Madras High Court
H.Anandhi vs Union Of India on 28 October, 2025
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
2025:MHC:2451
W.A.No.1569 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 23.09.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 28.10.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
W.A.No.1569 of 2019
and CMP.No.10776 of 2019
H.Anandhi ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Union of India,
Rep. By its Secretary,
Ministry of Culture,
Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi-110 115
2.The Chairman,
Governing Board,
kalakshetra Foundation,
Thiruvanmiyur,
Chennai-41
3.The Director,
Kalakshetra Foundation,
Tiruvanmiyur,
Chennai-41
4.The Kalakshetra Foundation,
Rukmani Devi College of Fine Arts,
Page 1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:05:14 pm )
W.A.No.1569 of 2019
Thiruvanmiyur,
Chennai-41
5.Leela Samson,
Former Director,
Kalakshetra Foundation,
Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-41
6.Sri.S.V.Venkateshaih
Director, Southern Region,
Archaeological Survey of India,
Bengalore.
7.T.S.Murthi
Chief Accounts Officer,
Kalakshetra Foundation,(Co-opted Member)
Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai -41.
... Respondents
(R5 to R7 suo motu impleaded as party respondents
vide Court order dated 17.06.2019 made in
W.A.No.1569 of 2019 and CMP.No.10776/2019)
PRAYER: Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying
to set aside the order dated 22.03.2019 in W.P.No.32296 of 2018.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Stalin for
M/s.Row and Reddy
For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Jeyaganeshan
Senior Panel Counsel for R1
Mr.Karthick Rajan for R2 to R4
Ms.Geetha Ramaseshan for R5
Ms.R.Ramya for R7
R6- No appearance
Page 2 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:05:14 pm )
W.A.No.1569 of 2019
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by M.S.RAMESH.J)
This Writ Appeal has been filed to set aside the order dated
22.03.2019 in W.P.No.32296 of 2018.
2. The appellant herein, who was serving as a Costume Assistant-
Grade II at Kalakshetra Foundation / the fourth respondent herein, was
relieved of her duties by an order dated 20.11.2018, on the ground that her
services, as a probationer, were no longer required. When she had
challenged the said order of termination in W.P.No.32296 of 2018, the Writ
Petition was dismissed on 22.03.2019, predominantly on the ground that
she was overaged at the time of appointment, apart from not possessing the
requisite educational qualification for the post, and that non issuance of a
show cause notice prior to the termination would not cause any prejudice
to her. This said order of dismissal is now under challenge before us.
3. The main contention of the appellant is that no prior opportunity
was given to her when she was relieved from the services and thus, the
termination order is violative of the principles of natural justice. According
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:05:14 pm )
to the learned counsel, though the appellant was initially put on probation
for a period of two years commencing from 08.06.2010, the probation
period was neither extended, nor was it declared to have completed. On the
other hand, all the service benefits were periodically being extended to the
appellant, including her dearness allowance and increments under the
recommendation of the 7th Pay Commission, thereby treating her as a
regular employee. With such grounds, the learned counsel sought for our
interference to the order passed in the Writ Petition.
4.1 Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for Kalakshetra
Foundation / the fourth respondent, would submit that the appellant had
continued to be probationer at the time of termination and since, the terms
and conditions under Clause (ii) of the appointment order permitted them
to terminate her without any notice or reasons, the order cannot be found
fault with.
4.2 It is his further submission that as per the recruitment rules of
Kalakshetra Foundation, the essential qualifications prescribed for the post
of Costume Assistant – Grade II was a degree from a recognized
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:05:14 pm )
University or its equivalent, with the capacity to assist the costume
requirements of new productions, experience in tailoring, etc., and the
upper age limit was 30 years. Among these essential qualifications, the
appellant did not possess her degree at the time of appointment, but had
graduated in B.A History and Heritage Management only after her
appointment. She was also above 30 years at the time of appointment and
therefore, the fourth respondent was justified in dispensing with her
services while she was a probationer. According to him, the learned Single
Judge had taken note of these disqualifications and in view of the
appellant's status as a probationer, had held that no prior show cause notice
was required before the termination.
5. It is not in dispute that the appellant was appointed to the
permanent post of Costume Assistant – Grade II through a proper selection
process, pursuant to a recruitment notification in the newspapers. Pursuant
to her application for the said post, she was called for a personal interview
on 07.04.2010 and after being successful in the interview, she was
appointed to the permanent post of Costume Assistant – Grade II on
08.06.2010.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:05:14 pm )
6.1 As per Rule 3 of the Kalakshetra Foundation Recruitment
Regulations 2005, read with Clause 12 of the Schedule applicable to
Rukmini Devi College of Fine Arts, the period of probation for the post of
Costume Assistant – Grade II was two years. The essential qualification
prescribed thereunder, inter alia, was a degree from a recognized
University and the upper age limit was fixed at 30 years.
6.2 Clause 2 of the appointment order dated 08.06.2010 stipulates
that the appellant was put on probation for a period of two years from the
date of her joining duty, with a condition that the probation may be
extended or curtailed at the discretion of the competent authority. It was
further stated that during the period of probation, extended or otherwise,
the appointment may be terminated at any time, without notice and without
assigning any reasons.
6.3 Clause 3 of the appointment order states that after the
satisfactory completion of the probationary period, the appellant would be
considered for confirmation in the pay scale referred to in the appointment
order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:05:14 pm )
7. It is claimed by the appellant that after her appointment, she had
satisfactorily completed the probation period of two years. However, the
fourth respondent herein had neither declared her probation nor extended
it. On the other hand, they had continued her in service and extended her
the pay scale applicable to a permanent employee, with dearness allowance
and had also extended the benefit of the 7th Pay Commission. In other
words, the appellant herein was treated as a regular employee of the fourth
respondent in the permanent post of Costume Assistant – Grade II.
8. Her services were continued for more than 8 ½ years. The
averment made in her affidavit filed before the Writ Court that there was
no adverse remarks during her service and that her annual performance
report also recorded her integrity as being of a high order, has not been
denied by the fourth respondent in their counter affidavit. When the
Recruitment Regulations governing the fourth respondent fixes the
probation period at only two years, there is a duty cast on the employer to
either declare the probation of having been completed, subject to her
satisfactory service or extend the same for a further fixed period. Having
failed to exercise either of these options, the fourth respondent appears to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:05:14 pm )
have treated the appellant as a regular employee, and extended all the
service benefits applicable to a regular and permanent employee. Her
annual performance was also determined and awarded as 'integrity of a
high order'.
9. It is no doubt true that the appellant neither possessed the
essential qualification of her degree at the time of her appointment nor was
she below the age of 30 years. It is not the case of the fourth respondent
that the appellant had suppressed the fact of her non possession of the
requisite qualification or the fact of having exceeded the prescribed age
limit. On the other hand, the appointment order appears to have been
issued by the fourth respondent consciously, despite these shortfalls, and
even after the completion of her initial two year probation period, her
services were continued for more than 8 ½ years. The termination order
issued on 20.11.2018 treats her status as that of a probationer and it was a
simpliciter termination without prior notice.
10. Though the fourth respondent is not required to assign any
reasons while terminating the services of a probationer, the manner in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:05:14 pm )
which the fourth respondent had dealt with the entire case of the appellant
from appointing her to the post of Costume Assistant – Grade II and failing
to extend her probation period after two years, constrains us to draw an
inference that the appellant was indeed being treated as a regular or
permanent employee. In such a scenario, the termination order ought to
have been preceded by a show cause notice, giving her at least an
opportunity to explain as to why her services should not be terminated,
more particularly in view of long service of over 8 ½ years.
11. The appellant has also stated in her affidavit that during the
course of her service, she had donated one of her kidneys to her husband,
who had undergone transplantation and was undergoing dialysis
fortnightly. This apart, she was also supporting her two school going
daughters at the relevant point of time.
12. The Writ Court, as well as during the course of this Writ Appeal,
the appellant was protected with interim orders of stay of the termination
order, owing to which she has been continuing her services under the
fourth respondent till date, for more than 15 years. Her performance in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:05:14 pm )
appointed post, as well as her integrity, has been certified to be of a high
order and even till date, no adverse remarks were imputed against her.
13.As observed by us in the earlier portion of our order, the
appellant was initially recruited to a sanctioned post of Costume Assistant
– Grade II through a regular selection process, conducted pursuant to a
recruitment notification published in the newspapers. Though she did not
possess the educational qualification and was also claimed to be over aged,
the respondents had appointed her and placed her under probation. She had
continued in her services for over 8 ½ years with an unblemished record.
This is not a case of an illegal appointment, but can only be termed to be
an irregular appointment, as distinguished by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, reported in [(2006) 4 SCC
1].
14. In a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinoth
Kumar and others vs. Union of India and others, reported in [(2024) 9
SCC 327], reference was made to Umadevi's case, as well as other similar
cases, and had recommended the case of irregular appointments, whose
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:05:14 pm )
services continued for considerable time, for regularization of the services.
Recommendations were also made to the Government to consider
regularization of such services. In Vinoth Kumar's case, the employees
therein were appointed, after selection process, involving written tests and
viva voce interviews. In this backdrop of the facts, it was held that reliance
on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny
substantive rights of the employees that have accrued over a considerable
period through continuous service.
15. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, we deem it
appropriate to hold that the irregularity committed by the fourth
respondent in recruiting the appellant in a sanctioned post, who apparently
did not possess the requisite qualification at the time of her appointment,
should not be put against her. We have also taken into consideration that
subsequent to her appointment, she has acquired the qualification of B.A
in History and Heritage Management, which is also the prescribed
qualification for the said post.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:05:14 pm )
16. Her overage at the time of appointment has also not caused any
prejudice to the fourth respondent, which fact is reflected in her annual
performance reports. Thus, as a special case, and in the light of our
findings, we deem it appropriate and justifiable to permit the appellant to
continue her services, for which purpose, the termination order dated
20.11.2018 requires to be set aside.
17. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the Writ Petition
challenging the termination order, had found that the appellant did not
possess the requisite qualification of a degree nor the required age limit
and therefore, held that the termination without notice was proper. In the
light of our foregoing reasons and observations, we are constrained to
interfere with the said order.
18. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands allowed. The termination
order dated 20.11.2018 issued by the fourth respondent to the appellant is
set aside. So also, the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.32296 of
2018 dated 22.03.2019. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the
respondents herein to continue the services of the appellant and pass
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:05:14 pm )
necessary orders declaring her probation of having been satisfactorily
completed, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
[M.S.R., J] [R.S.V.,J]
28. 10.2025
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Anu
To
1.The Secretary,
Ministry of Culture,
Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi-110 115
2.The Chairman,
Governing Board,
kalakshetra Foundation,
Thiruvanmiyur,
Chennai-41
3.The Director,
Kalakshetra Foundation,
Tiruvanmiyur,
Chennai-41
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:05:14 pm )
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
Anu
4.The Kalakshetra Foundation,
Rukmani Devi College of Fine Arts,
Thiruvanmiyur,
Chennai-41
Pre-delivery order made in
28.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:05:14 pm )
