Madras High Court
M.Govindan vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 17 June, 2022
W.P.No.15559 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.15559 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
M.Govindan ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu
rep.by its Secretary to Government
Environment & Forest (FR 5) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Chief Conservator of Forests,
Panagal Building, Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
3.The Conservator of Forest,
Vellore District, Vellore.
4.The District Forest Officer,
Thiruvannamalai Forest Range,
Thiruvannamalai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for an issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
calling for the records of the Respondents more particularly the 1st
1/10
W.P.No.15559 of 2014
Respondent relating to his proceedings made in Letter No. 340B/FR.5/2013-
4 dated 28.03.2014 and quash the same as null and void illegal and invalid
and consequently directing the 1st Respondent to call for proposals for
regularization from the 2nd 3rd & 4th Respondents and accordingly issue
suitable orders regularizing the service of the Petitioner either as Animal
Keeper or as Forest Watcher or in any other cadre in the available vacancies
with effect from 1980 with all monetary and service benefits and also
applying the old Pension Scheme making him eligible for Pensionary
benefits, the prevalence of Old Pension Scheme when he was appointed as
“Wildlife Watcher' and also considering the multi nature of works
discharged by him for more than 30 years in different Forest areas, viz at the
inception as Wildlife Watcher at Sathanur Dam from the year 1980,
thereafter at Pinchur Plot for 10 years from the year 1981 to 1991 as Forest
Watcher at Jamna Maruthur Forest Range Office for about 6 years from the
year 1992 to 1998 as Forest Guard at Check Post, Sandal Wood Depot etc,
and again at Sathanur Dam from the year 1998 as Animal Keeper in the
Crocodile Farm in the light of G.O.Ms.No.43, Environment and Forest
(FR.6) Department dated 14.05.2009 issued regularizing the services of
juniors to the petitioner relaxing the Rule pertaining to age, educational
qualification, method of appointment and the Rule of reservation etc.,
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Amal Raj
For Respondents : Mrs.S.Anitha
Special Government Pleader.
2/10
W.P.No.15559 of 2014
ORDER
The writ petition is filed questioning the validity of the order dated
28.03.2014 issued by the first respondent rejecting the claim of the writ
petitioner to regularise his service. The petitioner was appointed as Forest
Watcher in the year 1980 on daily wage basis.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the
petitioner was continuously working for more than about 30 years. Even as
per the proceedings of the District Forest Officer, in letter dated 09.04.2012,
the petitioner was serving up to 08.12.2011 and therefore, he has worked
about 21 years. Despite the fact that the petitioner has served for more than
10 years, he is entitled to be regularised in the sanctioned post with all
monetary benefits. However, no action had been taken during the relevant
point of time to regularise the service of the writ petitioner and he was
making representations. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that
the case of the similarly placed person were considered by the respondents
and they were regularised. Therefore, the benefit of regularisation is to be
extended to the writ petitioner.
W.P.No.15559 of 2014
3.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the
respondents, relying on the counter statement, made a submission that the
petitioner has never worked as a Forest Watcher and he has worked only as
a Plot Watcher/Crocodile Farm Watcher and Sandal Depot Watcher in the
Forest Department on daily wages. The nature of work of Plot Watcher is
protecting the plantation and the nature of work of Crocodile Farm Watcher
is maintaining the Crocodile Farm. Therefore, the Plot Watchers are posted
as Forest Watcher based on the State vide Seniority list. The petitioner,
while working as Plot Watcher, his nature of work was to protect the
plantations. The Plot Watchers are appointed by the Forest Ranger on the
basis of daily wages. He has not worked under the control of District Forest
Officer but under the control of the Forest Ranger on daily wages.
4.The respondents state that the petitioner had worked as a Plot
Watcher at Pinjur from 01.06.1992 to 31.10.1992. There is no provision to
appoint any Plot Watcher to the plantations permanently and therefore,
daily wage employees were engaged for want of vacancies. The petitioner
was worked as Sandal Depot Watcher/Check Post Watcher at
W.P.No.15559 of 2014
Jamunamarathur Range on rotation basis. The payment was made, for
which, proper accounts were maintained by the Forest Ranger.
5.The respondents state that the petitioner at no point of time had
served as Forest Watcher. Based on the records, the petitioner has not
worked as Plot Watcher/Crocodile Farm Watcher after 07.12.2011.
Therefore, he has not worked in the department from 08.12.2011 onwards.
The details regarding the service of the writ petitioner ha been stated as
follows:
Category Name of the Range From To
Wild life Watcher Wildlife Range 01.03.80 15.06.80
Sathanur Dam
Wild life Watcher Wildlife Range, 01.01.82 31.05.82
Sathanur Dam
Plot Watcher Wildlife Range, 01.06.92 31.10.92
Sathanur Dam
Sandal depot watcher Jamunamathur 21.11.92 30.11.92
Sandal depot watcher Jamunamathur 01.01.93 28.02.93
Sandal depot watcher Jamunamathur 01.04.93 31.12.93
Sandal depot watcher Jamunamathur 01.02.94 28.02.94
Wild life Watcher Wildlife Range, 01.12.2008 07.12.2011
Sathanur Dam
W.P.No.15559 of 2014
6.It is contended that the name of the petitioner was not included in
the State vide Seniority List since the petitioner had not completed 10 years
during the relevant point of time continuously in any one of the categories.
The petitioner submitted a representation to regularise his service in the post
of Forest Watcher. The said representation was considered and it was
rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not eligible for the benefit of
regularisation in accordance with the rules in force and further, he has not
complied with the requisite conditions for grant of regularisation.
7.Regularisations or permanent absorption cannot be granted in
violation of the rules in force. Irregular or illegal appointment cannot be
regularised and the benefit of regularisation is to be granted only by
following condition as stipulated in the rules. Equal opportunity in public
employment is a constitutional mandate. All eligible persons who are all
aspiring to secure public employment should be provided with an
opportunity to participate in the open competitive process. Thus, the
persons appointed irregularly through back door method are not entitled to
W.P.No.15559 of 2014
seek regularisation, which would infringe the rights of all other candidates,
who are longing to secure public employment on merits and by participating
in the process of selection. In the event of any such regularisation, the same
would infringe the rights of other eligible candidates and further, resulting
in an unconstitutionality. This is exactly the reason why the constitution
bench in the case of State of Karnataka Vs.Umadevi reported in 2006 (4)
SCC 1 held that the principles for regularisation and permanent absorption
are to be followed scrupulously by the authorities competent. Irregular and
illegal appointment cannot be regularised in violation of the service rules in
force. The principles laid down by the Constitution Bench cannot be
denuded based on certain facts and circumstances which cannot be followed
as precedent for the purpose of grant of regularisation and permanent
absorption, as otherwise it would run counter to the ratio laid down by the
Constitution Bench.
8.As far as the irregular appointments are concerned, it was
considered even in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Daya Lal &
Ors., reported in 2011 2 SCC 429, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
W.P.No.15559 of 2014
that “The High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the
Constitution will not issue direction for regularisation, absorption or
permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularisation had
been appointed in pursuance of the regular recruitment in accordance with
the rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts.
The equality clause contained under Article 14 & 16 should be scrupulously
followed and the Courts should not issue a direction for regularisation of
services of an employee which would be violative of the constitutional
scheme. While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one
of the elements in the process of selection, which does not go to the root of
process, can be regularised, back door entries, appointment contrary to the
constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be
regularised.
9.In the present case, the petitioner was engaged as daily wage
employee and as per the service records, the respondent found that he is not
eligible for the benefit of regularisation as per the rules in force. As per the
respondents, the petitioner was not working as daily wages from the year
W.P.No.15559 of 2014
2011 onwards. He filed the writ petition in the year 2014. Even at the time
of filing of the writ petition, the petitioner was aged 52 years and now he
would be 60 years. This being the factum, the benefit of regularisation
cannot be granted in violation of the rules and the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the subject. In view of the facts and circumstances, this
Court do not find any infirmity or perversity in respect of the reasons stated
in the order impugned and accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes /No 17.06.2022
sms/sli
To
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu
rep.by its Secretary to Government
Environment & Forest (FR 5) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Chief Conservator of Forests,
Panagal Building, Saidapet,
Chennai – 600 015.
3.The Conservator of Forest,
Vellore District, Vellore.
4.The District Forest Officer,
Thiruvannamalai Forest Range,
Thiruvannamalai District.
W.P.No.15559 of 2014
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
sms/sli
W.P.No.15559 of 2014
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014
17.06.2022
