Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Pachiammal on 24 August, 2023
WA.No.2539 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
Writ Appeal No.2539 of 2022
and
C.M.P. No. 19977 of 2022
---
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary to Government
Social Welfare and Noon-Meal Department
Secretariat, Chennai-9
2.The District Collector
Krishnagiri District .. Appellant
Versus
1. Pachiammal
2. Kavitha
3. Saritha
4. Santha
5. Valliammal
6. The Bloyck Development Officer
Mathur Panchayat Union
Krishnagiri District .. Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the
order dated 28.10.2021 passed in W.P.No.23120 of 2021.
For appellants : Mr. S. Silambannan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr. C. Selvaraj
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Additional Government Pleader
1/8
WA.No.2539 of 2022
For Respondents : Mrs. Dakshayani Reddy, Senior Advocate
for Mr. C. Mahendran for RR1 to 5
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J)
The respondents 1 and 2 in WP No. 23120 of 2021 are the appellants in
this appeal. They are aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.2021 passed by the
learned Judge in the said writ petition, directing the appellants to
accommodate the writ petitioners/respondents 1 to 5 herein in regular posts.
2. The respondents 1 to 5 have filed the aforesaid Writ Petition No.
23120 of 2021 praying to set aside the order dated 10.02.2021 of the first
appellant herein and consequently direct the first respondent to implement the
recommendation of the second appellant in his communication dated
07.01.2021 and to appoint them as Noon Meal Organizers or in any other
Government employment based on their qualification.
3. The respondents 1 to 5 herein were appointed as Coordinators in
Adult Literacy Programme under a scheme called Valar Kalvi Thittam
(Growing Education Scheme) during the year 2003 and they worked in such
scheme for a period of seven years without any break. While so, during the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.No.2539 of 2022
year 2010, the respondents 1 to 5 were ousted from service by citing want of
vacancy. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 5 made representations to the sixth
respondent herein for appointment to the post of Noon Meal Organiser. Based
on such representation, the sixth respondent herein sent a proposal dated
22.03.2010 to the second appellant herein to consider the claim of the
respondents 1 to 5. However, the recommendation made by the sixth
respondent has not been considered, hence, the first respondent herein has
filed WP No. 31818 of 2014 praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing
the second appellant herein to consider the recommendation of the sixth
respondent herein and appoint her as Noon Meal Organiser in the sixth
respondent block. By order dated 04.12.2014, the learned Judge disposed of
WP No. 31818 of 2014 filed by the first respondent herein with a direction to
the second appellant herein to consider her representation dated 19.02.2014
and to pass orders on merits.
4. A similar writ petition was filed by the third and fourth
respondents herein in WP No. 32292 of 2014 in which also, an order dated
10.12.2014 came to be passed, directing the second appellant herein to
consider the claim of the respondents 3 and 4 herein on the basis of the
recommendation of the sixth respondent made on 19.04.2010.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.No.2539 of 2022
5. Pursuant to the aforesaid orders passed in the writ petitions, the
second appellant herein passed the orders dated 16.02.2015, 23.02.2015,
23.02.2015 and 18.02.2015 rejecting the claim made by the respondents 1 to 5
herein. Challenging the aforesaid orders, WP Nos. 30061 and 32259 to 32262
of 2015 were filed and they were dismissed by this Court on 16.08.2016.
Aggrieved by the same, the respondents 1 to 5 herein have filed W.A. Nos.
1407 to 1411 of 2016. By a common judgment dated 25.07.2017, the Division
Bench of this Court has observed that if it is otherwise possible to
accommodate the respondents 1 to 5 herein, the appellants shall consider their
cases on merits. Inspite of such direction issued by the Division Bench of this
Court, the appellants have not passed any order and therefore Contempt
Petition Nos. 899 to 903 of 2018 were filed.
6. During the pendency of Contempt Petitions, the second appellant
passed an order dated 05.04.2018 stating that if the respondents 1 to 5 submit
their applications pursuant to the recruitment notification, if any, their cases
will be considered on the basis of G.O. Ms. No.163 dated 18.02.2010 and as
per their eligibility and qualifications. Aggrieved by the order dated
05.04.2018, the respondents 1 to 5 have filed WP Nos. 21397 to 21402 of
2018. By order dated 10.04.2019, the learned Judge dismissed the writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.No.2539 of 2022
petitions filed by the respondents 1 to 5 with an observation that they can
participate in the process of selection, if any recruitment notification is issued
for appointment to the post of Noon Meal Organisers.
7. Challenging the order dated 10.04.2019 passed in WP Nos. 21397
to 21402 of 2018, the respondents 1 to 5 herein have filed Writ Appeal Nos.
2850, 2851, 2854, 2856 and 2858 of 2019 before this Court. By a common
Judgment dated 27.08.2020, the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the
writ appeals with an observation that the appellants shall consider the claim of
the respondents 1 to 5 for appointment of Noon Meal Organisers taking note
of the fact that they have worked as Co-ordinators on temporary basis from
2003 upto 2010. Pursuant to the said order, the first appellant has passed an
order dated 10.02.2021 rejecting the request of the respondents 1 to 5. As
against the order of rejection dated 10.02.2021, the respondents 1 to 5 have
filed the writ petition No. 23120 of 2021 before the learned Judge.
8. On consideration of the rival submissions, the learned Judge
disposed of WP No. 23120 of 2021 filed by the respondents 1 to 5 herein, by
issuing a positive direction to the appellants herein to ensure that appropriate
orders are issued for relaxing the age criteria for absorbing the respondents 1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.No.2539 of 2022
to 5 as regular employees of the Government. The relevant portion of the order
dated 28.10.2021 reads as follows:-
"7. It is noticed that the petitioners were put more than
seven years of service with the second and third respondents
and since the second respondent has also recommended the
regularisation of their services vide impugned
communication/order dated 10.02.2021, there shall be a
positive direction to the respondents to absorb the petitioners
into service by regularising their services within a period of
twelve months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The Government represented by the first respondent shall
ensure appropriate government orders are issued for relaxing
the age criteria for absorbing the petitioners as regular
employees of the Government."
9. Assailing the aforesaid order, the appellant has come forward
with this writ appeal.
10. When the matter was taken up, the learned Additional Advocate
General appearing for the appellants would submit that the respondents 1 to 5
cannot, as a matter of right, seek to regularise their service. Merely because
the respondents 1 to 5 have been engaged for seven years as Coordinators
under the Growing Education Scheme, it will not ipso facto entitle them to
seek for employment as Noon Meal Organisers. In the absence of any
sanctioned post or vacancy, the learned Judge is not right in issuing positive
direction to accommodate the respondents 1 to 5 in regular posts. However,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.No.2539 of 2022
the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants
submitted that in future, if any vacancy arises, the claim of the respondents 1
to 5/writ petitioners will be sympathetically considered in the light of the
recommendations made by the sixth respondent on 07.01.2021 for
appointment to the post of Noon Meal Organizers.
11. Recording the said submissions, the writ appeal is disposed of.
No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[R.M.D,J] [M.S.Q, J]
24.08.2023
Internet : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
gya/rsh
To
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Secretary to Government
Social Welfare and Noon-Meal Department
Secretariat, Chennai-9
2.The District Collector
Krishnagiri District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA.No.2539 of 2022
R. MAHADEVAN, J
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J
gya/rsh
WA No.2539 of 2022
24.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
