Madras High Court
C.G.Vijayakumar vs The Union Of India on 25 March, 2025
WP(MD).No.11210 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
WP(MD).No.11210 of 2019
&
WMP(MD).Nos.8565 and 8566 of 2019
&
WMP(MD).No.3209 of 2020
C.G.Vijayakumar .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Union Of India
Rep.by the Secretary,
Ministry of Micro, Small and
Medium Enterprises (A) Department,
New Delhi.
2.The Coir Board,
Rep. By Its Secretary,
Coir House, M.G.Road,
Ernakulam, Cochin- 628 016.
3.The Administrative Officer,
Coir Board, Ministry Of MS & ME,
Coir House, M.G.Road, Erankulam,
Cochin-682 016.
4.The Regional Coir Development Officer,
Regional Extension Centre,
Coir Board, Pillayarpatti (Post),
Vallam (Via),
Thanjavur District - 613 403.
_________
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 02:52:45 pm )
WP(MD).No.11210 of 2019
5.The State Of Tamil Nadu
Rep. By Its Secretary To Government,
Industries Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai- 600 009. .. Respondents
Prayer:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call the
records relating to the order No.A-21021/57/2016-ADM (Estt) dated
04.04.2017 passed by the third respondent and quash the same and
consequently to direct the respondents to regularize the service of the
petitioner from the date of first appointment i.e. from 01.02.1995 and
refix the petitioner's pay in the appropriate scale of pay and grant all the
consequential service, promotion and monetary benefits within a time
limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court and pass such further or other
orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thirumurhty
For Respondents : Mr.K.R.Badurus Zaman
Government Advocate
_________
Page 2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 02:52:45 pm )
WP(MD).No.11210 of 2019
ORDER
Under assail is the order passed dated 04.04.2017 by the third
respondent rejecting the request of the for recovery and regularization of
“Badli” Service rendered in the Hindustan Coir Board.
2. The case of the writ petitioner is that the second respondent, the
Coir Board, Erankulam, Cochin has called for list of candidates who has
passed the advance artisans training course from the employment
exchange for selection and appointment in the second respondent board.
2(i). The writ petitioner was sponsored by the employment
exchange and he was appointed on merits and joined duty on 01.09.1985
in Hindustan Coir at Tanjavur District and monthly salary was paid
calculating at daily rate basis. After completion of thirteen years service
of temporary service, the second respondent that is the Coir Board posted
him as miscellaneous worker on permanent status in Hindustan Coir at
Ernakulam.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 02:52:45 pm )
2(ii). Though, the writ petitioner was qualified and appointed in
accordance with the recruitment norms of sponsoring the employment
exchange interview and due selection process stipulated by the board and
though he had put in continuous service from 1995, he was not granted
permanent status from 1995 to 2008. He made several representations
before the second respondent and he was discriminated and denied
permanent status in thirteen years which is illegal. Subsequently, he was
demoted as lower division clerk on 26.08.2011 and he was posted at
Export Marketing One Section at Ernakulam. Subsequently, he was
appointed as upper division clerk and posted at Alappuzha. Subsequently,
he was transferred to the fourth respondent that is the Regional Coir
Department Officer, regional extension center at Tanjavur by an order
dated 06.01.2025.
2(iii). In a similar issue, related to the second respondent coir
board, this Hon'ble Court by a common order on 24.07.2012 in a batch of
writ petitions in WP(MD).Nos.6568 to 6570 and 6936 of 2001 directing
the second respondent herein coir board to regularize the service of the
petitioner therein from the date of their initial appointment and to grant
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 02:52:45 pm )
notional pay fixation and benefits for the past years and grant the
monetary benefits. As per the direction issued by this Hon'ble Court, the
respondent two to four, regularized the service of the employees,
considering their claim. Though, he was appointed in accordance with
recruitment clauses and procedures, the service was not regularized.
Hence, this writ petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the similar issue related to the second respondent coir board, this
Hon'ble Court has passed a common order dated 24.07.2012, in a batch
of writ petitions and the impugned order came to be passed on
04.04.2017, is contrary to and violation of the order passed by this
Hon'ble Court. The benefit of regularization of service has been granted
to other workers as per the orders of this Hon'ble Court, the denial of the
same benefit to the writ petitioner is discriminatory and violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 02:52:45 pm )
4. Per-contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents
would submit that the writ petitioner was originally engaged as a
“Badli” in Hindustan Coir along with other similar candidates. There is
no post of “Badli” in the establishment of the Coir Board and it is a
temporary engagement of suitable candidates, reserved for deployment as
against the Short Term Leave Vacancies Etc. of the regular employees.
He would submit that the writ petitioner has worked as a “Badli” worker
as temporary arrangement only for deployment of works as and when
necessary for ensuring un-interrupted functioning of power loom factory
and there is no such post in the establishment of the board with effect
from 01.02.1995 and therefore, his request cannot be acceded to and
there is no necessity to interfere with the order impugned.
5. This Court has considered the arguments advanced on either
side and perused the available material on record.
6. It is seen from the typed set of papers, the writ petitioner was
engaged as a “Badli” worker in Hindustan Coir, it is not in dispute that
there is no post for “Badli” in the Coir Board and the writ petitioner was
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 02:52:45 pm )
engaged as on a temporary measure. He was regularized on 01.07.2008.
It is also seen from records when vacancies arose in the post of
miscellaneous worker i.e., in the permanent post “Badli” the suitable and
qualified person as per the recruitment rules in force for such post, they
were considered for appointment. Similarly, the writ petitioner's case also
considered for regularization in the post of miscellaneous worker, with
effect from 02.07.2008. Thereafter, the writ petitioner was demoted as
lower division clerk on 26.08.2011 and posted at Export Marketing One
Section at Ernakulam. Subsequently, he was appointed as upper division
clerk and he is continuing the said post. Thereafter, he was transferred to
the fourth respondent extension, Tirunelveli by an order dated
06.04.2015.
7. The claim of the writ petitioner is that he has joined duty on
01.02.1995 at Hindustan Coir as a “Badli” worker i.e., from initial date
of appointment as “Badli” worker has to be regularized. According to
the respondent board, the writ petitioner was engaged only as a “Badli”
worker as a temporary arrangement only for deploying works as and
when necessary for ensuring un-interrupted functioning of the factory
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 02:52:45 pm )
and moreover there is no such post in the establishment in which the
board was established in the year 1995, the regularization of service can
be claimed if the writ petitioner has been appointed as per the
recruitment process in a manner known to law. The temporary service
rendered by the writ petitioner cannot be taken into consideration for
regularization, it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of The Secretary to the State of Karnataka and
Others Vs. Umadevi and Others reported in [ 2000 (4) SCC 1].
8(i).It is relevant to mention that in the context of the legal
principles set out in the paragraph, the irregular, illegal and backdoor
appointments would not provide any right to secure permanent
absorption or regularization.
8(ii). The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:-
“3. But, sometimes this process is not adhered to
and the Constitutional scheme of public employment is by-
passed. The Union, the States, their departments and
instrumentalities have resorted to irregular appointments,
especially in the lower rungs of the service, without
reference to the duty to ensure a proper appointment
procedure through the Public Service Commission or
otherwise as per the rules adopted and to permit these
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 02:52:45 pm )
irregular appointees or those appointed on contract or on
daily wages, to continue year after year, thus, keeping out
those who are qualified to apply for the post concerned
and depriving them of an opportunity to compete for the
post. It has also led to persons who get employed, without
following a regular procedure or even through the
backdoor or on daily wages, approaching Courts, seeking
directions to make them permanent in their posts and to
prevent regular recruitment to the concerned posts. Courts
have not always kept the legal aspects in mind and have
occasionally even stayed the regular process of
employment being set in motion and in some cases, even
directed that these illegal, irregular or improper entrants
be absorbed into service. A class of employment which can
only be called 'litigious employment' has risen like a
phoenix seriously impairing the constitutional scheme.
Such orders are passed apparently in exercise of the wide
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia.
Whether the wide powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution is intended to be used for a purpose certain to
defeat the concept of social justice and equal opportunity
for all, subject to affirmative action in the matter of public
employment as recognized by our Constitution, has to be
seriously pondered over. lt is time that Courts desist from
issuing orders preventing regular selection or recruitment
at the instance of such persons and from issuing directions
for continuance of those who have not secured regular
appointments as per procedure established. The passing of
orders for continuance tends to defeat the very
Constitutional scheme of public employment. It has to be
emphasized that this is not the role envisaged for High
Courts in the scheme of things and their wide powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not
intended to be used for the purpose of perpetuating
illegalities, irregularities or improprieties or for scuttling
the whole scheme of public employment. Its role as the
sentinel and as the guardian of equal rights protection
should not be forgotten.”
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 02:52:45 pm )
9. In view of the legal principles settled by the Constitutional
Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The temporary
arrangements made by the Coir Board, as the writ petitioner served as a
daily rate employee cannot be continued to be in perpetuity for granting
the relief of permanent absorption or regularization. As far as the initial
engagement is concerned, no recruitment rules are followed, reservation
rules are not followed and other service rules for selection has not been
complied with, therefore, such appointment if resulted in permanent
absorption, it will cause gross injustice to the society at large.
10. There is no merit in this writ petition and is liable to be
dismissed. Hence this writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
also closed.
25.03.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
nst
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 02:52:45 pm )
To
1.The Union Of India
Rep.by the Secretary,
Ministry of Micro, Small and
Medium Enterprises (A) Department,
New Delhi.
2.The Coir Board,
Rep. By Its Secretary,
Coir House, M.G.Road,
Ernakulam, Cochin- 628 016.
3.The Administrative Officer,
Coir Board, Ministry Of MS & ME,
Coir House, M.G.Road, Erankulam,
Cochin-682 016.
4.The Regional Coir Development Officer,
Regional Extension Centre,
Coir Board, Pillayarpatti (Post),
Vallam (Via),
Thanjavur District - 613 403.
5.The State Of Tamil Nadu
Rep. By Its Secretary To Government,
Industries Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai- 600 009.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 02:52:45 pm )
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
nst
&
WMP(MD).Nos.8565 and 8566 of 2019
&
Dated: 25.03.2025
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/04/2025 02:52:45 pm )
