The Karnataka High Court recently underscored a fundamental procedural requirement in service-related writ petitions: prior representation to the competent authority before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court dismissed a writ petition filed by 27 daily wage employees of the Coastal Security Police seeking regularisation and consequential service benefits, holding that the absence of any prior demand or representation rendered the petition non-maintainable in its present form.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, all daily wage employees engaged by the Coastal Security Police (CSP), Karnataka, sought regularisation of their services and extension of all consequential service benefits from the date of their initial engagement. They approached the High Court directly under Article 226 seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the State to regularise their services.
Key Facts
- The petitioners were engaged as daily wage employees under the Coastal Security Police (CSP), Udupi, Karnataka.
- Their engagement numbers (KND-931 to KND-972) and ages ranged from 26 to 45 years.
- No specific dates of engagement, duration of service, or details of the nature of work were provided in the pleadings.
- The petitioners did not submit any representation to the competent authority seeking regularisation prior to filing the writ petition.
- The petition was conspicuously silent on any prior demand or inaction by the respondents.
Procedural History
- 29.06.2026: Writ Petition (WP No. 101056 of 2026) filed before the Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench.
- The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the State of Karnataka and other respondents to regularise their services and extend consequential benefits.
- The respondents, represented by the High Court Government Pleader (HCGP), raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition.
Relief Sought
The petitioners prayed for:
- A writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularise their services.
- Extension of all consequential service benefits from the date of their initial engagement as daily wage employees.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether a writ of mandamus under Article 226 can be issued in the absence of:
- A prior representation to the competent authority seeking regularisation.
- Any allegation of inaction or failure on the part of the authority to consider such representation.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
The petitioners, represented by Sri D.J. Naik, contended that:
- Their long-standing engagement as daily wage employees entitled them to regularisation.
- The respondents had failed to take any steps toward regularising their services despite their continuous employment.
For the Respondents
The respondents, represented by Smt. Kirtilata R. Patil (HCGP), argued that:
- The writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioners had not submitted any prior representation to the competent authority.
- There was no allegation of inaction or failure on the part of the respondents to consider any such representation.
- The petitioners could not invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 as a matter of course without exhausting alternative remedies.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the maintainability of the writ petition in light of settled legal principles governing writs of mandamus. The Court relied on the well-established position that a writ of mandamus is not issued as a matter of right but only when there is a legal duty on the part of the authority to act and a corresponding failure or refusal to perform that duty.
"A perusal of the pleadings would indicate that the petitioners have not placed any material on record to demonstrate that they had approached the competent authority by way of a representation seeking regularisation. The writ petition is conspicuously silent regarding the submission of any representation to the respondents. There is also no averment alleging inaction or failure on the part of the competent authority to consider any such representation so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
The Court emphasised that Article 226 is an extraordinary remedy and cannot be invoked as a matter of course without first approaching the competent authority. The petitioners were required to exhaust alternative remedies by submitting a representation to the respondents before seeking judicial intervention.
The Verdict
The Court dismissed the writ petition, reserving liberty to the petitioners to submit a detailed representation before the competent authority seeking regularisation of their services. The Court directed that if such a representation is submitted, the competent authority shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a reasonable period, without being influenced by the disposal of the present writ petition.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Prior Representation Is Mandatory Before Invoking Article 226
- Practitioners must ensure that their clients submit a representation to the competent authority before approaching the High Court under Article 226.
- The absence of a prior representation renders the writ petition non-maintainable, as the Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus without evidence of a legal duty and failure to act on the part of the authority.
Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies Is a Prerequisite
- The judgment reaffirms the principle that extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked as a matter of course.
- Petitioners must exhaust alternative remedies, including submitting representations and awaiting a response, before seeking judicial intervention.
Liberty to Approach Competent Authority Does Not Guarantee Relief
- While the Court granted liberty to the petitioners to submit a representation, it did not express any opinion on the merits of their claim.
- The competent authority is directed to consider the representation in accordance with law, which may include examining the eligibility criteria for regularisation, duration of service, and applicable government policies.
