Madras High Court
A.Sivasankaran vs The Secretary on 4 September, 2023
WP.Nos.1434 & 1435/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 04.09.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
WP.Nos.1434 & 1435/2016
A.Sivasankaran ... Petitioner in
WP.No.1434/2016
G.Adhilakshmi ... Petitioner in
WP.No.1435/2016
Versus
The Secretary
Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. ... Respondent
Common Prayer : - Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified
mandamus calling for the records culminating in the proceedings in Letter
No.14881/2011-4, TNLAS [OP-I] dated 18.11.2015 and quash the same and
direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in any post in Tamil Nadu
Legislative Assembly.
For Petitioners in both
Writ Petitions : Mr.M.Vijay Amarnath
For Respondent in both
Writ Petitions : Mr. S.Ravikumar, Spl.GP
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.Nos.1434 & 1435/2016
COMMON ORDER
(1) Since the arguments are advanced in common in both the writ
petitions, a common order is passed.
(2) Let me as a test, the facts in WP.No.1434/2016. The writ petitioner,
A.Sivasankaran, had been appointed as Office Assistant on an
application filed by him on 10.1.2005, by an order 12.01.2005 along
with 15 others. It must also be mentioned that the writ petitioner in
WP.No.1435/2016, had also been similarly appointed as Office
Assistant, however by an order dated 17.01.2005. They were both
appointed as Office Assistants in the Tamil Nadu Legislative
Assembly. They were both called for medical examination and
finally, they were appointed as Office Assistants. They were both
terminated from service on 30.06.2006, within a period of one year
and five months. Questioning the order of termination, they filed
WP.Nos.22318/2006 and 36650/2007 respectively.
(3) WP.No.22318/2006, filed by the writ petitioner in WP.No.1434/2016
was allowed by an order on 13.07.2006. However,
WP.No.36650/2007 filed by the petitioner in WP.No.1435/2016 was
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.Nos.1434 & 1435/2016
dismissed by an order dated 10.12.2007. The respondent in
WP.No.22318/2006 filed WA.No.1194/2006 questioning the order in
WP.No.22318/2006. That writ appeal was allowed by a judgment
dated 23.03.2009. In effect, WP.No.22318/2006 was dismissed. The
petitioner in WP.No.36650/2007 filed WA.No.95/2009, against the
order dated 10.12.2007. That writ appeal was dismissed by a
judgment dated 19.03.2009. In effect, WP.No.36650/2007 was also
dismissed.
(4) The grievance of the petitioners was that though they had been
appointed along with 14 others, some of the writ petitions filed by the
other employees, who had been similarly appointed, had been allowed
and the Writ Appeals have also ended in their favour. Claiming
parity, both of them had given applications to the respondents on
16.09.1995. The order impugned is common in both the writ
petitions and that is dated 18.11.2015.
(5) It is contended by the respondents that since the Writ Appeals ended
against the writ petitioners herein, effectively dismissing the writ
petitions, they cannot override that particular order of the Division
3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.Nos.1434 & 1435/2016
Bench and cannot accommodate the petitioners herein to continue as
Office Assistants. It is also contended that the issue of parity would
not arise since it is a judicial order and the judicial order has to be
questioned in manner known to law. Neither of the two petitioners
have approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court questioning the
judgments passed by the Division Bench in the Writ Appeals.
(6) Learned Special Government Pleader pointed out Rule 17[a][i] of the
Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Secretariat Service Rules and Rule
17[f] of the said Rules. They are as follows:-
''17.Temporary appointments and promotions:-
[a][i]Where it is necessary in the public interest
owing to an emergency which has arisen to fill
immediately a vacancy in a post borne on the cadre of
the service and there would be u ndue delay or
administrative inconvenience in making an
appointment in accordance with these rules to fill up
the vacancy, the appointing authority may appoint or
promote temporarily any person, otherwise than in
4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.Nos.1434 & 1435/2016
accordance with these rules.
...
[f]The services of a person appointed under sub-
rule[a] shall be liable to be terminated by the
appointing authority at any time without notice and
without any reason being assigned.''
(7) It is thus seen that in an emergency and in public interest, a vacancy
can be filled by the respondents/Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly
Secretariat. But, it is also seen that such post is not regular or
permanent in nature and such services can always be terminated at
any time without notice and without any reason being assigned.
Neither of the writ petitioners have stated that there was an
emergency or that there was public interest involved when they were
initially appointed on the respective dates. They had forwarded their
applications and the applications had been considered favourably by
the respondents and they had been appointed to the post of Office
Assistant. They cannot claim permanency in such post and the
respondents always held the right to discharge their services, either
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.Nos.1434 & 1435/2016
without notice or even without reasons being assigned. There is also
no record to show that appointments were initially made on the basis
of publication being made and the petitioners herein had been
screened out of other applications and had been found suitable and
eligible to be so appointed and only after following due process, they
were appointed. Even in the affidavit, it had been stated that they had
suo motu given applications for being considered and those
applications were considered in their favour and they were appointed
as Office Assistants. But, any public appointment should be offered
to the general public and there must be a screening test and there must
be eligibility conditions fixed and only thereafter should
appointments be made and it cannot be made at the whims and
fancies of the public official or authority. The impugned order does
not require any interference.
(8) The writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs.
04.09.2023
AP
Internet : Yes
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.Nos.1434 & 1435/2016
The Secretary
Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.Nos.1434 & 1435/2016
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.,
AP
WP.Nos.1434 & 1435/2016
04.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
