Madras High Court
The Secretary vs V.Dhanalakshmi on 2 July, 2021
W.A.No.74 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A.No.74 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.619 of 2021
(Heard through VC)
1. The Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Secretariat, St.George Fort,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner,
Adi-Dravidar Welfare,
Ezhilagam,
Chennai - 600 005.
3. The District Adi-Dravidar Welfare Officer,
Thiruchirappalli District.
4. The District Adi-Dravidar Welfare Officer,
Perambalur District.
5. The Head Master,
Government Adi-Dravidar Welfare High School,
Alambadi, Perambalur District - 621 212 .. Appellants
Page 1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.74 of 2021
Vs.
V.Dhanalakshmi .. Respondents
***
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent to set aside the
order dated 24.01.2020 made in W.P.No.26003 of 2011 and allow this writ
appeal.
***
For Appellant : Mr.R.Neelakandan
State Government Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.Meiyappan
Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of Court was delivered by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.]
The Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 24.01.2020
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.26003 of 2011.
2. The respondent/writ petitioner was appointed as Pre Vocational
Instructor on 28.07.1995 by the fourth appellant and posted to Government
Adi Dravidar Welfare High School in the vacancy that arose due to
retirement of one P.Jacob. However, the proposal for regularisation was
sent by the fourth appellant only on 13.01.2011, after almost 18 years. As
Page 2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.74 of 2021
the regularisation was not done, the Writ Petition was filed for a mandamus
to direct the appellants to regularise the service of the writ petitioner with
all consequential benefits. The said writ petition was allowed on
24.01.2020. Aggrieved by the said order, the above Writ Appeal has been
preferred by the State.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The very same objections, which were raised before the learned
Single Judge, were raised by the learned State Government Counsel before
us contending that the Writ Petitioner was not appointed through
Employment Exchange or regular selection method. Secondly, the fourth
appellant is not an authority to appoint the writ petitioner, much less, to
send a proposal for approving the same for regularisation. It is not in dispute
that the Writ Petitioner possessed necessary educational qualifications and
she was appointed against a sanctioned post of Pre Vocational Instructor in
the place of one P.Jacob, who retired from service on 31.12.1994. It is also
not the case of the Government that the appointment of the writ petitioner
Page 3/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.74 of 2021
interfered with the employment opportunities of any other person. The
fourth appellant, who had appointed the Writ Petitioner, had sent the
proposal for regularisation only after 18 years, which was also not
considered by the authorities, constraining the petitioner to move this Court.
5. The learned Single Judge had placed reliance on the order of
this Court made in W.P.No.21724 of 2014 dated 09.07.2018 [S.Chittibabu
-vs- The Secretary to Government, Tamil Nadu and Others] for allowing the
Writ Petition. Against the said Writ Petition, there was an appeal in
W.A.No.2007 of 2019 dated 04.07.2019. The said Writ Petition related to
a Watchman, who was appointed by the very same Officer, namely, the
fourth appellant, in the very same school, which is the fifth appellant
herein. Therefore, there cannot be any difference between the writ petitioner
and the Watchman, who has got his benefits by virtue of orders of this
Court. There is no reason as to why the appellants were keeping quiet for
18 years, when the very appointment was done by the fourth appellant
without any authority. It is also not known as to whether any action has
been taken against the erring Officer. The persons appointed by the said
Page 4/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.74 of 2021
Officer had been discharging their duties from the date of their appointment.
Merely because the appointment is done by an Officer, who has got no
authority, the same cannot be prejudicial to the rights of the parties, after
they have rendered service for more than 25 years.
6. In the light of the above and also in the light of the order
passed in the above referred Writ Appeal in W.A.No.2007 of 2019, we do
not want to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, the appellants are directed to regularise the service of the
respondent/writ petitioner from the date of initial appointment with all
consequential and attendant benefits. The said exercise shall be completed
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment and report compliance to this Court.
7. With the above observations and direction, the Writ Appeal is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
Page 5/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.74 of 2021
8. Post the matter on 16.08.2021 "for reporting compliance".
[P.S.N. J.] [K.R. J.]
02.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/No
srn
To
1. The Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Secretariat, St.George Fort,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner,
Adi-Dravidar Welfare,
Ezhilagam,
Chennai - 600 005.
3. The District Adi-Dravidar Welfare Officer,
Thiruchirappalli District.
4. The District Adi-Dravidar Welfare Officer,
Perambalur District.
5. The Head Master,
Government Adi-Dravidar Welfare High School,
Alambadi, Perambalur District - 621 212
Page 6/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.74 of 2021
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
and
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
srn
W.A.No.74 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.619 of 2021
02.07.2021
Page 7/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
