Madras High Court
Sudharson vs The Commissioner on 7 July, 2021
W.P.(MD)Nos.11182 of 2021 etc., batch
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
W.P.(MD)Nos.11182, 11184, 11185, 11187, 11188, 11189,
11191, 11192, 11193, 11194, 11195, 11196, 11197, 11198,
11199, 11200, 11201, 11202, 11203, 11204, 11205, 11206,
11207, 11208, 11209, 11210, 11211, 11212, 11213, 11214,
11226, 11227, 11228 and 11230 of 2021
W.P(MD)No.11182 of 2021
Sudharson ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Chennai-600 034.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Arulmighu Mariamman Temple,
Samayapuram,
Trichy District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to
regularize the petitioner's services with effect from the date of
joining of the petitioner with the second respondent Temple with
back wages, attendant benefits and continuity of service.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)Nos.11182 of 2021 etc., batch
For Petitioner : Mr.K.K.Samy
For Respondents : Mr.P.Subbaraj
Government Advocate
COMMON ORDER
Since the issues involved in these Writ Petitions are one and
the same and therefore, these Writ Petitions are heard together and
disposed of by way of this common order.
2. According to the petitioners, on seeing the notice board
displayed in the second respondent Temple, the petitioners applied
for the posts of Thiruchutru, Watchman, Ticket Vendor, Archagar.
The Board of Trustees of the second respondent conducted an
interview and in the meeting held on 31.01.2011 passed a
resolution selecting the petitioners to the above mentioned posts.
By the letter, dated 14.02.2011, the second respondent sent the
proposal to the first respondent for approval of the appointment of
the petitioners. The first respondent approved the appointment of
the petitioners. Following the same, the second respondent issued
appointment orders to all the petitioners on 25.02.2011. The
petitioners joined as Thiruchutru, Watchman, Ticket Vendor,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)Nos.11182 of 2021 etc., batch
Archagar in the second respondent Temple on 27.02.2011. While
so, the Manager of the second respondent did not allow the
petitioners to sign the Attendance Register. The petitioners sent
representations and filed writ petitions in W.P(MD)Nos.7744 to
7748 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.9490 of 2011. This Court, by
common order, dated 27.06.2012 dismissed the writ petitions.
Aggrieved against the said order of dismissal, some of the
petitioners filed writ appeals in W.A(MD)Nos.759 to 764 of 2012
and W.A(MD)Nos.94 and 95 of 2014. A Division Bench of this Court,
by the judgment, dated 26.04.2017 dismissed the writ appeals in
W.A(MD)Nos.94 & 95 of 2014 and the another Division Bench of
this Court, by the judgment, dated 10.02.2021, dismissed the writ
appeals in W.A(MD)Nos.759 to 764 of 2012. The petitioners have
come out with the present writ petitions for a direction to the
respondents to regularise their service with effect from the date of
joining on the second respondent temple with back wages,
attendant benefits and continuity of service.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
contended that there cannot be any oral termination. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)Nos.11182 of 2021 etc., batch
petitioners cannot suffer for the mistake committed by the Officials.
The oral termination is opposed to public policy. The learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners further submitted that as per
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Buildings
Construction Corporation vs. S.Raghunathan and others
reported in 1998(7) SCC 66: (1999) 1 M.L.J 27 (SC), the
Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations can be invoked, as petitioners
were selected and appointed by following due process of selection.
According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the
petitioners are not terminated and they are continuing to discharge
their duties in the posts to which, they are appointed even today,
and prayed for allowing the writ petitions.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents and perused the materials available on record.
5. From the materials on record, it is seen that it is a case of
the petitioners that they were appointed in the posts of
Thiruchutru, Watchman, Ticket Vendor, Archagar in the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)Nos.11182 of 2021 etc., batch
respondent Temple by the Board of Trustees after following due
process of selection. Their appointments were approved by the
first respondent. They joined duty, but the Managing Director of
the second respondent Temple did not allow them to sign the
attendance register. The petitioners filed writ petitions in
W.P(MD)Nos.7744 to 7748 of 2011 and W.P(MD)No.9490 of 2011
for mandamus to direct the second respondent to permit the
petitioners to sign the attendance register. This Court, by order,
dated 27.06.2012, considering the contention of the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the stand taken by
the second respondent, dismissed the writ petitions holding that
unless the order of termination is declared as illegal, the
petitioners are not entitled to the relief sought for in the said writ
petitions. Challenging the said order of dismissal, some of the
petitioners filed writ appeals in W.A(MD)Nos.759 to 764 of 2012
and W.A(MD)Nos.94 and 95 of 2014. A Division Bench of this Court,
by the judgment, dated 26.04.2017 dismissed the writ appeals in
W.A(MD)Nos.94 & 95 of 2014, by passing the following order:-
“2. These Writ Appeals are directed against
the order, dated 27.06.2012 made in W.P(MD)Nos.
7744 & 7747 of 2011.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)Nos.11182 of 2021 etc., batch
3.The appellants filed the Writ Petitions
seeking a direction tot he second respondent to
permit them to sign the Attendance Register.
4. The above said Writ Petitions were
dismissed on the ground that unless the
termination is declared as illegal, a direction
cannot be given for restoration of the appellants in
service. Furthermore, the respondents 1 and 2
took a specific stand that without calling for
applications from the Employment Exchange and
without any advertisement and without conducting
interview, the appellants claimed to have been
appointed and such appointment is wholly illegal.
Thus, we are in entire agreement with the view
expressed by the learned Single Judge, in
W.P(MD)Nos.7744 to 7748 and 9490 of 2011.
Acccordingly, the impugned order does not call for
any interference by us. Hence, there Writ Appeals
are dismissed. No costs.”
Another Division Bench of this Court, by the judgment, dated
10.02.2021, following the judgment of this Court, dismissed the
writ appeals in W.A(MD)Nos.759 to 764 of 2012. From the common
order, dated 27.06.2012 made in W.P(MD)No.7744 of 2011 as well
as the judgments, dated 26.04.2017 and 10.02.2021 made in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)Nos.11182 of 2021 etc., batch
writ appeals, it is seen that this Court has held that unless the
order of termination is declared as illegal, the petitioners are not
entitled to the relief sought for in the above proceedings. The
petitioners have not taken any steps for declaration of their
termination as illegal. On the other hand, in the present writ
petitions, in one place they have stated that they are not
terminated and continuing to discharge their duties till date. In
another place, the petitioners have stated that oral termination is
illegal and there cannot be any oral termination.
6. In the present writ petitions, the petitioners are seeking
regularisation of their services, back wages and continuity of
service from the date of their appointment. According to the
petitioners, they were appointed on 27.02.2011. If the petitioners
are permitted to discharge their duties without signing the
attendance register and not paid with salary, they ought to have
taken immediate steps for payment of salary by proving that they
are continuing their duties till date. According to the petitioners,
for more than 10 years, they worked without salary and now, they
have filed the writ petitions for regularisation, back wages with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)Nos.11182 of 2021 etc., batch
continuity of service. In view of the order passed in the earlier writ
petitions and writ appeals filed by the petitioners unless the order
of termination is declared as illegal, the petitioners are not entitled
to the relief sought for in the present writ petitions. Further, the
petitioners are seeking to issue a of writ of mandamus without
making any representation to the respondents for the relief sought
for in the writ petitions. A writ of Mandamus can be issued only
when the respondents failed to discharge their duties in
considering and passing orders on the representations given by the
petitioners, when they are legally bound to do so.
7. For the above reasons, all the writ petitions fail and they
are liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly, these
writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No 07.07.2021
am
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)Nos.11182 of 2021 etc., batch
To
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Chennai-600 034.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Arulmighu Mariamman Temple,
Samayapuram,
Trichy District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD)Nos.11182 of 2021 etc., batch
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
am
W.P.(MD)Nos.11182, 11184,
11185, 11187, 11188, 11189,
11191, 11192, 11193, 11194,
11195, 11196, 11197, 11198,
11199, 11200, 11201, 11202,
11203, 11204, 11205, 11206,
11207, 11208, 11209, 11210,
11211, 11212, 11213, 11214,
11226, 11227, 11228 and 11230 of 2021
07.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
