Madras High Court
Baskar vs The Commissioner on 8 July, 2021
W.P(MD)Nos.11332, 11333, 11334 & 11335 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
W.P(MD)Nos.11332, 11333, 11334 & 11335 of 2021
Baskar ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.11332/2021
Vasantharaj ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.11333/2021
Sumathi ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.11334/2021
Devi ... Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.11335/2021
vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department,
Chennai – 600 034.
2.The Joint Commissioner,
Arulmighu Mariamman Temple,
Samayapuram,
Trichy District. ... Respondents in all W.Ps'
Common Prayer: Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for issuance of Writs of Mandamus, directing the
respondents to regularize the petitioners' service with effect from the date
of joining of the petitioners with the second respondent Temple with
backwages, attendant benefits and continuity of service.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)Nos.11332, 11333, 11334 & 11335 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.K.K.Samy
(In all W.Ps')
For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Selva Ganesan
(In all W.Ps') Government Advocate
COMMON ORDER
The petitioners has filed the present Writ Petitions, to direct the
respondents to regularize their services with effect from the date of their
joining with the second respondent Temple with backwages, attendant
benefits and continuity of service.
2.According to the petitioners, on seeing the Notice Board displayed in
the second respondent Temple, the petitioners applied for the posts of
Watchman, Watchman, Thiruchutru and Thiruchutru respectively. 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 Watchman, Watchman, Thiruchutru and Thiruchutru
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)Nos.11332, 11333, 11334 & 11335 of 2021
respectively 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
petition in W.P(MD)No.7745 of 2011. This Court, by common order, dated
27.06.2012 dismissed the writ petitions. Aggrieved against the said order
of dismissal, the petitioners filed writ appeals in W.A(MD)No.760 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 appeal in W.A(MD)No.760
of 2012. The petitioners have come out with the present writ petitions for a
direction to the respondents to regularise their services 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)Nos.11332, 11333, 11334 & 11335 of 2021
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 Watchman, Watchman,
Thiruchutru and Thiruchutru respectively in the second 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 Manager of the second respondent Temple did not allow them to sign
the attendance register. The petitioners filed writ petition in W.P(MD)No.
7745 of 2011 for Mandamus to direct the second respondent to permit the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)Nos.11332, 11333, 11334 & 11335 of 2021
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 petition 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 petition. Challenging the said order of dismissal, the
petitioners filed writ appeal in W.A(MD)No.760 of 2012 and some of the
petitioners filed 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.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)Nos.11332, 11333, 11334 & 11335 of 2021
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 appeal in
W.A(MD)No.760 of 2012. From the common order, dated 27.06.2012 made
in W.P(MD)No.7745 of 2011 as well as the judgments, dated 26.04.2017
and 10.02.2021 made in the 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)Nos.11332, 11333, 11334 & 11335 of 2021
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 appointments. 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 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 Writs 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)Nos.11332, 11333, 11334 & 11335 of 2021
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.
08.07.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
ps
Note :
In view of the present lock down
owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order
that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of
the advocate / litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P(MD)Nos.11332, 11333, 11334 & 11335 of 2021
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.11332, 11333, 11334 & 11335 of 2021
V.M.VELUMANI,J.
ps
W.P(MD)Nos.11332, 11333, 11334
& 11335 of 2021
08.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
