Madras High Court
G.Kulanchiyappan vs The Vice Chancellor on 29 October, 2024
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
2024:MHC:3667
W.A.Nos.1147 to 1154 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved On : 06.09.2024
Pronounced On : 29.10.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN
W.A.Nos.1147 to 1154 of 2017
and
C.M.P.Nos. 16060 to 16067 of 2017 and 21452 and 21456 of 2019
W.A.No.1147 of 2017:
G.Kulanchiyappan
.. Appellant
Vs
1 The Vice Chancellor
Indian Maritime University , ECR Road,
Uthandi Chennai - 600 119.
2 Indian Maritime University
Rep.by its Registrar,
ECR Road Uthandi,
Chennai - 600 119.
.. Respondents
Prayer : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against order
dated 09.08.2017 in WP.No.19597 of 2017 on the file of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/25
W.A.Nos.1147 to 1154 of 2017
In all W.As.
For Appellants : Mr.Vishnu Mohan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Sankara Narayanan
Senior Counsel
For Mr.K.Srinivasamurthy
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Delivered by Dr.ANITA SUMANTH.,J)
This is a batch of 8 Writ Appeals. The appellants/Writ Petitioners
are post graduates. Their educational qualifications are tabulated below:
S.No. W.P.No./W.A.No Name of the Petitioner Educational
qualification
1 19597 of 2017 G.Kulanchiyappan Post Graduate in
Commerce and
1147 of 2017 Master of Library
and Information
Science
2 19598 of 2017 R.Padma Post Graduate in
MBA (Human
1148 of 2017 Resource
Management),
M.A. (Public
Administration),
B.Sc., (Botany)
3 19599 of 2017 P.Navaneethakrishnan Post Graduate in
M.Tech (VLSI)
1149 of 2017 MBA
(International
Business),
B.E.(ECE)
4 19600 of 2017 Srinivasa Rao Post Graduate in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1147 to 1154 of 2017
Manukonda Computer
1150 of 2017 Application,
B.Sc.
(Mathematics)
5 19601 of 2017 M.Premavathi Post Graduate in
MBA (HRM),
1151 of 2017 B.Com
6 19602 of 2017 V.Senthil Kumar B.Sc.(Physics),
M.A.(Public
1152 of 2017 Administration),
MBA (HR)
7 19603 of 2017 P.Rajalakshmi M.Tech.(VLSI),
B.E.(ECE)
1153 of 2017
8 19604 of 2017 R.Rachel Mary Post Graduate
MBA (Master of
1154 of 2017 Administration),
B.Com
2. The Indian Maritime University (IMU) was constituted under
the Indian Maritime University Act, 2008 (in short ‘Act’) on 14.11.2008.
The Act integrated several Universities that existed at a national level for
promotion of maritime studies and research and other connected matters.
3. Section 49 of the Act provides for transfer of assets of the
Training Ship Chanakay, Mumbai, the Marine Engineering and Research
Institute, Mumbai, the Marine Engineering and Research Institute,
Kolkata, Lal Bahadur Shastri College of Advance Maritime Studies,
Mumbai, the National Maritime Academy, Chennai, Indian Institute of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1147 to 1154 of 2017
Port Management, Kolkata and the National Ship Design and Research
Centre, Visakhapatnam into the IMU.
4. The employees of the aforesaid Universities stood transferred to
the IMU and were extended options as below:
(i) the employees of the four training institutes under
Indian Institute of Maritime Studies who shall stand
transferred to Indian Maritime University shall have the
option to continue on deemed deputation in Indian Maritime
University on the terms and conditions in force of the
Central Government and also continue to retain or to be
allotted government residential accommodation on turn and
avail of the Central Government Health Scheme facilities till
their retirement;
(ii) the employees of the National Maritime Academy,
Chennai, Indian Institute of Port Management, Kolkata and
the National Ship Design and Research Centre,
Visakhapatnam shall have the option to continue on the
terms and conditions of their respective institutes till their
retirement; and
(iii) all employees shall have the option to join University as
per the service conditions of the University.
5. The case of G.Kulanchiyappan, appellant in W.A.No.1147 of
2017 stands on a different position qua the other 7 appellants as
Mr.Kulanchiyappan was an employee in the National Maritime Academy
(NMA), Chennai and exercised the option to continue with the IMU post
its constitution. The services of Kulanchiyappan as a clerk in the NMA
had been extended to the IMU as well.
6. There is no defence put forth to his Writ Appeal, being
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1147 to 1154 of 2017
W.A.No.1147 of 2017 and the respondents would accede to the prayer in
Writ Petition, being W.P.No.19597 of 2017, for a mandamus seeking
regularization of his services.
7. In light of their accession to the prayer, W.A.No.1147 of 2017 is
allowed and mandamus as sought for in W.P.No.19597 of 2017 is issued
to the respondents to regularize his services as against the existing
vacancy within a period of four (4) weeks from date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
8. IMU was up in 2008 and with that, came the necessity to
populate the University with necessary staff. An advertisement was
inserted in the Hindu on 12.08.2012 announcing a walk-in interview for
all posts from Academic Assistant to Vice-Chancellor on contract basis.
The eligibility criteria were that the aspirant be young and energetic,
possess a post graduation, have good command over English, interest in
maritime/transportation/logistics research, experience in preparation of
reports and be conversant with computer operations.
9. The appellants applied and were called for an interview before a
Committee comprising 3 individuals. They were found suitable for the
post and initial proceedings were issued on various dates between
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1147 to 1154 of 2017
02.03.2009 and 10.06.2011, engaging their services on consolidated pay,
on temporary basis, that came to be extended from time to time. Their
appointments were in the post of R.Padma (W.A.No.1148 of 2017) –
Junior Assistant, P.Naveethakrishnan (W.A.No.1149 of 2017) –
Research Assistant, Srinivasa Rao Manukonda (W.A.No.1150 of 2017) –
Academic Assistant to Vice Chancellor, M.Premavathi (W.A.No.1151 of
2017) – Office Assistant, V.Senthil Kumar (W.A.No.1152 of 2017) –
Assistant Administrative Officer, P.Rajalakshmi (W.A.No.1153 of 2017)
– Digital Library Assistant and R.Rachel Mary (W.A.No.1154 of 2017) –
Clerk.
10. It is relevant to note that there had been no rules providing for
the number of vacancies or for the manner or mode of filling the same.
Ultimately, recruitment rules came to be issued as Ordinance 39 of 2015
vide Executive Council Resolution No.EC 2015-32-16 on 21.08.2015.
11. There had been yet another series of appointments for the post
of Workshop Personnel. To be noted, that the post of Assistant, which
was held by all the appellants and the post of Workshop Personnel, both
belong to Group ‘C’ category.
12. Even prior to the formation of IMU, a Notification had been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1147 to 1154 of 2017
issued by the NMA in the Hindu on 12.11.2008 for appointment of
suitable candidates to various posts including personnel to man the
workshop. The Notification stipulated minimum experience of 3 years in
the respective field and pay scales had also been stipulated.
13. In conclusion, it states that the NMA would shortly be merging
with IMU, which was in the process of being established. Thus, those
persons who had been selected to fill the posts advertised would, on
merger, come under the IMU and would be offered matching pay scales
of the Central University.
14. On the basis of the above Notification, various recruitments had
taken place including of 7 persons who had been selected to man the
workshop. Their appointments were subject matter of the 36th Meeting of
the Executive Council (EC) held on 28.09.2016. The agenda for the said
meeting reads as follows:
‘To Consider the regularization of the service of 7 workshop
personnel in the ‘Group C’ category recruited on temporary
basis in 2009, on IMU’s pay scale and service conditions; to
include them under the coverage of IMU’s Group Medical
Insurance Scheme; and to deposit their NPS contribution
along with equal contribution of IMU with the National
Securities Depository Limited’
15. The EC had noted that the recruitment of 7 Workshop
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1147 to 1154 of 2017
Personnel pursuant to advertisement dated 12.11.2008 was never placed
before the EC of the IMU even though all permanent appointments could
be made only with the prior approval of the EC and only contract
appointments could be made by the Vice Chancellor with post-facto
approval of the EC.
16. The 7 employees appointed initially on temporary basis were
working from February 2009 in IMU. To be noted at this juncture, that
their appointments had been under a Notification issued prior to the
constitution of IMU which was on 14.11.2008.
17. The resolution records that they had been in service in IMU
from February, 2009 onwards for more than 7 years, in 5 cases probation
had been ‘irregularly declared’ and their services ‘confirmed’ by
Dr.P.Vijayan. They had been given NMA pay scale initially, which was
converted to IMU pay scale later. This was also noted to be an
irregularity.
18. Yet another irregularity was that they had been given Group
Medical Insurance benefit at par with NMA employees, which was
stopped with effect from May, 2015. Deductions for National Pension
Scheme was made but was not credited.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1147 to 1154 of 2017
19. The EC specifically notes that ‘the case was typical of the style
of functioning of Dr.P.Vijayan (currently under suspension), who flouted
the rules and violated the procedure at every step during his tenure as
Vice Chancellor, IMU (20.11.2008 – 19.11.2011) and later as Director,
IMU, Chennai Campus (from 20.11.2011 onwards till his suspension on
31.10.2014)’.
20. The resolution does not stop there, as the EC thereafter takes
into account ‘the human factor, the prolonged service of the 7 employees
in the university, the fact that they are aged between 40 and 50 years
and cannot hope to get any employment outside at this stage of their
lives, the fact that the various mistakes were committed by Dr.P.Vijayan
with no collusion on the part of the employees and the likelihood of
unproductive and messy litigation in the event of termination of their
services……..’.
21. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, the EC resolved to
regularize those 7 persons from the date of their joining, treating them as
permanent employees under Section 49(iii) of the Act and also to give
them coverage under the Group Medical Insurance Scheme as well as
Pension Schemes.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1147 to 1154 of 2017
22. It is the submission of Mr.Vishnu Mohan, learned counsel for
the appellants that the case of the present appellants must be considered
on par with the above referred 7 employees, as both categories of
employees fall under Group ‘C’ category. He would further argue that all
factors that have been taken into account by the EC in regularizing the
employees of the Workshop Personnel would apply on all fours to the
case of the appellants as well. Hence, there is no justification whatsoever
in denying the benefit that identically placed employees have been
granted by the respondents themselves.
23. He would also submit that the order of the Writ Court
dismissing the Writ Petitions has not taken into account various relevant
facts, and has proceeded on irrelevant and incorrect considerations.
Relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court on various cases dealing
with illegal appointments is unwarranted for the reason that the
appointments in the present case are not illegal at all.
24. He would emphasize on the position that the recruitment rules
had been framed only in 2015 and hence it cannot be said that the
recruitments of the appellants were illegal. The recruitments had been
made taking into account their eligibility and after conducting an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1147 to 1154 of 2017
interview, and there was no dispute on the position that their services, till
01.08.2020, have been found to be unimpeachable and satisfactory.
25. Mr.R.Sankara Narayanan, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for Mr.K.Srinivasamurthy, learned counsel for the IMU would, at the
outset, distinguish the case of the appellants from those of the 7
Workshop Personnel relied on by the appellants. He would submit that
mere longevity in service does not lead to the conclusion that their
services must be regularized. That apart, he submits that the
appointments of the appellants have been on temporary basis with
consolidated pay. Hence, they cannot, as a matter of right seek
regularization.
26. It is true that the recruitment rules have been framed only in
2015. However, in the call for recruitment in 2017, some of the
appellants had participated and failed miserably. Hence, accepting the
case of the appellants would result in the IMU being forced to take on
board employees, who were below the required standards.
27. We have heard submissions of both sides and have also studied
the material papers and case law carefully.
28. The appointments of the appellants have been made pursuant to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1147 to 1154 of 2017
an advertisement dated 12.08.2012 in the Hindu. The criterion for
eligibility has been set out by us in paragraph 8 supra. There is no dispute
on the position that all appellants were found eligible in terms of their
academic skills and were recruited pursuant to interviews conducted.
There were no rules for recruitment till 2015. Hence, and in light of the
aforesaid admitted position, it cannot be said that the initial appointments
of the appellants were illegal or even irregular.
29. In fact, the services of the appellants was necessitated on
account of the fact that the IMU had been constituted in November, 2008
and evidently the University could not have functioned without staff, for
want of recruitment rules.
30. There is thus no gainsaying that if recruitments were to be
made only post framing of the recruitment rules, then the University
could not have been staffed till 2015. We are hence of the categoric view
that the appointments of the appellants was both regular and necessitated
for obvious reasons. Their contracts were being extended till orders of
relieving were passed on 01.08.2020.
31. There is nothing on record, and it has also never been the case
of the respondents, that the services of the Appellant was unsatisfactory
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1147 to 1154 of 2017
in any way. The very fact that their services were accepted periodically
on various dates, from 2009 to 2011 and then onwards till 01.08.2020,
would itself show that their services was satisfactory.
32. It is true that some of the writ appellants who had participated
in the recruitment in 2017 had failed. However, their services were
continued even thereafter, till expiry of their contract on 01.08.2020. The
argument that they were unsuccessful in the interview has thus to be
weighed against the continuation of their services even thereafter. It is
quite evident that success or otherwise in the interview is one thing but
rendition of duty is quite another.
33. On a careful consideration of this aspect, we believe that the
relevant criterion to be taken note of in these matters is their unblemished
service, in all cases, for more than a decade, till 01.08.2020. Incidentally,
one of the defences raised by the respondents is that the order of
termination of services dated 01.08.2020 has not been challenged. We do
not believe this to be fatal to the case of the appellants, since the Writ
Petitions were filed at the first instance in 2017, seeking a mandamus for
regularization of services in the teeth of the recruitment Notifications that
were issued by the respondents then.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1147 to 1154 of 2017
34. Thus, the Writ Petitioners are seen to have been diligent and
prompt in approaching this Court for remedy. With the filing of the Writ
Petitions in 2017 agitating the plea of regularisation, subsequent events,
including the orders of termination dated 01.08.2020, would stand
encompassed. Though it would have been appropriate had the prayer
been amended to a certiorari challenging the termination order, insistence
on such a course of action at this juncture would, in our view, be hyper-
technical.
35. In State of Karnataka V. Umadevi1, the Supreme Court came
down heavily on illegal appointments holding them to be contrary to
public policy. A distinction was however made between illegal and
irregular appointments.
36. The Writ Court in the present matter has dismissed all Writ
Petitions on the ground that the appointments of the petitioners/appellants
cannot be regularized. The Court has rightly held that a contract
appointee cannot, as a matter of right, seek regularization, going to state
that the appellant cannot claim regularization to the deprivation of other
citizens of the country as they have not participated in open recruitment
1 2006 (4) SCC 1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1147 to 1154 of 2017
process. On the latter aspect, we differ.
37. While we agree that regularization cannot be sought as a matter
of right, there are extenuating circumstances that can be taken note of by
the employer or by the Court in deciding whether services that have been
rendered are liable to be regularized.
38. Upon consideration of various factors, the facts that commend
themselves to us in this case are that:
(i) The appointment of the Writ Petitioners has been found by us to be
regular and following a process for selection.
(ii) There was a call for recruitment by way of advertisement in public
domain setting out eligible criteria including academic requirements,
being a post-graduation.
(iii) There were no recruitment rules governing recruitments till 2015 and
hence it was open to the respondents to evolve a proper methodology for
recruitment which we believe has been done in the recruitment of the
appellants.
(iv) There is no whisper of any irregularity in the procedure followed by
the respondents in appointing the appellants, and, to be fair to the
respondents, they do not question, at any stage, the methodology
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1147 to 1154 of 2017
followed for appointment or selection of the appellants.
(v) The services of the appellants from various dates between 2009 and
2011 and 2011 till 01.08.2020, being periods upto 11 years, has
admittedly been satisfactory.
(vi) In fact, their services were found to be indispensable as even after the
failure of the appellants in the recruitment test in 2017, the respondent
University continued to exploit their services till expiry of their contract
on 01.08.2020.
39. These aspects of the matter have not been adverted to by the
Writ Court, which, after narration of the facts, has relied on the
judgments in Mineral Exploration Corporation Employees Union V.
Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd.2 and Umadevi3 in denying the
relief.
40. Most importantly, at paragraph 12, the writ Court states
‘Therefore, it is admitted that the recruitment rules in force was not
followed while appointing these writ petitioners. There was no open
competition process method was adopted while appointing these writ
petitioners’. The writ court has failed to note that the recruitment rules
2 2006 (6) SCC 310
3 Foot Note Supra (1)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1147 to 1154 of 2017
were framed only in 2015 and there was an open, transparent competition
as an advertisement was released on 12.08.2012 calling for walk-in
interview stipulating eligibility criteria. After careful consideration, we
are thus of the view that the order of the writ Court is liable to be set
aside for the aforesaid reasons.
Analysis of Case Law:
41. The judgment in the case of Umadevi4 has been the subject
matter of discussion in several cases. In Vinod Kumar and others V.
Union of India and others5, the Supreme Court considered appeals filed
against the decision of the Allahabad High Court. The Writ Petition had
been filed by those appellants challenging the decision of the Central
Administrative Tribunal rejecting their plea for regularization and
absorption into the posts of Accounts Clerk.
42. In that case as well, the appellants were engaged on
temporary/scheme based contracts. Those employees were working
continuously for a period exceeding 25 years, their appointments had
been made pursuant to a Notification and there was a selection process
followed involving written test and interview. Their request for
4 Foot Note Supra (1)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1147 to 1154 of 2017
regularization had been rejected on the ground that appointment under a
temporary scheme would not confer rights akin to those held by
permanent employees.
43. Relying on the judgment in Umadevi6, the Supreme Court
opined that the substantive nature of the duties rendered by those
employees aligned with regular employment rather than the temporary or
scheme based rules under which they had been originally appointed. The
Court also took note of the selection process that they had undergone, the
duration of, and promotions while in service, ultimately holding that the
essence of their employment and consequent rights cannot be determined
by the initial terms of their appointment which has evolved over time.
44. In that case, promotion process had been conducted without
reference to the temporary nature of their roles. The Court concluded that
the judgment in Umadevi7 did not apply to those facts, that consideration
must be had to the circumstances in which those employees had been
employed and their services continued. At paragraph 7, they state as
follows:
6 Foot Note Supra (1)
7 Foot Note Supra (1)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1147 to 1154 of 2017
7. The judgement in the case Uma Devi (supra) also
distinguished between “irregular” and “illegal” appointments
underscoring the importance of considering certain
appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with
the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have
been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of
regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations
or interviews as in the present case. Paragraph 53 of the Uma
Devi (supra) case is reproduced hereunder:
“53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases
where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as
explained in S.V. Narayanappa [(1967) 1 SCR 128 : AIR 1967
SC 1071], R.N. Nanjundappa [(1972) 1 SCC 409 : (1972) 2
SCR 799] and B.N. Nagarajan [(1979) 4 SCC 507 : 1980 SCC
(L&S) 4 : (1979) 3 SCR 937] and referred to in para 15 above,
of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might
have been made and the employees have continued to work for
ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the
courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the
services of such employees may have to be considered on
merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the
cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that
context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their
instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time
measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have
worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not
under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should
further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill
those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in
cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being
now employed. The process must be set in motion within six
months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if
any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened
based on this judgment, but there should be no further
bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or
making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the
constitutional scheme.”
45. We find the facts in the above matter akin to the facts on hand.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1147 to 1154 of 2017
In the present case, the nature of duties rendered by the Assistants, while
being contractual, is what has sustained the functioning of the University
till 01.08.2020, ie.., for a period of 12 years, since the inception of the
University, apart from the fact that their services were itself, without
blemish.
46. This would stand testimony to the substantive nature of their
duties and efface any distinction between the services rendered by them
and those rendered by direct recruitees. Thus, to brush away their services
merely on the ground that their appointments had been made on
temporary, contractual and on consolidated basis is, in our view,
unacceptable.
47. The legitimacy of their appointments is also established by
reason of the fact that proper process was followed and in any event,
there were no recruitment rules in place till 2015. In Sheo Narain Nagar
and others V. State of Uttar Pradesh and another8, the Supreme Court
considered the plea for regularization by daily wagers.
48. The employees had been appointed on daily wage basis in
August 1993, converted to contractual basis in 1996 and thereafter to the
status of temporary employees, with effect from 01.10.2002. Their
8 (2018) 13 SCC 432
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1147 to 1154 of 2017
services were terminated in 2014 and their plea for regularization was
rejected on the ground that their appointments were illegal and not merely
irregular.
49. Their interests were protected by virtue of an interim order
passed by the Supreme Court on 23.03.2015 noticing that, prima facie,
their appointments did not appear to be backdoor entries. They were
permitted to continue to render services. When the matter was finally
disposed in 2017, they had rendered services for about 24 years.
50. Reiterating the facts surrounding their employment, the Court
notes specifically that theirs was no case of backdoor entry, since there
were no rules in place offering regularisation of posts. (See facts in the
order of the High Court in Sheo Narain Nagar and others V. State of
Uttar Pradesh9)
51. All the more in the present case, there were not even
recruitment rules in terms of which regular appointments could have been
made. Thus, appointments, in the absence of recruitment rules cannot be
stated to be illegal, if the employer is seen to have followed an
appropriate, transparent method of recruitment to the posts, as has been
done in the present case.
9 2014 SCC Online Allahabad 16492
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1147 to 1154 of 2017
52. Coming to the appointments of the 7 Workshop Personnel on
which reliance has been placed by the appellants, we find some
distinguishing features between the appointments of 7 Workshop
Personnel whose regularization has been the subject matter of minutes of
the EC dated 28.09.2016 (see paragraphs 14 to 21 supra) and the present
appointments.
53. The recruitments of the 7 Workshop Personnel has its genesis
in a call for recruitment issued by the NMA on 12.11.2008 even prior to
the establishment/constitution of the IMU on 14.11.2008. That call was
two days prior to the establishment of the IMU. In that advertisement,
experience and pay scale have been stipulated based on the recruitment
rules in force at that point in time and as relatable to the NMU. The
position qua the appellants is different as the call for recruitment was
itself made only on 12.8.2012 by the IMU, admittedly, without the
benefit of recruitment rules.
54. The EC considered on 28.09.2016, the regularization of 7
Workshop Personnel. The respondents have fairly placed on record the
agenda for the subject. Interalia, they state that out of the 7 persons
whose recruitments were pending regularization, only in the case of 5 had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1147 to 1154 of 2017
there been a declaration of probation and confirmation by the erstwhile
Director. The reasons for not including the names of the two persons,
viz., V.K.Danushkodi and R.Umamaheswari for declaration of probation
and confirmation, they state ‘are not available on record’.
55. Thus the respondents admit to some irregularity as far as those
appointments are concerned but have proceeded to regularize the same.
The case of the appellants before us is on a higher, and better pedestal.
56. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the order of the Writ
Court dated 09.08.2017 and issue mandamus to the respondents to
regularize the services of the appellants. Necessary orders be passed
within a period of four (4) weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
57. Before parting, we are given to understand that at present,
process of recruitment has been commenced for appointment of persons
to various posts including the posts in which the appellants had been
engaged. Since, we have in this order directed the services of the
appellants to be regularised, they would have to be accommodated in the
respective posts held by them earlier.
58. However, this cannot be seen to have any consequence in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1147 to 1154 of 2017
present recruitment process where the applicants would be unaware of the
events in relation to the present Writ Appeals. It is quite another matter,
if, even after the recruitment process there are sufficient vacancies where
the appellants can be accommodated. However, if that were not to be so,
supernumerary posts will be created to accommodate these appellants in
order that the aspirants in the on-going recruitment process are not
compromised by reason of the present order.
59. These Writ Appeals are allowed. No costs. Connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
[A.S.M., J] [G.A.M., J]
29.10.2024
Index:Yes
Speaking
Neutral Citation:Yes
sl
To
1 The Vice Chancellor
Indian Maritime University , ECR Road,
Uthandi Chennai - 600 119.
2 Indian Maritime University
Rep.by its Registrar,
ECR Road Uthandi,
Chennai - 600 119.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1147 to 1154 of 2017
DR. ANITA SUMANTH,J.
and
G. ARUL MURUGAN.,J
sl
W.A.Nos.1147 to 1154 of 2017 and
C.M.P.Nos. 16060 to 16067 of 2017
and 21452 and 21456 of 2019
29.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
