salary of Rs.17,500/- per month. At the same time, the respondents appointed several other employees as Junior Assistants. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a representation seeking regularization of her services which was not considered by the respondents, who on the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11911 WP No. 104872 of 2021 HC-KAR other hand regularized the services of other Junior Assistants appointed on contract basis in the year 2015.

3. Under these circumstances, the petitioner, having submitted representations were not complied with by the respondents, the petitioner approached this Court WP No.113001/2019, which was allowed and disposed of by this Court vide final order dated 14.07.2021, which reads as under: “This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to direct respondent No.1 to consider representation dated 05 .10.2016 and 29 .07.2019 at Annexure-N and Annexure-O respectively.

2. Shri Ravi Hegde, learned counsel, submits that petitioner is a widow of an ex- serviceman, who was killed while he was in defence service. Petitioner had passed SSLC examination. On 27 .07 .2013, she was taken on contract basis as Junior Assistant on consolidated salary by respondent-University. Subsequently, petitioner passed her bachelors Degree and Masters Degree. Apprehending discontinuation of her service, petitioner is be - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11911 WP No. 104872 of 2021 HC-KAR fore this Court seeking direction to respondent No.1 to consider her representation.

3. It is submitted that respondent- University already considered representations of similarly placed candidates appointed as junior assistants and regularized their services vide order at Annexure-J. However, petitioner’s case has not been considered. Therefore, she has submitted representation dated 29.07 .2019 seeking similar relief given to as that o f other similarly placed candidates.

4. Shri Anoop Deshpande, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 submits that petitioner had earlier made representation on

05.10 .2016, at Annexure-N. He submits on instructions, that said representation was already considered and executive council had rejected it. Therefore, consideration o f petitioner’s representation dated 29.07.2019 at Annexure-O would not arise.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner in reply submits that she has not been communicated any order o f rejection o f representation and submits that petitioner’s representation at - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11911 WP No. 104872 of 2021 HC-KAR Annexure-O may be treated as a request for reconsideration.

6. In view of the above, taking note o f the fact that petitioner is a widow of a Ex- service man, who was killed while in service and also the fact that she has acquired higher educational qualification, respondents are directed reconsider petitioner’s representation dated 29.07.2019 as per Annexure-O to extend similar benefit as granted to similarly placed candidates vide Annexure-J, dated 02.02.2019. Even if the earlier representation o f the petitioner was rejected, respondents shall re- consider petitioner’s request at Annexure-O dated 29.07.2019 expeditiously accordance with law. It is seen that as per interim order of this Court granted earlier, petitioner has continued her services with the respondent–University. The stands continued consideration of petitioner’s representation at Annexure-O.”

4. As can be seen from the aforesaid order passed by this Court, notwithstanding the fact of the earlier - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11911 WP No. 104872 of 2021 HC-KAR representation of the petitioner was rejected, this Court directed the respondents-University to re-consider the petitioner’s request dated 29.07.2019, as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.

5. Subsequently, respondents issued impugned communication and passed the impugned order dated 16.09.2021, at Annexure-S, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization/absorption on the sole ground that, at the time of her initial appointment on a contract/temporary basis on 15.10.2015, the petitioner had not acquired the requisite qualification, namely a degree from a University.

6. In this context, it is pertinent note that the petitioner has produced the degree passing certificate and marks cards at Annexures - B, C and D, which clearly indicate that the petitioner had obtained the required degree, which made her eligible and qualified regularization/absorption to the post of Junior Assistant. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11911 WP No. 104872 of 2021 HC-KAR

7. Learned counsel for the respondents – VTU submits that the petitioner had not obtained a valid degree as on the date of her appointment and as such, she would not be entitled to be regularized/absorbed into the post of Junior Assistant. In my considered opinion, merely because the petitioner had not obtained a valid degree as on the date of her initial appointment on contract/temporary basis by itself, cannot be a valid reason to reject her request for regularization/absorption in the year 2021, since by that time, the petitioner had already obtained a degree which was the requisite qualification and had completed over eight years of service at the time when her request for regularization/absorption was rejected by the respondents. To put it differently, the date on which the petitioner obtained required degree for the purpose of becoming eligible to the post of Junior Assistant would be the date on which her request regularization/absorption was considered and not the date of her initial appointment on contract/temporary basis on 15.10.2015. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11911 WP No. 104872 of 2021 HC-KAR

8. Under these circumstances, I am of considered opinion that the petitioner was appointed on a temporary/contract basis on 15.10.2015, and subsequently had obtained a degree and in fact the petitioner completed her BA course during September-October 2015 prior to her being appointed on contract/temporary basis and consequently, after having served for more than eight years, the petitioner would be entitled to get her services regularized/absorbed, particularly, when she was a widow of an ex-serviceman.

9. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that all other identically situated persons who had joined along with the petitioner or and subsequent to the petitioner in the year 2015 onwards, on contract/temporary basis as a Junior Assistant, the services of such persons have also been regularized and consequently by applying/invoking the doctrine of parity, the petitioner would be entitled for regularization and absorption on this ground also. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11911 WP No. 104872 of 2021 HC-KAR

10. It is therefore clear that, the impugned order passed by the respondents-University is illegal, arbitrarily and contrary to the statutes of the respondents-University produced at Annexure-T which will also indicate that no requirement is contemplated therein mandating that the petitioner should have possessed a degree at the time of her initial appointment on contract/temporary basis. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and necessary directions be issued to the respondents to regularize/absorb the services of the petitioner.

11. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed impugned

16.09.2021 at Annexure-S passed by the respondents-University, is hereby quashed. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11911 WP No. 104872 of 2021 HC-KAR (ii) The respondents are directed to regularize/absorb the services of the petitioner within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy this order together with all consequential benefits. Sd/- (S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SMM / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68