Madras High Court
A.Gowry vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 1 August, 2023
Writ Appeal No.1475 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 01.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
Writ Appeal No.1475 of 2017
A.Gowry ... Appellant
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By
Department of Arts and Culture,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
2. The Commissioner of Arts and Culture,
Directorate Arts and Culture,
Tamil Valarchi Valagam, 2nd Floor,
Egmore, Chennai – 8.
3. The Administrative Officer,
Tamil Nadu Jawahar Siruvar Mandram
Government Music College Campus,
Greenways Road, Chennai – 28.
4. The District Collector,
Chennai.
5. The Executive Officer,
Jawahar Siruvar Mandram,
Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. .. Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1/7
Writ Appeal No.1475 of 2017
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, to set
aside the final order dated 01.08.2017 made in W.P.No.6532 of 2017.
For Appellant : Mrs.R.Madhumitha
for Mr.M.Ravi
For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar
Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.KUMARESH BABU,J.)
This intra-court appeal had been preferred by the unsuccessful writ
petitioner, who had filed a writ petition seeking to quash the order of the
respondent dated 31.03.2015, wherein the appellant was relieved from
temporary service and she had also sought for a direction to direct the
respondent to regularize the service of the appellant from 15.05.2008.
2. Heard Mrs.R.Madhumitha, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr.K.V.Sajeev Kumar, learned Special Government
Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. Mrs.R.Madhumitha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that the appellant was appointed as part-time sweeper by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.2/7
Writ Appeal No.1475 of 2017
third respondent on 06.07.2000 on a monthly payment of Rs.240/-.
Thereafter, along with part time sweeper, she was also appointed as
Evalar on a monthly payment of Rs.900/- with effect from 18.10.2007,
which was also a temporary post.
4. While that being so, the second respondent herein by order
dated 31.03.2015 had ousted the petitioner from service alleging that the
aforesaid post is sought to be outsourced. She would also submit that it is
a regular work in the aforesaid school, therefore she could be regularized.
5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of
the respondents would submit that the classes conducted under the said
scheme is not a regular course, therefore, the course itself is a part time
course for the benefit of the students and that it is also being conducted
only in the places available viz., such as corporation schools and other
places and as such courses are not full time course in the school to have
regular the employees. He would also submit that there are already
existing sweepers in the said place, where such courses are being
conducted. Therefore, the claim made by the appellant cannot be
entertained.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.3/7
Writ Appeal No.1475 of 2017
6. The learned single Judge, who dealt with the writ petition
following the judgment in the case of Secretary to Government, School
Education Department, Chennai vs. R.Govindasamy and Ors. reported
in (2014) 4 SCC 769, had held that the appellant cannot be allowed to
back door entry in the matter of appointment.
7. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for both sides and have perused the materials placed
before this Court.
8. The appellant had been appointed only on temporary basis at
Jawahar Siruvar Mandram at Mylapore. It is also not in dispute that the
said course being conducted only as a part time course and for
conducting such course, no permanent building has been provided and it
is being conducted either in a existing Corporation school or in other
schools. As has been rightly submitted by the learned Special
Government Pleader the appellant could not be accommodated as there is
already a sweeper working in the particular school. However, the
impugned order would disclose that the work attached with the post was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.4/7
Writ Appeal No.1475 of 2017
sought to be outsourced. When such a policy decision is taken through
the order dated 31.03.2015, this Court cannot entertain this writ appeal.
We find no reasons to interfere the order passed by the learned
single Judge, hence it fails and accordingly, this writ appeal stands
dismissed. No costs.
(R.S.K.,J.) (K.B., J.)
01.08.2023
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
mp
To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By
Department of Arts and Culture,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
2. The Commissioner of Arts and Culture,
Directorate Arts and Culture,
Tamil Valarchi Valagam, 2nd Floor,
Egmore, Chennai – 8.
3. The Administrative Officer,
Tamil Nadu Jawahar Siruvar Mandram
Government Music College Campus,
Greenways Road, Chennai – 28.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.5/7
Writ Appeal No.1475 of 2017
4. The District Collector,
Chennai.
5. The Executive Officer,
Jawahar Siruvar Mandram,
Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.6/7
Writ Appeal No.1475 of 2017
R.SURESH KUMAR., J.
and
K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.
mp
Writ Appeal No.1475 of 2017
01.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.7/7
