S.J. Kumaraswamy and Others vs State of Karnataka and Rajiv Gandhi University of Health and Science

J.S. Khehar, C.J.—Learned Counsel for the Appellants state that they do not wish to contest the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge on merits. They, however, state that the Appellants would be satisfied if the claim of the Petitioners for regularisation is directed to be placed before the State Government in terms of the decision rendered in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, wherein the Court has observed interalia as under:

Coming to Civil Appeals Nos. 1861-2063 of 2001, In view of our conclusion on the questions referred to, no relief can be granted, that too to an indeterminate number of members of the association. These appointments or engagements were also made in the teeth of directions of the Government not to make such appointments and it is impermissible to recognise such appointments made in the teeth of directions issued by the Government in that regard. We have also held that they are not legally entitled to any such relief. Granting of the relief claimed would mean paying a premium for defiance and insubordination by those concerned who engaged these persons against the interdict in that behalf. Thus, on the whole, the Appellants in these appeals are found to be not entitled to any relief. These appeals have, therefore, to be dismissed.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants also states, that whatever decision is rendered by the State Government would be acceptable to the Appellants, and would be binding on them.

In view of the above, we hereby affirm the order passed by the learned Single Judge disposing the different writ petitions filed by the Appellants. However, in the facts and circumstances of this ease, namely, that the Appellants have been regularly discharging their duties in Grade-C and D service from the year 1998/1999 onwards, we are of the view, that the prayer made by the learned Counsel for the Appellants deserves to be accepted. Accordingly, we hereby direct Respondent No. 110 consider the claim of the Appellants for regularisation in terms of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Umadevi''s ease (supra) and more particularly in terms of the observations extracted herein above. We also hereby clarify that the decision of Respondent No. 1 on the matter shall be final and that it shall be binding on the Appellants whether or not the same is in their favour.

The instant writ appeals are accordingly disposed of.