AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The writ petition is filed praying for quashing the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Na. Ka. No. 2506/2007/Ve.3 dated 19.04.2007 refusing to regularise the services of the petitioner as Assistant and for a consequential direction for regularisation.
The petitioner studied up to Plus Two and also obtained Diploma in Co-operative Training and also Diploma in Commercial Practice. She is fully qualified to be appointed as Assistant in the second respondent � Society. Initially, she was appointed as a Clerk on 01.07.1996 on daily wages basis. She is continuously working from that date to till date. In the meantime, she has passed M.Com., in Co-operative Management and certificate course in Office Automation and computer education.
The petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 688 of 2007 for a direction to the first respondent to regularise her service. This Court, on 08.01.2007 disposed the writ petition by directing the first respondent to pass orders relating to her plea for regularisation. The first respondent has now passed the impugned order dated 19.11.2007, rejecting her request for regularisation on the ground that she could not be regularised as Clerk, since it is beyond the fixation of cadre strength.
The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the second respondent � Bank is running in a severe financial crisis and therefore, it is not possible for them to regularise the services of the writ petitioner. It is also stated in paragraph No. 6 of the counter affidavit that as on 20.06.1996, the Bank had a cadre strength of 22 as per the order of the first respondent. In fact, the first respondent admited in paragraph No. 7 of the counter affidavit that though the cadre strength was 22, only 12 persons were employed on regular basis.
The respondents have stated in paragraph No. 9 of the counter affidavit that the revised cadre strength based on G.O. Ms. No. 111, Cooperative Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 19.05.1999 would be 17 instead of 22. Further, the respondents state that there is no vacancy in the Assistant post. However, the respondents have admitted that there is a vacancy in the post of Sub-Staff as disclosed in paragraph No. 9 of the counter affidavit. Therefore, the respondents should regularise the services of the petitioner at least in the post of Sub-Staff, taking into account her services from 1996 i.e. for the past 13 years. In fact, when the matter came up for admission, this Court on 06.03.2008 passed the following order:
The only ground on which the impugned order has been passed is that on the date of the petitioner''s appointment there were only six vacancies and six persons were working and against the non-existing vacancy, the petitioner was appointed and therefore it is not possible to regularise her services, though she possessed all the other qualifications. Mr. P. Muthukumar, AGP takes notice for Rule 1. He is directed to get instructions as to whether the statement is correct and also whether she can be accommodated in the vacancy which has subsequently arises. Post on 20.02.2008. Private notice is also permitted to Rule 2.
Taking into account the entire facts and also the fact that there is a vacancy in the cadre of Sub-Staff, I hereby direct the respondents to regularise the service of the petitoner in the post of Sub-Staff cadre from the date of this order. However, it is made clear that whenever vacancy arises in the post of Assistant, the petitioner should be posted as Assistant.
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.