TITLE: R. Suguna Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu
Decided On: August 30, 2023.
W.P.Nos.33567 to 33569 of 2012 and MP.Nos.2 to 2 of 2012.
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD.
Facts:
The petitioners belong to Schedule Caste Community, Backward Class community respectively and were appointed as Junior Assistant Cum Typist, Junior Assistant and Typist respectively on contract basis with consolidated pay of Rs.3,000/- per month on contract basis. The petitioners and other similarly placed persons were constrained to file a writ petition before this Court seeking for direction to direct the 1st respondent to regularise the services of the petitioner by considering the proposal forwarded by the third respondent. The Government Order issued rejecting the proposal without considering the fact that the petitioners are employed in the office of the 3rd respondent for several years and further the Government orders earlier passed in respect of the similarly placed persons. The petitioners have made representation to the 1st respondent seeking to review the order and to regularise their services by taking into consideration of the order passed in respect of similarly placed persons and further considering the length of services rendered by her. But there was no order passed by the 1st respondent. Hence the petitioners have come forward with the present writ petition.
Legal Analysis and Decision:
The main contention of the first respondent/Government Pleader is that the petitioners were not registered in the employment exchange and not sponsored by the employment exchange properly. It is an admitted fact that there was a ban on fresh recruitment from the year 2001 – 2006 and the petitioners were appointed in the year 2003 and 2005 during ban period, but the appointment was done only after obtaining permission from the first respondent. paper publication or notification or advertisement should be effected for appointment of Steno-Typist-cum-Junior Assistant or Typist-cum-Junior Assistant in the third respondent Government Pleader Office, High Court, Chennai. It has only permitted the Government Pleader to fill up five posts, out of which the third respondent has appointed only three persons who were fully in eligible criteria i.e, in regard to age, educational qualification and experience and it is not fair and proper on the part of the first respondent to reject the proposal dated 10.05.2010 and further proposal dated 08.09.2010 sent by the third respondent for regularisation of the service of the petitioners. The appointment of the petitioners are neither illegal, contrary to law or through back door entry and it was only after obtaining permission from the first respondent they have been appointed on consolidated pay of Rs.3,000/- by the 3rdrespondent.
Conclusion:
The Court finally allowed the present writ petitions and the respondents are directed to regularise the services of the petitioners from the date of appointment with consequential and other attendant benefits including arrears of salary within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.
