Madras High Court
K.Lakshmanan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 September, 2022
W.P.No.42426 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.09.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.42426 of 2016
and
W.M.P.No.36307 of 2016
1.K.Lakshmanan
2.K.Srinivasan
3.K.Sambath
4.D.Soundarrajan
5.S.Saravanan
6.M.Sundaramoorthy
7.S.Sambath
8.M.Rajendran
9.V.Karikalan
10.V.Baskaran
11.D.Sudhakar
12.C.Yesurathinam ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 9.
2.The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 6.
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.42426 of 2016
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Vellore District,
Vellore.
4.The District Educational Officer,
Thiruppathur,
Vellore District. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
connected in Letter No.2148/Nee.Va3(2)/2014-5, School Education
Department, dated 17.02.2016, passed by the 1st Respondent and quash the
same and direct the Respondents to regularise the service of the petitioners
either from the date of initial appointment or from the date of actual vacancy
arose or from the date of proposal as given to others in G.O.Ms.No.123,
School Education (R1) Department, dated 17.08.2011 and extend the
benefits of the said Government Order to the petitioners also.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Arumugam
For Respondents : Mr.K.H.Ravikumar
Government Advocate
ORDER
The rejection of the claim of the writ petitioners for retrospective
regularisation from the date of regular appointment as part time employees,
is under challenge in the present writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.42426 of 2016
2.The writ petitioners were appointed as part time Sweepers in
various Government High Schools on daily wages basis. The petitioners
were not appointed in accordance with the recruitment rules in force. Thus,
the initial appointment of the petitioners became irregular, and thus, the writ
petitioners were not considered for grant of regularisation and permanent
absorption. Subsequently, the Government issued orders to regularise the
services of the daily wages employees. Accordingly, the case of the writ
petitioners were considered and their services were regularised with effect
from the year 2002 onwards. The grievances of the writ petitioners are that
their part time services also have to be taken into consideration for grant of
regularisation and accordingly, retrospective regularisation in the
sanctioned posts is to be accorded to them. Representation in this regard
was not considered and thereafter, they have filed a writ petition in
W.P.No.823 of 2014 and this Court directed the authorities to consider the
representation and pass orders. Pursuant to the directions issued by this
Court, the Government issued the impugned order in proceedings, dated
17.02.2016, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioners on the ground that
they were initially appointed as part time employees and the appointments
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.42426 of 2016
were not made in accordance with the recruitment rules in force.
3.This Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petitioners
were not appointed in accordance with the recruitment rules in force. Thus,
the initial appointments of the writ petitioners were irregular. The benefit of
regularisation and permanent absorption was granted to them by way of
concession and therefore, the concession extended cannot be violated for
the purpose of granting retrospective regularisation from the initial date of
appointment as part time employees.
4.Regularisation and permanent absorption cannot be claimed as a
matter of right. It is to be granted in accordance with the rules in force.
Equal opportunities in public employment is a constitutional mandate.
Thus, the authorities have to recruit the persons by following the procedures
as contemplated, by providing equal opportunities to all the eligible
candidates, who are all aspiring to secure public employment through open
competitive process. Backdoor appointments cannot be a ground to claim
regularisation, so also the retrospective regularisation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.42426 of 2016
5.In the present case, the benefit of regularisation was granted by way
of concession by the Government. Accordingly, the services of the writ
petitioners were regularised from the year 2002 onwards. The
regularisation of part time employees and the issues connected therewith
were considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary to
Government, School Education Department, Chennai v.
R.Govindaswamy and others [2014 (4) SCC 769]. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court, in unequivocal terms, held that the High Courts, in exercising power
under Article 226 of the Constitution, will not issue directions for
regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees
claiming regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular
recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive
process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in
Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and 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 the process, can be regularised, back door
entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.42426 of 2016
appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularised.
6.In view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court of India,
irregular or illegal appointments cannot be regularised in violation of the
recruitment rules in force. In the present case, the benefit of regularisation
had already been granted to the writ petitioners even before the judgment of
the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others [2006 (4)
SCC Pg.1] and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any further
concession for grant of retrospective regularisation. Thus, this Court do not
find any infirmity in respect of the reasons furnished in rejection of the
claim of the writ petitioners, which is otherwise candid and in compliance
of the principles settled.
7.Therefore, this writ petition is devoid of merits and stands
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
05.09.2022
mkn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.42426 of 2016
Internet :Yes
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Nonspeaking order
To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
School Education Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 9.
2.The Director of School Education,
DPI Campus, College Road,
Chennai – 6.
3.The Chief Educational Officer,
Vellore District,
Vellore.
4.The District Educational Officer,
Thirupathur,
Vellore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.42426 of 2016
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
mkn
W.P.No.42426 of 2016
05.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
