IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.09.2010
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
W.P.NO.9548 OF 2003
G.Thirumurugan ... Petitioner
Versus
1.Union of India
Rep.by Government of Pondicherry
through the Secretary to Government
for Legislative Assembly
Legislative Assembly Secretariat
Pondicherry.
2.The Secretary to Government (DP&AR)
Chief Secretariat, Pondicherry. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner and to regularise his services with effect from the date on which the juniors got regularisation of their services with all other consequential benefits including seniority, difference of pay, etc.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ajayakumar
For Respondents : Mr.D.Srinivasan
* * * * *
O R D E R
The petitioner has been appointed in a casual vacancy as peon to the Honourable Speaker on adhoc and co-terminus basis with effect from 11.06.1996. Thereafter, the petitioner’s appointment was terminated on 31.08.1996. Again the petitioner was engaged as a daily rated casual labourer from 08.10.1996 in the Legislative Assembly Secretariat. However the petitioner’s service engagement was dispensed with effect from 27.07.1999.
2.The petitioner was once again engaged as a daily rated casual labourer on 14.09.1999 with a specific condition that such engagement would be dispensed with as and when one Maileru who was appointed as Junior P.A. to the Honourable Health Minister on co-terminue basis reverts back as daily rated casual labourer. Therefore when the above said Maileru came back and reported for duty, the petitioner’s engagement was dispensed with effect from 31.03.2000.
3.The petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal to absorb him in any one of the regular vacancies in which the petitioner is eligible. The Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case and absorb him in the regular establishment. In pursuant to the said direction of the Tribunal dated 22.08.2002 in O.A.No.767 of 2002 an order was passed by the 1st respondent dated 25.10.2002 rejecting the request of the petitioner. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed an application once again before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has refused to entertain the said application stating that the staff employed in the Assembly are excluded from its jurisdiction. Hence the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, challenging the order impugned dated 25.10.2002.
4.Mr.V.Ajayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that identically placed persons like the petitioner have been made permanent by the respondents. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner having been taken up for engagement at different points of time from 1996 onwards ought to have been considered by the respondents by providing him a permanent job.
5.After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also after going through the order impugned, this Court does not find any merits in this writ petition. The facts narrated above would clearly establish the fact that the petitioner’s appointment was casual and temporary. The said appointment was made de hors the rules on a temporary basis without following any procedure. As and when the work was required, the petitioner was engaged and after working for some time, he was dispensed with. When the petitioner is a casual and temporary employee, whose services have been dispensed with he cannot approach this court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to make him permanent. The petitioner does not have any legal right and in any case this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot exercise its discretion to direct the respondents to provide him a permanent job which is impermissible in law. The Honourable Supreme Court in STATE OF KARNATAKA v. UMADEVI [(2006) 4 SCC 1] has held that the Court shall not issue a writ of mandamus to regularise the appointment of casual employees who have been appointment de hors the rules without following any procedure.
6.The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the persons identically placed like the petitioner have been absorbed also cannot hold good. It has been stated in the impugned order that the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms in the month of November 2000 took a policy decision to consider all the daily rated casual labourers working in various Departments. The said absorption by some other Departments cannot be a ground to hold that the petitioner should be absorbed by the respondents herein. Further Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be pressed into service for an illegal appointment.
7.It is also seen that the petitioner’s services were dispensed with effect from 31.03.2000 and the absorption by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms was done in the month of November 2000. It is also not known about the basis upon the said absorption was made, more so neither the said authority nor the selected persons have been made parties before this court. Further even assuming for the arguments sake that there was an absorption on casual labourers, the same cannot be a ground for allowing the writ petition in favour of the petitioner, since the petitioner does not have a legal right to insist that he should also be absorbed de hors the rules.
8.Hence considering the above said facts, this Court does not find any merits in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.
21.09.2010
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
sri
To
1.Union of India
Rep.by Government of Pondicherry
through the Secretary to Government
for Legislative Assembly
Legislative Assembly Secretariat
Pondicherry.
2.The Secretary to Government (DP&AR)
Chief Secretariat, Pondicherry.
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
sri
W.P.NO.9548 OF 2003
21.09.2010