Karnataka High Court
WA/1100/2025 of THE REGISTRAR Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 17 July 2026
CNR: KAHC010453082025 NC: 2026:KHC:36789-DB WA No. 1100 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 1100 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. THE REGISTRAR
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1100 OF 2025 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1.
THE REGISTRAR
MANDYA UNIVERSITY,
M.C. ROAD,
MANDYA-571 401.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHIVARAMU H.C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION,
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2.
THE REGISTRAR
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE,
CRAWFORD HALL,
MYSORE-56.
3.
H. N. KRISHNA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
S/O. NEELA SHETTY,
WORKING AS GARDENER,
Digitally
signed by
VASANTHA
KUMARY B K
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
4.
SMT. KAVYASHRI. H. N.
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
W/O. B. R. PRASHANTH,
WORKING AS DATA ENTRY ASSISTANT,
5.
MANJUNATH. R. E.
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O. R. EREGOWDA,
WORKING AS LIBRARY ASSISTANT,
6.
MAHESHGOWDA. M. C.
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O. CHIKKAMARIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
7.
SMT. PRAPULLA. M. S.
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
W/O. SOMU. B. S.,
WORKING AS LIBRARY ASSISTANT,
8.
SMT. PRACHALITHA M. K.
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
W/O. M. RAVIKUMAR,
WORKING AS COMPUTER LAB ASSISTANT,
9.
BASAVARAJU. Y. B.
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O. BASAVEGOWDA. Y.C.,
WORKING AS ATTENDER,
10.
MAHESH. M. R.
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O. M. K. RAMEGOWDA @ RAMAIAH,
WORKING AS DATA ENTRY ASSISTANT,
11.
SMT. ROOPA. M. P.
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
W/O. JAGADISHA,
WORKING AS DATA ENTRY ASSISTANT,
HC-KAR
12.
MANCHIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 45 YERAS,
S/O. LATE SHANKAREGOWDA,
WORKING AS LAB ASSISTANT,
13.
SHASHIDHARA. Y. M.
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O. MANVHIGOWDA. Y. K.,
WORKING AS COMPUTER LAB ASSISTANT,
14.
SMT. SUPRIYA. H. J.
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
W/O. NAVEEN KUMAR. C. R.,
WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT,
15.
MADU T M
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/O MAHADEVU
WORKING AS PEON
16.
SMT SHANTHA K J
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
W/O RAJU
WORKING AS PEON
17.
NAVEENA P
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O PRAKASH
WORKING AS LAB ASSISTANT
18.
SMT PAVITHRA S
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
W/O PUNEETH KUMAR S
WORKING AS LAB ASSISTANT
19.
CHIDANANDA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
S/O CHANNEGOWDA
WORKING AS ATTENDER
HC-KAR
20.
SANTHOSH GOWDA K C
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
S/O B CHIDANANDA
WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT,
21.
SHANKAREGOWDA E S
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O SIDDEGOWDA
WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT,
22.
SMT VINODHASHREE
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
D/O CHANNEGOWDA
WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT,
23.
SMT KOUSALYA C S
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
W/O MANCHIGOWDA
WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT,
24.
SMT SPANDANA E R
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
D/O RAMAKRISHNEGOWDA
WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT,
25.
MANU M N
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O LATE NINGAMMA
WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT,
26.
PRAMOD Y U
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
S/O UMESH
WORKING AS ATTENDER
27.
CHANDAN
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O ASHWATH
WORKING AS ATTENDER
HC-KAR
28.
SUNIL KUMAR S
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
S/O S M SHANKAR
WORKING AS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT,
29.
DARSHAN N M
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
S/O MADEVA
WORKING AS HOTEL ASSISTANT,
ALL WERE WORKING AT P.G. CENTRE
BEFORE BIFURCATION OF MYSORE UNIVERSITY, TUBINAKERE INDUSTRIAL AREA, MANDYA-571 402.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. VEERESH M.UPPIN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R10)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND
SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
DATED 28.04.2025 PASSED IN WP No. 11057/2024, ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
HC-KAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the Mandya University impugning the judgment and order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the writ Court in W.P.No.11057/2024 (S-RES) instituted by the private respondent Nos.3 to 29 herein.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court for the sake of convenience.
3. The respondents 3 to 29 were appointed on contractual basis to the various posts in the University of Mysore at Sir M. Visveshwaraiah Post Graduate Centre, Tubinakere, Mandya. Even though their appointment was on contractual basis, but they had continued in the University since their appointment in 2007 and thereafter. Their appointment used to be renewed on year to year basis by giving an artificial break. They were paid the consolidated salary. The Mysore University was bifurcated in terms of the Karnataka State Universities (Amendment) Act, 2019, and the Mandya University which was until then unitary in nature with its Headquarters at Mandya and territorial
HC-KAR
jurisdiction over the Government College (Autonomous), Mandya, came into existence vide order dated 05.11.2022.
4. Under the bifurcation order all employees including the contractual employees working in Sir M. Vishweshwarayya Post Graduate Centre at Thubinakere stood transferred to the Mandya University.
5. The alienation of the private respondents is that Mandya University instead of complying with the bifurcation order and taking the work from the private respondents started appointing people from outsource. Therefore, they filed the writ petition before the writ Court challenging the letter dated 29.02.2024 whereby the Mandya University had undertaken to depute non teaching staff through outsource agencies. The learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment and order has allowed the writ petition with the following terms:- "13. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed off on the following terms:
a. The writ petition is allowed-in-part.
HC-KAR
b. The respondent No.3 is directed to continue the services of the petitioners instead of replacing them by outsourced employees and also continue to pay salary to them from the date of their continuation.
c. This arrangement shall continue till such time, the respondent No.3 takes steps for a regular recruitment, in which event, the petitioners shall be given benefit for their past service only in so far as it relates to relaxation of age is concerned.
d. The continuation of the petitioners in the respondent No.3 shall be given effect to within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-University submits that the University does not have funds to make payment of the consolidated salary to the private respondents and the State has not provided funds for making payment of the consolidated salary to the private respondents, who as a result of the bifurcation order stood transferred to the Mandya University.
HC-KAR
7. We find this argument completely hollow and without any substance. What was challenged before the writ Court was the Communication dated 29.02.2024 whereby the Mandya University had taken a decision to employ non-teaching staff from outsourcing agencies. If the University has resources to pay the persons, who are taken from outsourcing agencies, we fail to understand that how the University can take a stand that they do not have resources to pay the persons employed on contractual basis. Such a submission is nothing but an eye wash to deny the private respondents of their legitimate dues, who have been working in the Mysore University before its bifurcation for 8 to 18 years.
8. We therefore, dismiss this writ appeal. However, if the University intends to take the services of non-teaching staff through outsourcing agencies they can employ the persons, through outsource only when the respondents are not available. However, the respondents are to be given preference if there is work on the basis of seniority and no outsourcing persons can be employed to take place of the private respondents.
HC-KAR
9. With the aforesaid clarification, we dismiss this writ petition.
10. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE
Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE
NG CT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11