AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—Petitioner seeks to quash the order of the second respondent dated 10.8.1993 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.
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.
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.
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 Steno-typists 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.
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.
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
Ors.),
(b) Jacob M. Puthuparambil and others Vs. Kerala Water Authority and others,
(c) N.S.K. Nayar and others Vs. Union of India and others, ,
(d) P.V.T. Phillip Vs. P. Narasimha Reddy and Others,
(e) 2003 (4) Sup 332 (Santhosh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.)
(f) 2006 (1) Sup 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 N.S.K. Nayar and
others Vs. Union of India and others, (cited above) to show that the temporary tenure, if continued b2 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) Sup 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.
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.
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.