N. Sekar, V.K. Thiagarajan, V. Thulasiraman and M. Veeramalai vs The Director of Audit for Milk Co-operatives, Aavin Illam and Others

K. Chandru, J.—Heard the arguments of Mr. S.M. Subramaniam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Dhandapani,

learned Special Government Pleader representing the official respondents and have perused the records.

The petitioners along with 41 persons were appointed temporarily as Junior Inspectors under the Audit Board for Milk Co-operative Societies.

The Board was established to audit the accounts of all Milk Co-operative Societies and they were attached to senior Co-operative Auditors. The

appointment was made in the year 1985. On 01.10.1987, the Audit Board was renamed as Director of Audit for Milk Co-operatives. The

designation given to the petitioners was also changed as Junior Co-operative Auditors for Milk Co-operatives. The State Government issued

G.O.Ms. No. 271 Co-operation dated 10.11.1989 calling for applications form the temporarily appointed Junior Inspectors for the purpose of

regularisation and for this purpose, a special qualifying examination was held. Subsequent to the special qualifying examination, the persons who

passed in the examination got their services regularised whereas the petitioners'' services were sought to be terminated by an order dated

26.4.1991. This was on the ground that the petitioners were not qualified for the said post. As against the order of termination, the petitioners

along with other similarly placed persons filed several Original Applications before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and challenged the

order of termination.

The Tribunal held that ousting the petitioners from service was in accordance with the terms and conditions of the temporary appointment and

since regularly selected persons were to join in the said post, necessarily, the petitioners will have to be vacated from their posts. The Tribunal also

held that even though the termination took place in the year 1991 in respect of the petitioners, in view of the interim orders granted, they were

restored to service. But since the petitioners have not qualified in the special examination, there is no question of their continuing in service contrary

to the terms of appointment. Immediately after the order dated 11.12.2002, once again, the petitioners'' services were terminated on 28.02.2003.

The petitioners thereafter approached this Court with the above writ petitions and pending the writ petitions, interim orders were also passed in

favour of the petitioners.

On behalf of the third respondent, a counter affidavit has been filed justifying the termination of the petitioners. It was stated that candidates for

the post of Junior Inspectors of Co-operative Societies were recruited by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission through competitive

examination and inspite of the special qualifying examination held in favour of the petitioners, they were not successful and because they had failed,

the question of their continuance in service does not arise.

In normal circumstances, we would not have found anything wrong with the action initiated by the respondents in terminating the services of the

petitioners. However, Mr. S.M. Subramaniam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court that the very same

Tribunal in respect of similarly placed persons in a batch of cases, by a common order dated 18.12.2003, passed the following order:

These applicants have continuously employed from 1984 and therefore in view of the orders passed in the earlier Original Applications and in view

of the fact that they have not been ousted and they have been allowed to continue in service for 15 years, the respondents are directed to

regularise their appointment. But, they are not entitled to for any arrears. All these applications are allowed and ordered in these terms.

The State Government did not challenge the said order. But, on the contrary, passed G.O.Ms. No. 445 Finance (Co-operative Audit)

Department dated 20.12.2005 directing regularisation in respect of 21 Junior Co-operative Inspectors with effect from the next date of the

conduct of the special qualifying examination, i.e., 16.10.1999. The learned Special Government Pleader is not able to controvert this argument

and also could not justify the discrimination between the two sets of employees, who are similarly placed. Since the Government has given effect to

the order of the Tribunal dated 18.12.2003, which came to be passed after the order was impugned in these writ petitions and has also given the

consequential regularisation order, we do not think that the petitioners herein should be discriminated especially when their service conditions are

identical and the nature of grievance projected are also similar.

Therefore, without going into the merits of the contentions raised by the parties, we feel that in the interest of justice, the Government cannot

make any discrimination between these petitioners and the persons, who are governed by G.O.Ms. No. 445 Finance Co-operative Audit dated

20.12.2005. Under these circumstances, all these writ petitions will stand allowed and the respondents are directed to grant the petitioners the

same benefit as per G.O.Ms. No. 445 Co-operative Audit Department dated 20.12.2005 and regularise the services of the petitioners. However,

there will be no order as to costs.