S.Suresh Kumar v. The Principal Secretary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR and WMP Nos. 4613 to 4615 of 2025

1. S.Suresh Kumar Computer Operator , The Family Court, Krishnagiri Now On Deputation At The Principal District Court, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District- 635 002.

2. E.Sangeetha Computer Operator, The Principal District Court, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District- 635 002.

3. S.Praba Computer Operator, The Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District- 635 002.

4. V.Deepalakshmi Computer Operator, The Principal District Court, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District- 635 002.

5. A.Arul Kumar Computer Operator, The Principal District Court, Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District- 606 604.

6. F.Maria Sangeetha Computer Operator, The Fast Track Mahila Court, Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District- 606 604.

7. D.Renu Krishnan Computer Operator, The Fast Court, Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District- 606 604.

8. T.Minmini Computer Operator, The Principal District Court, Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District- 606 604.

9. T.Dhanalakshmi Computer Operator, The Principal District Court, Ariyalur, Ariyalur District- 621 704.

10.R.Indhumathi Computer Operator, The Principal District Court, Ariyalur, Ariyalur District- 621 704.

11.T. Ponlekha Computer Operator, The Principal District Court, Ariyalur, Ariyalur District- 621 704.

12.G.Sasi Computer Operator, The Fast Track Mahla Court, Now On Deputation At The Principal District Court, Vellore, Vellore District- 632 009.

13.S.Shyamala Computer Operator, The Principal District Court, Vellore, Vellore District- 632 009.

14.V.Thamizharasi Computer Operator, The Principal District Court, Vellore, Vellore District- 632 009.

15.A.Kohila Computer Operator, The Principal District Court, Kanniyakumari @ Nagercoil, Kanniyakumari District- 629 001.

16.G.Muthumari Computer Operator, The Principal District Court, Kanniyakumari @ Nagercoil, Kanniyakumari District- 629 001.

..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Principal Secretary Government Of Tamil Nadu, Home (courts) Department Secretariat, Chennai- 600 009.

2. The Registrar General High Court Of Madras, Chennai -104.

3. The Principal District Judge The Principal District Court, Krishnagiri.

4. The Principal District Judge The Principal District Court, Thiruvannamalai.

5. The Principal District Judge The Principal District Court, Ariyalur.

6. The Principal District Judge The Principal District Court, Vellore.

7. The Principal District Judge The Principal District Court, Kanniyakumari @ Nagercoil, Kanniyakumari District.

..Respondent(s) Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to call for the records of the Impugned Communication of the 1st Respondent herein in its Letter no. 4163881 /Courts -V/ 2023- 3, dated 21.12.2023, which is communicated to the petitioners by the 2nd Respondent herein vide proceedings in R.O.C. No.83004/ 2024/C3, dated 29.11.2024 through the respective Principal District Judges, i.e., Respondents 3 to 6 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to regularize the services of the Petitioners herein by adopting the service Rules for the post of Computer Operator with provisions for absorption of the petitioners into the said post and thereby regularizing their service from the date of their initial appointment together with all monetary and attendant benefits including maternity benefits wherever applicable. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar For Respondent(s):

Dr.R.Gouri, Government Counsel for R1 Mrs.B.Poongkhulali, for R2 to R7

Order (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The writ petition has been instituted challenging the communication given by the Government vide letter dated 21.12.2023 stating that the temporary Computor Operators have been appointed by the Principal District Judge concerned on temporary basis and the Adhoc Rules governing the said post is yet to be framed and the same is under consideration of the Government in consultation with the High Court of Madras. If the proposed adhoc rules is approved, the Principal District Judge would be an appointing authority and in fact the very appointment was made by them. The said communication provide status regarding the framing of adhoc rules per se would not provide a case.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were appointed on temporary basis to the post of Computor Operators. They are serving, as such, for about 9 years and therefore, they are entitled to be regularised in the sanctioned posts.

3. The order of appointment issued to the petitioners by the Principal District Judge would show that they have invoked the emergency provisions under Rule 16(a)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service and appointed the petitioners as Computer Operators on temporary basis. The order of appointment states that their appointment is purely on temporary

basis and their service will be liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reasons and giving prior notice. However, the fact remains that the Government now issued adhoc rules for the temporary post of Computor Operators in the District Judiciary in G.O.Ms.No.67 Home (Courts-V) Department dated 10.02.2026.

4. Pertinently, the adhoc rules are issued for the temporary post of Computor Operators and therefore, now the appointing authority, namely Principal District Judge concerned has to take action for deciding the issue in accordance with the adhoc rules issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.67 dated 10.02.2026

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would emphasis that the services of the petitioners are to be regularised in the sanctioned posts.

6. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioners were appointed as temporary Computor Operators and therefore, the High Court, in exercise of powers of judicial review cannot issue a direction to regularise the services which must be done by the competent authority in accordance with the rules and by verifying the eligibility criteria contemplated under the service rules for the post concerned. The legal position has been settled in the Constitutional Bench in Uma Devi's case viz., State of Karnataka vs. Uma

Devi 1. However, regularisation of service are to be considered depending on the facts of each case and in accordance with the service rules applicable to the post.

7. In the present case, the writ petitioners are appointed on temporary basis and on the date of their appointment, no rule was in force. However, the adhoc rules are not issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.67 dated 10.02.2026. Therefore, the appointing authority viz., Principal District Judge concerned has to consider the cases of these temporary Computer Operators strictly in accordance with the adhoc rules and based on the eligibility criteria qualification etc. as per the rules.

8. With these observations, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P.No.4613 of 2025 is ordered and W.M.P.Nos.4614 & 4615 of 2025 are closed.

(S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 10-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order vsi 1(2006)4 SCC 1

To

1. The Principal Secretary Government Of Tamil Nadu, Home (courts) Department Secretariat, Chennai- 600 009.

2. The Registrar General High Court Of Madras, Chennai -104.

3. The Principal District Judge The Principal District Court, Krishnagiri.

4. The Principal District Judge The Principal District Court, Thiruvannamalai.

5. The Principal District Judge The Principal District Court, Ariyalur.

6. The Principal District Judge The Principal District Court, Vellore.

7. The Principal District Judge The Principal District Court, Kanniyakumari @ Nagercoil, Kanniyakumari District.

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.

AND N.SENTHILKUMAR J.

VSI and WMP Nos. 4613 to 4615 of 2025 10-06-2026