IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 21/04/2006
Coram
The Honourable Mr.Justice N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
Writ Petition No.27026 of 2005
Dr.P.Rajasekaran ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep.by Secretary to Government,
Animal Husbandry Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director of Animal Husbandry,
Madras 6.
3. The Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry,
Chidambaram.
4. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
rep.by its Secretary,
Government Estate,
Madras - 600 002. ... Respondents
This writ petition came to be numbered by way of transfer of
O.A.No.5501 of 1993 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal
with a prayer to call for the records of the second respondent in his
proceedings in C.No.50140/M2/93 dated 10.8.1993, quash the same and further
direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner in his
present post as Veterinary Assistant Surgeon with all attendant benefits from
the date of his initial appointment.
!For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thirumurthy
For Respondents : Mr.R.Lakshminarayan
Government Advocate
:O R D E R
Petitioner seeks to quash the order of the second respondent dated 1
0.8.1993 and direct the respondents to regularise the services of the
petitioner in the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon from the date of his
initial appointment.
2. Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community and passed
B.V. Sc., degree in the year 1986. He registered his name in the
Professional Employment Exchange. The second respondent in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.1657 Agriculture Department dated 19.8.1986 invited applications
from the Professional Employment Exchange from among the qualified B.V. Sc.
Degree holders. The names of eligible candidates including that of the
petitioner were sponsored and after interview conducted by the second
respondent, petitioner and 14 others were selected and appointed as Veterinary
Assistant Surgeon under Rule 10(a)(1) of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu
State and Subordinate Services. Petitioner was initially posted in Salem
Division and he worked there till 1989 and thereafter transferred to Neyveli.
After serving in Neyveli for about 3 years, he was transferred to Kumaratchi
Veterinary Dispensary, Cuddalore District, in the year 1991 and on 28.6.1993,
petitioner was transferred to Neyveli Township. As such petitioner completed
more than 7 years of service from his initial appointment in 1986 without any
break. Petitioner also contributed to Provident fund and Family Pension.
According to the petitioner, he has unblemished service record and claims that
his superiors have also given him merit certificates appreciating his
services.
3. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, by advertisement
No.25 of 1993 invited applications to fill up 37 posts of Veterinary Assistant
Surgeons. Petitioner also submitted application for the said post. That
being the position, second respondent passed the impugned order ousting the
petitioner from the service for want of vacancy. Before he could be relieved
from the duty, petitioner filed O.A.No.5501 of 1993 (present writ petition)
and the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal taking note of the continuous
service of the petitioner, granted an interim order on 27.8.1993 and by virtue
of the interim order, petitioner claims that he is still continuing in
service.
4. The order of ousting dated 10.8.1993 is challenged on the
ground that the respondents have retained the juniors of the petitioner and
not followed the principle of “Last come, First go”. The second ground of
attack is that on the guise of want of vacancy petitioner was ousted, when in
fact there are vacancies available and due to the long experience gained,
petitioner has got legitimate expectation that his services will be
regularised by resorting to special selections as it has been made in Public
Works Department through G.O.Ms.No.806, dated 23.4.1982; regularisation of
temporary Junior Assistants/ Typists/ Steno-Typists, working in the Tamil Nadu
Ministerial service and Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service and also
Typists and Stenotypists working in the Secretariat through G.O.Ms.No.996,
P&AR ( Placement) Department dated 22.9.1984; and also regularisation given to
the Assistant Engineers in the Transport Department though G.O.Ms.No.1396
Transport Department, dated 20.12.1984, etc.
5. The respondents 1 to 3 filed a counter affidavit and stated
that in view of the advertisement issued to select 37 candidates through TNPSC
and the said vacancies are going to be filled up shortly, petitioner’s
services were terminated and he has no right to claim regularisation as a
matter of right.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner’s services are entitled to be regularised taking note of
his seven years service as on date when the impugned order was passed and as
of now he is in service for a total period of about 20 years. Learned counsel
also submitted that the petitioner is now aged about 43 years and unless the
impugned order is set aside and the respondents are directed to regularise the
services of the petitioner, his rights will be seriously prejudiced and his 20
years of services will be rendered as useless. The learned counsel also cited
the following judgments of the Supreme Court reported in
(a) 1988 (II) LLJ 109 (General Secretary, Bihar State Road Transport
Corporation, Patna v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna and
others),
(b) AIR 1990 SC 2228 (Jacob M.Puthuparambil v. Kerala Water
Authority)
(c) AIR 1992 SC 1574 (N.S.K.Nayar v. Union of India),
(d) 1993 Supp (3) SCC 438 (P.V.T.Phillip v. P.Narasimha Reddy and
Others)
(e) 2003 (4) Supreme 332 (Santhosh Kumar v. State of Andhra
Pradesh & Others)
(f) 2006 (1) Supreme 545 (The Workmen of Bhurkunda Colliery of M/s
Central Coalfields Ltd. v. The Management of Bhurkunda Collierty of
M/s.Central Coalfields Ltd.)
and contended that in the above referred judgments the Honourable Supreme
Court, taking note of the length of services of the employees/ Casual
labourers, etc., directed regularisation of their services. The learned
counsel more particularly pointed out the judgment in AIR 1992 SC 1574 (cited
above) to show that the temporary tenure, if continued for a long period, the
temporary employee is entitled to get a right of regularisation and all other
consequential benefits. Learned counsel also submitted that in the recent
judgment reported in 2006 (1) Supreme 545 (cited supra), the Honourable
Supreme Court upheld the order of the Labour Court directing regularisation of
the casual workmen. Citing the above said decisions, the learned counsel for
the petitioner prayed for setting aside the impugned order and to allow the
writ petition.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner produced a copy of the
letter of the first respondent No.26299/AH7/2002-15, dated 27.12.2004 and
stated that the request of the petitioner for regularisation of his services
could not be considered due to the pendency of O.A.No.5501 of 1993 and only
after disposal of the said original application, petitioner’s claim will be
considered. Based on the said letter learned counsel prayed for setting aside
the impugned order and for a direction to the respondents to pass orders
sympathetically, taking note of petitioner’s 20 years of continuous
unblemished services and to regularise his services.
8. In view of the above submission, without going into the merits
of the case, and having regard to the interim order passed by the Tribunal,
pursuant to which the petitioner is continuously working for about 20 years
and particularly in view of the stand taken by the first respondent that only
because of the pendency of O.A.5501 of 1993 petitioner’s claim could not be
considered, I am inclined to pass the following order,
(a) The impugned order dated 10.8.1993 is quashed.
(b) The first respondent is directed to pass orders on the request
of the petitioner seeking regularisation of his service, taking note of his 20
years of continuous service, age of the petitioner, and the unblemished
service records of the petitioner, on merits, within six months from the date
of receipt of copy of this order.
(b) Till the matter is finalised by the first respondent as per
the above direction, petitioner’s services shall not be terminated/ dispensed
with.
The writ petition is allowed with the above directions. No costs.
vr
To
1. The Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandry Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director of Animal Husbandry, Madras – 6.
3. The Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry, Chidambaram.
4. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Government Estate, Madras 600 002.