Madras High Court
G.Kannan vs The Registrar on 10 November, 2021
WP(MD)No.20133 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
W.P.(MD)No.20133 of 2021
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.16843 & 16844 of 2021
G.Kannan : Petitioner
Vs.
The Registrar,
Manonmaniam Sundaranar University,
Abishekpatti,
Tirunelveli District. : Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking issuance of Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining
to the impugned order of the respondent dated 29.10.2021 in
Ref”MSU/R/Estt(Admn)/NMR-Dis/Repl/2021 and to quash the
same and consequently, directing the respondent to
regularize and absorb the petitioner to the post of Office
Assistant from the date of his appointment in the
respondent University and further directing the respondent
to provide all the service benefits to the petitioner from
the date of his appointment.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Thomas Raja Durai
For Respondent : Mr.Mahaboob Athiff
*****
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.20133 of 2021
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner as
against the order of the respondent dated 29.10.2021 in
Ref:MSU/R/Estt(Admn)/NMR-Dis/Repl/2021, in and by which,
the petitioner was disengaged from service. The petitioner
has also sought for a direction to regularize him as Office
Assistant from the date of his appointment in the
respondent University.
2.According to the petitioner, he has been appointed as
Attendant in the respondent University on 08.12.2008 and
after completion of five years, he was placed under the
consolidated pay by the respondent University by order
dated 22.01.2014. He has been continuously served in the
University for the past twelve years sincerely and without
any bad remarks. He has also filed a writ petition before
this Court in W.P.(MD)No.4061 of 2021 seeking
regularization and the same is pending. For having filed
the said writ petition, he was disengaged by the impugned
order dated 29.10.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.20133 of 2021
3.Mr.J.Thomas Raja Durai, learned Counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is aged about 41
years and believing the words of the respondent, he has
joined duty in the respondent University and has also
served in the University for the past twelve years. All of
a sudden, the respondent has disengaged the petitioner
without any reason. He has also relied upon the judgment
passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)Nos.
351, 911 & 908 of 2012, in the case of Registrar,
Manonmaniam Sundaranar University v. Thendral and Others,
wherein, this Court has held as follows:
“19.The reliance placed by the learned Senior
Counsel for the University upon the decision of the
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Uma Devi,
cannot be applied stricto sensu to cases of this
nature. It is for the simple reason that Courts will
have to distinguish between the appointments made
through back door methods and appointments made by
following the rigorous process of selection. The
principles that would apply to back door
appointments cannot be simply transported to the
cases where a process of selection is strictly
followed.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.20133 of 2021
4.Mr.Mahaboob Athiff, learned Standing Counsel has
taken notice on behalf of the respondent University and on
instructions, submitted that the petitioner has been
engaged for a limited period for a programme sponsored by
the University Grants Commission. On the completion of the
programme, the petitioner is supposed to be disengaged.
However, considering his services, he has been utilized
further in some other service. He has not been appointed on
the regular basis and therefore, he is not entitled for any
regularization. The learned Standing Counsel has also
relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, reported in 2006
(4) SCC 1 and the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.
2368 of 2012, dated 02.03.2018.
5.This Court paid it's anxious consideration to the
rival submissions and also perused the materials available
on record.
6.The petitioner has been appointed as an NMR pursuant
to the paper publication dated 06.07.2008. The respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.20133 of 2021
University has invited applications for filling up of
certain posts in the UGC sponsored Centre for the Study of
Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy. No appointment order
has been issued in the year 2008, however, an order was
passed on 22.01.2014, fixing the petitioner on consolidated
pay with effect from 08.12.2013 as an unskilled NMR. The
petitioner has filed a writ petition for regularization and
pending the writ petition, the respondent University has
taken a decision to disengage him.
7.Since the petitioner has been accommodated under a
scheme sponsored by the University Grants Commission, this
Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot claim
regularization as a matter of right. However, considering
the period of service rendered by the petitioner in the
University and the fact that he has been disengaged from
service all of a sudden, this Court suggested the learned
Standing Counsel for the respondent University to give some
breathing time to the petitioner enabling him to find out
some other suitable job. Learned Standing Counsel has also
conveyed the same to the respondent University and on
instructions, assured that the petitioner will be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.20133 of 2021
accommodated for a further period of four months and that
the petitioner has to find a suitable job in the meantime.
8.Recording the aforesaid submission made by the
learned Counsel for the respondent University, this writ
petition stands disposed of.
9.At this juncture, learned Counsel for the petitioner,
by relying upon the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.
569 of 2021, dated 25.03.2021 [P.Gopi v. Registrar,
Pondicherry University and another], prayed this Court for
a liberty to approach the Labour Court under the Industrial
Disputes Act.
10.In the aforesaid decision in P.Gopi's case, this
Court has held as follows:
“14. ...the Respondent University is an
“Industry” in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, moreso, in the light of the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of A.Sundarambal vs.
Government of Goa, Daman and Diu reported in 1988
(4) SCC 442. The Apex Court has held that, even
though an Educational Institution has to be treated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.20133 of 2021
as an “Industry”, Teachers in an Educational
Institution cannot be considered as “workmen” within
the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. In the case on hand, the
petitioner is not a 'Teacher', but a 'Mess Manager-
cum-Caretaker' covered under the principles of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.”
11.Admittedly, in the case on hand, the petitioner is
not a Teacher, but an unskilled NMR on consolidated pay.
Therefore, it is always open to him to approach the Labour
Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, if he is otherwise
eligible and if he is so advised.
12.There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index : Yes / No 10.11.2021
Internet : Yes
gk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(MD)No.20133 of 2021
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
gk
W.P.(MD)No.20133 of 2021
10.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
