STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. versus G.V. CHANDRASHEKAR

Citation: [2009] 3 S.C.R. 624 · Decided: 25-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2009) 3 S.C.R. 624 
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. 
v. 
G.V. CHANDRASHEKAR 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1187 of 2009 etc.) 
FEBRUARY 25, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Service Law - Regularization - Of employees appointed 
on ad hoc basis - Permissibility - Held: Initial recruitment 
C of the employees was illegal and contrary to constitutional 
scheme - Regularization not permissible in view of 
Constitution Bench judgment in Uma Devi's case. 
Secretary, State of Kamtaka and Ors. vs. Umadevi (3) 
D and Ors: 2006 (4) SCC 1, followed. 
Mineral Exploration Corpn. Employees' Union vs. 
Mineral Exploration Corpn. Ltd. 2006 (6) SCC 310; National 
Fertilizers Ltd. and Ors. vs. Somvir Singh 2006 (5) SCC 493; 
State of M.P. and Ors. vs. La/it Kumar Verma 2007 (1) SCC 
E 575; Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. Ranjodh 
Singh and Ors. 2007 (2) SCC 491; Postmaster General, 
Kolkata and Ors. vs. Tutu Das (Dutta) 2007 (5) SCC 317 and 
Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and Ors. 2008 (10) SCC 1, 
relied on. 
F 
G 
H 
U.P. S.E.B. v. Pooran Chand Pandey2007 (11) SCC 92, 
referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
2006 (4) sec 1 
2006 (6) sec 310 
2006 (5) sec 493 
624 
Followed. 
Relied on. 
Relied on. 
Para 3 
Para 6 
Para 6 
... 
-
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. v. G.V. 
625 
CHANDRASHEKAR 
2001 (1) sec 575 
2001 (2) sec 491 
2001 (5) sec 317 
2ooa (10) sec 1 
2001 (11) sec 92 
Relied on. 
Relied on. 
Relied on. 
Relied on. 
Referred to. 
Para 6 
A 
Para 6 
Para 6 
Para 6 
Para 6 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nu. 
1187 of 2009. 
B 
From the JudgmenUOrder dated 9.8.2004 passed by the C 
Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in 
W.P. No. 31539 of 2004. 
WITH 
D 
C.A.Nos. 1190-1247 of 2009, 1265 of 2009, 1266-1270 
of 2009, 1271-1274 of 2009, 1275-1283 of 2009, 1284-1291 
of 2009, 1292 of 2009, 1293 of 2009. 
Sanjay R. Hegde, Amit Kumar Chawla, A. Rohen Singh 
and Vikrant Yadav for the Appellant. 
E 
B. Subrahmanya Prasad, A.S. Bhasme, P.R. Ramasesh, 
Girish Ananthamurthy, P.P. Singh, Naresh Kumar, B. 
Subrahmanya Prasad and V.N. Raghupathy for the 
Respondent. 
F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHAj J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. These appeals involving similar questions of law and G 
facts were taken up for hearing together and are being 
disposed of by this common judgment. The short question which 
arises for consideration herein is as to whether the respondents 
herein having beeri appointed on an ad-hoc basis could be 
treated to have been regularized in their services. 
H 
626 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
We may notice individual fact of the matters before us:-
Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.24124/2004 
Respondent herein was appointed as a Typist on 5.9.1985 
and worked for more than ten years without break in service. 
B Under these circumstances, he sought direction from appellants 
herein to regularize his services with all consequential benefits. 
His claim was denied by the appellants. Aggrieved by the same, 
respondent approached the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal 
which by its order dated 22.9.2003 directed that the question 
C of regularization of the services of the respondent be examined 
by the appellants with reference to records and decision 
thereon be taken within 90 days thereafter. Challenging the 
order of the tribunal, appellant-State approached the High Court 
which by its order dated 9.8.2004 dismissed the same and 
D directed the appellant to consider the claim of the respondent 
in terms of the judgment in Premakala Sheffy vs. Common 
Cadre Committee. 
Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) No.24985-25042/2006 
E 
Respondents were Working in the Forest Department for 
over ten years as gate watchman, driver, wireless operator and 
computer operator and sought for regularization of their services 
from the authorities of the department with all consequential 
benefits. Their claim was denied by the appellants. Aggrieved 
F by the same, respondents approached the Karnataka 
Administrative Tribunal which by its order dated 24.9.2003 
directed that the question of regularization of the services of the 
respondent be examined by the appellants with reference to 
records and decision thereof may be taken within 90 days. 
G Challenging the order of the Tribunal appellant State 
approached the High Court which dismissed the writ petition 
by reason of an order datad 21.7.04 and directed the appellant 
to consider the claim of the responden
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.