Madras High CourtWP/1131/2018dismissed

C.Sakthivel v. The Secretary To Government

2018-10-03Honourable Mr Justice S.M. Subramaniam37 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :03.10.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P. Nos.1131 of 2018, 28865, 28885, 28951, 28952, 28982, 28999, 29276, 29392, 29419, 29422, 29693,29867, 29952, 30025, 33990 of 2017 and connected M.Ps.

1. C.SAKTHIVEL

2. A.GASPAR ARUL MARIA RAJA

3. P.RAJA

4. D.SRIDHAR

5. S.TIRUMATHI

6. M.DHILSHATH

7. M.RAJIV

8. J.HEMALATHA

9. A.MURUGAN

10. J.JAYADEVI

11. S.PADMANABAN

12. G.RAJESH KUMAR

13. TMT.AMIRTHAM

14. V.MINNALOLI

15. TMT.K.G.SATHYA

16. SELVI G.MUTHARASI

17. S.MURUGAN

18. M.DEVANAYAGAM

19. K.RAVINDRAN

20. TMT.P.PRIYA

21. TMT.M.ARUL

22. TMT.S.SUMATHI

23. TMT.K.KALAIYARASI

24. P.MAHALINGAM

25. M.KAMARAJ

26. A.SAKTHIVEL

27. K.SENTHILKUMAR

28. M.GOVINDARASU

29. J.DAVID

30. TMT.R.PARIMALA

31. M.GANESAN

32. R.CHELLAPANDIYAN

33. N.SOUNDARARAJAN

34. R.BOOPATHI

35. D.JAGANATHAN

36. C.DHARUMAN

37. C.VETRISELVAN

38. T.SENTHIL KUMAR

39. A.RAJESH KANNAN

40. S.MATHI

41. D.KARTHIKEYAN

42. D.SAMPATHU

43. V.CHANDRASEKARAN

44. N.BOOPALAN

45. U.ANANDHAN

46. D.SAMPATH

47. I.VISWANATHAN

48. U.MURUGUDAS

49. V.SELVARANGAM

50. T.KANAGARAJ

51. P.PATTARAJ

52. S.RAMACHANDRAN

53. K.CHAKRAVARTHY

54. M.MAHESHWARAN

55. R.MANI

56. TMT.A.MARITHAI

57. TMT.N.RAMALAKSHMI

58. TMT.A.SUBBULAKSHMI

59. TMT.M.AMBIPRIYAL

60. TMT.P.SUGANTHI

61. TMT.R.AMUTHA

62. TMT.V.NAGALAKSHMI

63. P.CHANDRASEKAR

64. S.JOHNSONDURAI

65. TMT.A.ARULSELVI

66. TMT.R.JANSY RANI

67. V.RAJENDRAN

68. A.JOSEPH JAYASEELAN

69. V.SENTHILKUMAR

70. P.KUPPUSAMY

71. V.KANAGARAJ

72. TMT.S.GEETHA

73. SELVI K.SANGEETHA

74. V.SELVARAJ

75. P.KRISHNAMOORTHY

76. TMT.K.VIJAYA RANI

77. M.SAMPATHKUMAR

78. P.VEERASANKARAN

79. MS.K.BRINDA

80. G.ELLAPPAN

81. S.SUGUMAR

82. R.INBANATHAN

83. M.NITHIANANDAM

84. S.THANAPPAN

85. J.THANIGAI KUMAR

86. SELVI M.SUDHASINI

87. M.VIJISTI

88. R.KIRUBA

89. K.MOHAN

90. S.MOHANDOSS

91. N.BAGERATHAN

92. M.VISWANATHAN

93. S.ABIRAMI

94. R.MUTHUKRISHNAN

95. M.ESWARI

96. TMT.K.SANTHI

97. L.DILLIMANOHARI

98. M.ILAKKIYA RANI

99. K.GANAPATHY 100.M.SUMATHI 101.K.MANIMARAN 102.R.ANANDAKUMAR 103.P.THANGAVEL 104.TMT.M.JANAKI 105.C.KUMAR 106.R.J.MUTHU 107.D.FRANCIS 108.K.RAMKUMAR 109.M.SHANMUGARAJ 110.TMT.MADHURAI AMMAL 111.P.S.KANDHASAMY 112.TMT.M.PADMAVATHI 113.A.GIRIJA DEVI 114.M.SENTHIL KUMAR 115.P.VELMURUGAN 116.TMT.G.AMBIGAPATHY 117.TMT.S.MALLIGA 118.M.SIVAKUMAR 119.P.GANESAN 120.M.SUDESAN 121.S.MURUGESAN

122.T.THANGARAJA 123.V.RAMALINGAM 124.R.SANTHOSH KUMAR 125.R.JEEVA SENTHILNATHAN 126.P.KOTTEESWARAN 127.R.SURENDAR 128.C.ANBU 129.K.PURUSHOTHAMAN 130.S.VELU 131.V.PANDU 132.R.ARPUTHAM 133.TMT.K.PARAMESWARI 134.C.V.THIRUVENKADAM 135.G.JAYAKUMAR 136.TMT.K.GEETHA 137.B.SOUNDARIYA 138.S.ELANJEERAN 139.R.MAHENDRAN 140.S.MARIMUTHU 141.M.ARIVUNIDHI 142.N.RAJAGOPAL 143.K.THANGAMANI 144.K.SENTHILKUMAR 145.R.RAJAGOPAL 146.A.VIJAYABALAN

147.S.SELLAMUTHU 148.P.JOSEPH SIRIL 149.C.PAVALARAJ 150.P.VISUVASARAJ 151.S.BASKAR 152.C.MURUGAN 153.M.POTHIRAJ 154.L.KIRUBAKARAN 155.D.KARUPPASAMY 156.R.MURUGAN 157.S.SIVAKUMAR 158.N.VEERAPPA 159.P.RAMESH 160.S.SREE IYAPPAN 161.C.SUBHA 162.M.CHANDRASEKARAN 163.J.KUMAR 164.R.BASKAR 165.M.KALIMUTHU 166.R.MURALI 167.S.BOULDASS 168.G.THIRUMURUGAN 169.T.MARIKKANNU 170.TMT.T.KALPANA 171.C.SARITHA 172.P.RAJALAKSHMI

173.S.DURGAIYAMMAL 174.K.REVATHI 175.TMT.P.SEETHA 176.TMT.P.SARANYA 177.TMT.DEVI 178.M.SATHYA 179.N.RAMESH 180.S.ANBUSELVAN 181.T.DEVARAJAN 182.K.V.ARIVAZHAGAN 183.D.MOHANASUNDARAM 184.S.P.NAVAMANI 185.TMT.V.KALAIMATHI 186.TMT.A.CHANDRIKA 187.A.MEYYAPPAN 188.PERIYANAYAGI 189.S.KANAGA 190.TMT.G.DHANALAKSHMI 191.TMT.CHITRA 192.S.JAGADEESWARI 193.S.BADHUSHA 194.TMT.D.USHA RANI 195.TMT.M.SHANTHI 196.T.EZEKIEL EKAMBARAM 197.K.S.HARI

198.THIRU.G.THIRUNAVUKARASU 199.V.KRISHNAN 200.TMT.R.PUNITHAVALLI 201.S.SENTHIL 202.TMT.G.KOTEESWARI 203.TMT.S.SAYADEVI 204.TMT.V.VIMALA 205.TMT.M.ANITHA 206.J.T.JOHN AUGUSTINE 207.A.C.SANKARAN 208.P.E.JANAKIRAMAN 209.M.D.ELANGO 210.I.ARUNAGIRI 211.J.DEVAKUMARI 212.R.MUNIYAMMAL 213.P.M.PARAMESWARI 214.A.NAGARAJ 215.P.S.NAKKEERAN 216.R.SUBHAN 217.D.PRAKASH 218.R.NATARAJAN 219.M.P.SEKAR 220.R.KUPPUSWAMY 221.R.RAVI 222.TMT.M.UMA MAHESWARIE 223.P.K.BABU

224.T.N.KUMAR 225.M.RUTHARAKOTTI 226.B.B.SRINIVASAN 227.D.SRINIVASAN 228.C.MANI 229.P.PARASURAMAN 230.S.MEGANATHAN 231.S.RAMADOSS 232.S.VENKATESAN 233.K.NAGARAJAN 234.G.RAJINAMERI 235.T.PARTHIBAN 236.K.THIRUTHANI 237.T.D.BAGYARAJ 238.TMT.G.SARALA 239.TMT.R.CHANDRA 240.M.SABAPATHI 241.S.SEETHARAMAN 242.P.SATHYARAJ 243.M.ANANTHAN 244.K.RAVI 245.J.TITUS 246.G.SARAVANAN 247.U.SUNDARAMOORTHY 248.TMT.P.KAVITHA

249.C.SUBBIAH 250.A.THEIVANATHAN 251.P.PANDIYAN 252.B.MANIMARAN 253.C.SARAVANAKUMAR 254.TMT.R.POONGODI RAJAMANICKAM 255.S.KARUNANITHI 256.S.SHANMUGAM 257.TMT.S.KAVITHA 258.TMT.T.MENAKA 259.TMT.S.BHAVANI 260.G.RAVICHANDRAN 261.C.MOHAN 262.R.BHUVARAGAN 263.TMT.K.KANIMOZHI 264.C.GANESHAMOORTHY 265.TMT.KALAISELVI 266.THIRU.G.MURUGAN 267.V.MURUGAN 268.S.PANEERSELVAM 269.B.PRIYA BALU 270.M.NARAYANASAMY 271.K.VIJAYARANGANATHAN 272.A.PRAKASH 273.G.PRAKASAMANI 274.R.KAMALAVALLI

275.G.PAZHANIVEL 276.K.KANNAN 277.M.SEKAR 278.K.SUBRAMANIAN 279.R.ARULSAMY 280.TMT.K.DHANALAKSHMI 281.TMT.S.MANOHARI 282.K.AMUTHA 283.TMT.K.GANTHIMATHI 284.K.SUDHA 285.TMT.R.SELVI 286.K.THILLAIGOVINDAN 287.TMT.R.VASANTHI 288.R.SIVABALAN 289.R.SAKTHIVEL 290.TMT.S.SUDHA 291.TMT.K.THENMOZHITHILAGAM 292.P.PALANI 293.A.THOULATHGANI 294.J.SURESH 295.K.MURUGESAN 296.P.SARAVANAKUMAR 297.TMT.V.GEETHA 298.R.RADHAKRISHNAN 299.TMT.P.GIRIJA

300.T.ANBARASU 301.R.RAJAPANDIYAN 302.T.GOVINDARAJU 303.K.ANANDHARAJ 304.K.KARIKALAN 305.TMT.D.SENTHAMIZH SELVI 306.A.KANNAN 307.A.SELVARASU 308.TMT.P.J.INDHUJA 309.TMT.G.SUCEELA 310.TMT.A.KAVITHA 311.K.PALANIVEL 312.TMT.P.RAJESWARI 313.J.KAMALANATHAN 314.Z.ABUTHAHEER 315.G.VELMURUGAN 316.P.KAVITHA 317.TMT.R.SAROJINI DEVI 318.TMT.R.JAYANTHI 319.P.BALASUBRAMANIAN 320.G.THIRUVARASAN 321.P.REVATHI 322.N.JOTHI 323.D.M.MANIKANDAN 324.V.M.SHANTHI 325.R.THIRUMURUGAN

326.J.AZHAGUPANDIYAN 327.M.MEENA 328.VASUDEVAN KASILINGAM 329.G.SENTHIL MURUGAN 330.M.JOTHIRLAKSHMI ... PETITIONER IN WP.1131 OF 2018 K.RAMESH ... PETITIONER in WP No.28865 of 2017 D.RAJARAJAN ... PETITIONER in WP No.28885 of 2017 K.KARUNAKARAN ... PETITIONER in WP No.28951 of 2017 SRIVIDYA P.M. ... PETITIONER in WP No.28952 of 2017 BABY PRISCILLA ... PETITIONER in WP No.28982 of 2017 K.MEENATCHI ... PETITIONER in WP No.28999 of 2017 N.MANJULA ... PETITIONER in WP No.29276 of 2017 M.RANI ... PETITIONER in WP No.29392 of 2017 S. VENKATESAN ... PETITIONER in WP No.29419 of 2017 D.VENKATESAN ... PETITIONER in WP No.29422 of 2017 G. PUNITHAVATHI ... PETITIONER in WP No.29693 of 2017 K.DURGADEVI ... PETITIONER in WP No.29867 of 2017 P.SELVAKUMARI ... PETITIONER in WP No.29952 of 2017 R.RAMARASU S/O.M.RASU ... PETITIONER in WP No.30025 of 2017 P.KARTHIK ... PETITIONER in WP No.33990 of 2017 Vs

1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, FORT SAINT GEORGE, CHENNAI - 600 009.

2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, FORT SAINT GEORGE, CHENNAI - 600 009.

3. TAMIL NADU PUTHU VAZHVU SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY / PROJECT DIRECTOR, PUTHU VAZHVU PROJECT, ANNAI THERESA MAHALIR VALAGAM, VALLUVAR KOTTAM HIGH ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600 034.

... RESPONDENTS IN WP.NO.1131/2018 1 THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU RURAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT AND PANCHAYATRAJ FORT ST. GEORGE CHENNAI-600 009. 2 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR PUDHU VAAZHVU PROJECT/VAZHNDHU KAATUVOM PROJECT ANNAI THERESA MAGALIR VALAGAM 1ST FLR. VALLUVAR KOTTAM HIGH RD NUNGAMBAKKAM CHENNAI-34.

3 THE MANAGING DIR CUM CHIEF EXE. OFFR.(CEO) TN CORPN. FOR DEVEP.OF WOMEN LTD. /TNSRLM ANNAI THERESA MAGALIR VALAGAM 1ST FLR. VALLUVAR KOTTAM HIGH RD NUNGAMBAKKAM CH-34.

4 THE DISTRICT PROJECT MANAGER PUDHU VAAZHVU DISTRICT SOCIETY(PVDS) NO.

5/243-B PVK AVENUE-1 MOHANUR RD NAMAKKAL NAMAKKAL DISTRICT.

... RESPONDENT IN WP.28865, 28951, 28952, 28982, 28999, 29276, 29392, 29419, 29422, 29693, 29867, 29952, 30025, 33990/2017 1 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU REVENUE & DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT FORT ST. GEORGE CHENNAI-600 009 2 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATRAJ FORT ST. GEORGE CHENNAI-09

3 THE DIRECTOR TAMILNADU STATE DISASTER MANAGEMENT CHEPAUK CHENNAI-05 4 THE DIRECTOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATRAJ PANAGAL BUILDING SAIDAPET CHENNAI-15 5 THE DIRECTOR STATE INSTITUTE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATRAJ MARAIAMALAINAGAR KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT 6 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY THIRUVARUR DISTRICT 7 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THIRUVARUR DISTRICT ... RESPONDENT IN WP.NO.28885/2017 Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction in the nature of a Writ, directing the respondents to absorb the petitioners in any one of the Government Departments/Government Undertakings in the existing vacancies on the basis of their qualification and experience.(WP.NO.

1131/2018) Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction in the nature of a Writ Directing the respondents to consider the petitioner representation dated 25.09.2017 seeking to pay the arrears of salary from 30.06.2017 to till date along with other benefits and to provide alternative employment with the 3rd respondent / Rural Welfare Department within the stipulated time as fixed. (WP.Nos.

28865, 28951, 28952, 28982, 28999, 29392, 29419, 29422, 29693, 29867, and 29952/2017) Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction in the nature of a Writ,to call for the records of the impugned order of the 5th respondent vide Na.Ka. No.74/ 2016/ A2 dated 27.10.2017 and quash the same and directing the 5th Respondent to reinstate the service along with all back wages of service(WP.NO.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction in the nature of a Writ directing the respondents 1 to 3 to reinstate the petitioner post of Facilitator (SM) as per the appointment order dated 15.02.2008 and consequently regularize his post since 15.02.2010 and to pay the attended benefits of back wages since 15.02.2010 to till date as per the GO No.151 dated 16.10.2008 issued by the Social Welfare and Noon Meals Scheme (SN4) Department or to provide alternative employment with the 3rd Respondent / Rural Welfare Department within the stipulated time as fixed (WP.NO.

30025/2017) Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction in the nature of a Writ directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the Petitioners representation dated 25.09.2017 and consequently regularize the Petitioners post of Facilitator (A & M) as per the appointment order ROC No.24/2011/A1 dated 22.06.2011 as per the GO No.151 dated 16.10.2008 issued by the Social Welfare and Noon Meals Scheme (SN4) Department or to provide alternative employment with the 3rd Respondent/Rural Welfare Department within the stipulated time(WP.NO.33990/2017) W.P.No.1131of 2018 AND W.M.P.Nos.1408 & 1409 of 2018 For Petitioners : Mr.M.Muthappan For Respondents : Mr.R.S.Selvam Government Advocate R1 to R3 W.P.No.

28865 of 2017 For Petitioner : Mr.R.Balaguruswamy For Respondents : Mr.R.S.Selvam Government Advocate (for - R1) Mr.V.

W.P.No.28885 of 2017 AND W.M.P.Nos.31099 & 31100 of 2017 For Petitioner : Mr.R.Balaguruswamy For Respondents : Mr.R.S.Selvam Government Advocate (for - R1 to R4) R6 and 7 Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan (for R5) W.P.No.28951 of 2017 For Petitioner : Mr.R.Balaguruswamy For Respondents : Mr.R.S.Selvam Government Advocate (for - R1) Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan (for R2-R4) W.P.No.28952 of 2017 For Petitioner : Mr.R.Balaguruswamy For Respondents : Mr.R.S.Selvam Government Advocate (for - R1) Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan (for R2-R4) W.P.No.28982 of 2017 For Petitioner : Mr.R.Balaguruswamy For Respondents : Mr.R.S.Selvam Government Advocate (for - R1) Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan (for R2-R4) W.P.No.28999 of 2017 For Petitioner : Mr.R.Balaguruswamy For Respondents : Mr.R.S.Selvam Government Advocate (for - R1) Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan (for R2-R4)

W.P.No.29276 of 2017 For Petitioner : Mr.R.Balaguruswamy For Respondents : Mr.R.S.Selvam Government Advocate (for - R1) Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan (for R2-R4) W.P.No.29392 of 2017 For Petitioner : Mr.R.Balaguruswamy For Respondents : Mr.R.S.Selvam Government Advocate (for - R1) Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan (for R2-R4) W.P.No.29419 of 2017 For Petitioner : Mr.R.Balaguruswamy For Respondents : Mr.R.S.Selvam Government Advocate (for - R1) Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan (for R2-R4) W.P.No.29422 of 2017 For Petitioner : Mr.R.Balaguruswamy For Respondents : Mr.R.S.Selvam Government Advocate (for - R1) Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan (for R2-R4) W.P.No.29693 of 2017 For Petitioner : Mr.R.Balaguruswamy For Respondents : Mr.R.S.Selvam Government Advocate (for - R1) Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan (for R2-R4)

W.P.No.29867 of 2017 For Petitioner : Mr.R.Balaguruswamy For Respondents : Mr.R.S.Selvam Government Advocate (for - R1) Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan (for R2-R4) W.P.No.29952 of 2017 For Petitioner : Mr.R.Balaguruswamy For Respondents : Mr.R.S.Selvam Government Advocate (for - R1) Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan (for R2-R4) W.P.No.30025 of 2017 For Petitioner : Mr.R.Balaguruswamy For Respondents : Mr.R.S.Selvam Government Advocate (for - R1) Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan (for R2-R4) W.P.No.33990 of 2017 For Petitioner : Mr.R.Balaguruswamy For Respondents : Mr.R.S.Selvam Government Advocate (for - R1) Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan (for R2-R4) *** COMMON ORDER The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to direct the respondents to absorb the petitioners in any one of the Government Departments/Government undertakings in the existing vacancies on the basis of their qualification and experience.

2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners made a submission that the writ petitioners were appointed as Facilitators and Team Leaders by the Tamil Nadu Puthu Vazhvu Society between the year 2006 to 2013. The Government of Tamil Nadu had introduced a project work for reducing the poverty among the rural poor and other vulnerable class, currently outside the reach of most development interventions through directed assistants for productive livelihood activities, in a more enabling village environment using the Community Driven Development Approach. Admittedly, the writ petitioners were appointed in the project.

The appointment of the writ petitioners is on contract basis. The consolidated pay was provided to these contract employees. This apart, the project had already been completed and the writ petitioners were already relieved from the project work.

3. The learned Counsel for the writ petitioners states that the District Collector, Vellore also had recommended the case of the writ petitioners for their continuance in the project, on the ground that the writ petitioners have successfully participated and performed their duties and responsibilities in the project in which they serve. Based on the performance of the writ petitioners, the District Collector had recommended the cases of the writ petitioners for further entry. However, this Court is of an opinion that such recommendations are made by the District Collector only to consider the case of the writ petitioners and the same cannot form the basis for grant of regularisation or permanent appointment in any sanctioned posts.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 in all cases opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the writ petitioners by stating that all the writ petitioners were appointed on contract basis and the consolidated pay has been granted to these employees. All these writ petitioners were appointed in a project for a specific period and the terms and conditions of the contract stipulates that on completion of the project they will be relieved from the post. Thus, accepting the terms and conditions, these employees joined in services and on completion of the project all these petitioners were relieved from the post. However, considering the writ petitioners for permanent absorption is certainly not permissible.

In view of the fact that all permanent appointments in a sanctioned posts are to be done only by following the recruitment rules in force. This apart, the case of the writ petitioners, if at all can be considered, only, if any other project is implemented by the Government along with all other eligible persons who are submitting applications for such contract appointments.

5. The learned Special Government Pleader is of an opinion that the case of the writ petitioners cannot be considered on individual basis and therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be rejected.

6. This Court is of the considered opinion that all appointments to the public posts are to be done only under the constitutional schemes and by following the recruitment rules in force. Equal opportunity in public employment is the constitutional mandate.

The competent Authorities, while undertaking the process of selection are bound to follow the rules in force scrupulously. Rules on reservations are also to be followed while undertaking the process of selection to the public posts. The employees who were appointed on contract basis cannot claim permanent absorption or regularisation merely on the ground that they have continued in the project for few years or otherwise. The employees who joined as Contract employees have accepted the terms and conditions and therefore, they cannot claim permanent absorption or regularisation on completion of the project. In the present case on hand, the project was implemented over a period of 11 years upto 29.09.2016 and further extended for 9 months from 29.09.2016 to 30.06.2017. Finally, this project came to an end on 30.06.2017.

The closure of the project was well published by the Competent Authorities. It is brought to the notice of this Court that as per the directions of the Project Director vide Roc.No.722/PVPAdmin./2014 dated 19.12.2014, the petitioners in respective positions have been selected and engaged as Team Leaders/Facilitators on contract basis with a consolidated remuneration. A contract agreement had been executed with the petitioners for every year, based on performance appraisal. This being the factum of the case, the claim of the writ petitioners for regularisation or permanent absorption cannot be considered in view of the legal principles settled by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of The State of Karnataka Vs Umadevi, reported in 2006 4 SCC Page No.

"5. The power of a State as an employer is more limited than that of a private employer inasmuch as it is subjected to constitutional limitations and cannot be exercised arbitrarily (See Basu's Shorter Constitution of India).Article 309of the Constitution gives the Government the power to frame rules for the purpose of laying down the conditions of service and recruitment of persons to be appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or any of the States. That Article contemplates the drawing up of a procedure and rules to regulate the recruitment and regulate the service conditions of appointees appointed

to public posts. It is well acknowledged that because of this, the entire process of recruitment for services is controlled by detailed procedure which specify the necessary qualifications, the mode of appointment etc. If rules have been made underArticle 309of the Constitution, then the Government can make appointments only in accordance with the rules. The State is meant to be a model employer.The Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 was enacted to ensure equal opportunity for employment seekers. Though this Act may not oblige an employer to employ only those persons who have been sponsored by employment exchanges, it places an obligation on the employer to notify the vacancies that may arise in the various departments and for filling up of those vacancies, based on a procedure.

Normally, statutory rules are framed under the authority of law governing employment. It is recognized that no government order, notification or circular can be substituted for the statutory rules framed under the authority of law. This is because, following any other course could be disastrous inasmuch as it will deprive the security of tenure and the right of equality conferred on civil servants under the Constitutional scheme. It may even amount to negating the accepted service jurisprudence. Therefore, when statutory rules are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution which are exhaustive, the only fair means to adopt is to make appointments based on the rules so framed.

10. In addition to the equality clause represented by Article 14 of the Constitution, Article 16 has specifically provided for equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Buttressing these fundamental rights, Article 309 provides that subject to the provisions of the Constitution, Acts of the legislature may regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State. In view of the interpretation placed on Article 12 of the Constitution by this Court, obviously, these principles also govern the instrumentalities that come within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution. With a view to make the procedure for selection fair, the Constitution by Article 315 has also created a Public Service Commission for the Union and Public Service Commissions for the States. Article 320 deals with the functions of Public Service Commissions and mandates consultation with the Commission on all matters relating to methods of recruitment to civil services and for civil posts

and other related matters. As a part of the affirmative action recognized by Article 16 of the Constitution, Article 335 provides for special consideration in the matter of claims of the members of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes for employment. The States have made Acts, Rules or Regulations for implementing the above constitutional guarantees and any recruitment to the service in the State or in the Union is governed by such Acts, Rules and Regulations. The Constitution does not envisage any employment outside this constitutional scheme and without following the requirements set down therein.

12. What is sought to be pitted against this approach, is the so called equity arising out of giving of temporary employment or engagement on daily wages and the continuance of such persons in the engaged work for a certain length of time. Such considerations can have only a limited role to play, when every qualified citizen has a right to apply for appointment, the adoption of the concept of rule of law and the scheme of the Constitution for appointment to posts. It cannot also be forgotten that it is not the role of courts to ignore, encourage or approve appointments made or engagements given outside the constitutional scheme. In effect, orders based on such sentiments or approach would result in perpetuating illegalities and in the jettisoning of the scheme of public employment adopted by us while adopting the Constitution.

The approving of such acts also results in depriving many of their opportunity to compete for public employment. We have, therefore, to consider the question objectively and based on the constitutional and statutory provisions. In this context, we have also to bear in mind the exposition of law by a Constitution Bench in State of Punjab Vs. Jagdip Singh & Ors. (1964 (4) SCR 964). It was held therein, "In our opinion, where a Government servant has no right to a post or to a particular status, though an authority under the Government acting beyond its competence had purported to give that person a status which it was not entitled to give, he will not in law be deemed to have been validly appointed to the post or given the particular status."

13. During the course of the arguments, various orders of courts either interim or final were brought to our notice. The purport of those orders more or less was the issue of directions for continuation or absorption without referring to the legal position obtaining. Learned counsel for the State of Karnataka submitted that chaos has been created by such orders without reference to legal principles and it is time that this

Court settled the law once for all so that in case the court finds that such orders should not be made, the courts, especially, the High Courts would be precluded from issuing such directions or passing such orders. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents based on the various orders passed by the High Court or by the Government pursuant to the directions of Court also highlights the need for settling the law by this Court. The bypassing of the constitutional scheme cannot be perpetuated by the passing of orders without dealing with and deciding the validity of such orders on the touchstone of constitutionality. While approaching the questions falling for our decision, it is necessary to bear this in mind and to bring about certainty in the matter of public employment.

The argument on behalf of some of the respondents is that this Court having once directed regularization in the Dharwad case (supra), all those appointed temporarily at any point of time would be entitled to be regularized since otherwise it would be discrimination between those similarly situated and in that view, all appointments made on daily wages, temporarily or contractually, must be directed to be regularized. Acceptance of this argument would mean that appointments made otherwise than by a regular process of selection would become the order of the day completely jettisoning the constitutional scheme of appointment. This argument also highlights the need for this Court to formally lay down the law on the question and ensure certainty in dealings relating to public employment.

The very divergence in approach in this Court, the so-called equitable approach made in some, as against those decisions which have insisted on the rules being followed, also justifies a firm decision by this Court one way or the other. It is necessary to put an end to uncertainty and clarify the legal position emerging from the constitutional scheme, leaving the High Courts to follow necessarily, the law thus laid down.

14. Even at the threshold, it is necessary to keep in mind the distinction between regularization and conferment of permanence in service jurisprudence. In STATE OF MYSORE Vs. S.V. NARAYANAPPA [1967 (1) S.C.R. 128], this Court stated that it was a mis-conception to consider that regularization meant permanence. In R.N. NANJUNDAPPA Vs T. THIMMIAH & ANR. [(1972) 2 S.C.R. 799], this Court dealt with an argument that regularization would mean conferring the quality of permanence on the appointment. This Court stated:- "Counsel on behalf of the respondent contended that

regularization would mean conferring the quality of permanence on the appointment, whereas counsel on behalf of the State contended that regularization did not mean permanence but that it was a case of regularization of the rules under Article 309. Both the contentions are fallacious. If the appointment itself is in infraction of the rules or if it is in violation of the provisions of the Constitution, illegality cannot be regularized.

Ratification or regularization is possible of an act which is within the power and province of the authority, but there has been some non-compliance with procedure or manner which does not go to the root of the appointment. Regularization cannot be said to be a mode of recruitment. To accede to such a proposition would be to introduce a new head of appointment in defiance of rules or it may have the effect of setting at naught the rules."

In B.N. Nagarajan & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. [(1979) 3 SCR 937], this court clearly held that the words "regular" or "regularization" do not connote permanence and cannot be construed so as to convey an idea of the nature of tenure of appointments. They are terms calculated to condone any procedural irregularities and are meant to cure only such defects as are attributable to methodology followed in making the appointments. This court emphasized that when rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India are in force, no regularization is permissible in exercise of the executive powers of the Government under Article 162 of the Constitution in contravention of the rules.

These decisions and the principles recognized therein have not been dissented to by this Court and on principle, we see no reason not to accept the proposition as enunciated in the above decisions. We have, therefore, to keep this distinction in mind and proceed on the basis that only something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularized and that it alone can be regularized and granting permanence of employment is a totally different concept and cannot be equated with regularization.

20. We may now consider, State of Haryana Vs. Piara Singh and Others [1992) 3 SCR 826]. There, the court was considering the sustainability of certain directions issued by the High Court in the light of various orders passed by the State for the absorption of its ad hoc or temporary employees and daily wagers

or casual labour. This Court started by saying: "Ordinarily speaking, the creation and abolition of a post is the prerogative of the Executive. It is the Executive again that lays down the conditions of service subject, of course, to a law made by the appropriate legislature. This power to prescribe the conditions of service can be exercised either by making rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or (in the absence of such rules) by issued rules/instructions in exercise of its executive power. The court comes into the picture only to ensure observance of fundamental rights, statutory provisions, rules and other instructions, if any governing the conditions of service"

This Court then referred to some of the earlier decisions of this Court while stating:

"The main concern of the court in such matters is to ensure the rule of law and to see that the Executive acts fairly and gives a fair deal to its employees consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16. It also means that the State should not exploit its employees nor should it seek to take advantage of the helplessness and misery of either the unemployed persons or the employees, as the case may be. As is often said, the State must be a model employer. It is for this reason, it is held that equal pay must be given for equal work, which is indeed one of the directive principles of the Constitution. it is for this very reason it is held that a person should not be kept in a temporary or ad hoc status for long. Where a temporary or ad hoc appointment is continued for long the court presumes that there is need and warrant for a regular post and accordingly directs regularization. While all the situations in which the court may act to ensure fairness cannot be detailed here, it is sufficient to indicate that the guiding principles are the ones stated above."

This Court then concluded in paragraphs 45 to 50: "The normal rule, of course, is regular recruitment through the prescribed agency but exigencies of administration may sometimes call for an ad hoc or temporary appointment to be made. In such a situation, effort should always be to replace such an ad hoc/temporary employee by a regularly selected employee as early as possible. Such a temporary employee may also compete along with others for such regular selection/appointment. If he gets selected, well and

good, but if he does not, he must give way to the regularly selected candidate. The appointment of the regularly selected candidate cannot be withheld or kept in abeyance for the sake of such an ad hoc/temporary employee.

Secondly, an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee; he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority.

Thirdly, even where an ad hoc or temporary employment is necessitated on account of the exigencies of administration, he should ordinarily be drawn from the employment exchange unless it cannot brook delay in which case the pressing cause must be stated on the file. If no candidate is available or is not sponsored by the employment exchange, some appropriate method consistent with the requirements of Article 16 should be followed. In other words, there must be a notice published in the appropriate manner calling for applications and all those who apply in response thereto should be considered fairly.

An unqualified person ought to be appointed only when qualified persons are not available through the above processes.

If for any reason, an ad hoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the State "

With respect, why should the State be allowed to depart from the normal rule and indulge in temporary employment in permanent posts? This Court, in our view, is bound to insist on the State making regular and proper recruitments and is bound not to encourage or shut its eyes to the persistent transgression of the rules of regular recruitment. The direction to make permanent -- the distinction between regularization and making permanent, was not emphasized here -- can only encourage the State, the model employer, to flout its own rules and would confer undue benefits on a few at the cost of many waiting to compete. With respect, the direction made in paragraph 50 of Piara Singh (supra) are to some extent inconsistent with the conclusion in paragraph 45 therein. With great respect, it appears to us that the last of the directions clearly runs counter

to the constitutional scheme of employment recognized in the earlier part of the decision. Really, it cannot be said that this decision has laid down the law that all ad hoc, temporary or casual employees engaged without following the regular recruitment procedure should be made permanent.

43. Normally, what is sought for by such temporary employees when they approach the court, is the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the employer, the State or its instrumentalities, to absorb them in permanent service or to allow them to continue. In this context, the question arises whether a mandamus could be issued in favour of such persons. At this juncture, it will be proper to refer to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur Vs. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College [(1962) Supp. 2 SCR 144]. That case arose out of a refusal to promote the writ petitioner therein as the Principal of a college.

This Court held that in order that a mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty on the authority and the aggrieved party had a legal right under the statute or rule to enforce it. This classical position continues and a mandamus could not be issued in favour of the employees directing the government to make them permanent since the employees cannot show that they have an enforceable legal right to be permanently absorbed or that the State has a legal duty to make them permanent.

44. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. NARAYANAPPA (supra), R.N. NANJUNDAPPA (supra), and B.N. NAGARAJAN (supra), and referred to in paragraph 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment.

in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularization, if any already made, but not subjudice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further by-passing of the constitutional requirement and regularizing or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme.

45. It is also clarified that those decisions which run counter to the principle settled in this decision, or in which directions running counter to what we have held herein, will stand denuded of their status as precedents.

46. In cases relating to service in the commercial taxes department, the High Court has directed that those engaged on daily wages, be paid wages equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively appointed. The objection taken was to the direction for payment from the dates of engagement. We find that the High Court had clearly gone wrong in directing that these employees be paid salary equal to the salary and allowances that are being paid to the regular employees of their cadre in government service, with effect from the dates from which they were respectively engaged or appointed.

It was not open to the High Court to impose such an obligation on the State when the very question before the High Court in the case was whether these employees were entitled to have equal pay for equal work so called and were entitled to any other benefit. They had also been engaged in the teeth of directions not to do so. We are, therefore, of the view that, at best, the Division Bench of the High Court should have directed that wages equal to the salary that are being paid to regular employees be paid to these daily wage employees with effect from the date of its judgment.

Hence, that part of the direction of the Division Bench is modified and it is directed that these daily wage earners be paid wages equal to the salary at the lowest grade of employees of their cadre in the Commercial Taxes Department in government service, from the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court. Since, they are only daily wage earners, there would be no question of other allowances being paid to them.

cases for regularization. We also notice that the High Court has not adverted to the aspect as to whether it was regularization or it was giving permanency that was being directed by the High Court. In such a situation, the direction in that regard will stand deleted and the appeals filed by the State would stand allowed to that extent. If sanctioned posts are vacant (they are said to be vacant) the State will take immediate steps for filling those posts by a regular process of selection. But when regular recruitment is undertaken, the respondents in C.A. No. 3595-3612 and those in the Commercial Taxes Department similarly situated, will be allowed to compete, waiving the age restriction imposed for the recruitment and giving some weightage for their having been engaged for work in the Department for a significant period of time. That would be the extent of the exercise of power by this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution to do justice to them.

47. Coming to Civil Appeal Nos. 1861-2063 of 2001, in view of our conclusion on the questions referred to, no relief can be granted, that too to an indeterminate number of members of the association. These appointments or engagements were also made in the teeth of directions of the Government not to make such appointments and it is impermissible to recognize such appointments made in the teeth of directions issued by the Government in that regard. We have also held that they are not legally entitled to any such relief. Granting of the relief claimed would mean paying a premium for defiance and insubordination by those concerned who engaged these persons against the interdict in that behalf. Thus, on the whole, the appellants in these appeals are found to be not entitled to any relief. These appeals have, therefore, to be dismissed.

48. C.A. Nos. 3520-24 of 2002 have also to be allowed since the decision of the Zilla Parishads to make permanent the employees cannot be accepted as legal. Nor can the employees be directed to be treated as employees of the Government, in the circumstances. The direction of the High Court is found unsustainable.

49. In the result, Civil Appeal Nos. 3595-3612 of 1999, Civil Appeal No. 3849 of 2001, Civil Appeal Nos. 35203524 of 2002 and Civil appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 9103-9105 of 2001 are allowed subject to the direction issued under Article 142 of the Constitution in paragraph 46 and the general directions contained in paragraph 44 of the judgment and Civil Appeal Nos. 1861-2063 of 2001 are dismissed.

There will be no order as to costs."

7. Reiterating the legal principles settled by the Constitutional Bench, the Hon'ble two Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India again emphasised that High Courts while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot issue direction for regularisation of the employees, who were not appointed in accordance with recruitment rules in force, in the case of the SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,CHENNAI v.

R.GOVINDASWAMY AND ORS.[ (2014) 4 SCC 769]. In paragraph No.8, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows: "8.this Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Daya Lal & Ors., AIR 2011 SC 1193, has considered the scope of regularisation of irregular or part-time appointments in all possible eventualities and laid down wellsettled principles relating to regularisation and parity in pay relevant in the context of the issues involved therein. The same are as under:

"(i) The High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and Courts should not issue a direction for regularisation of services of an employee which would be violative of the constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularised, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularised.

(ii) Mere continuation of service by a temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service, as such service would be "litigious employment". Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularisation, if he is not working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment 5 Page 6 cannot be grounds for passing any order of regularisation in the absence of a legal right.

(iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularisation with a cut-off date (that is a scheme providing that persons who had put in a specified number of years of service and continuing in employment as on the cut-off date), it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent to the cut-off date, to claim or contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut-off date or seek a direction for framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut-off dates.

(iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularisation as they are not working against any sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance of part-time temporary employees.

(v) Part-time temporary employees in government-run institutions cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can employees in private employment, even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with government employees. The right to claim a particular salary against the State must arise under a contract or under a statute." (Emphasis added) "

8. Even recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. A.Singamuthu [2017 (4) SCC 113] and the relevant paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 are extracted hereunder:- "18 . The learned Single Judge erred in extending the benefit of GOMs No. 22 dated 28-2-2006 to the respondent that too retrospectively from the date of completion of ten years of service of the respondent. The respondent was appointed on 1-4-1989 and completed ten years of service on 31-3-1999.

As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, if the respondent is to be given monetary benefits from the date of completion of ten years of service, that is, from 1-4-1999 till the date of his regularisation, that is, 18-6-2012, the financial commitment to the State would be around Rs 10,85,113 (approximately) towards back wages apart from pension which will have a huge impact on the State exchequer. That apart, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that in respect of Registration Department, about 172 persons were regularised under various G.Os.

have a huge impact on the State exchequer. Since the impugned order directing regularisation of the respondent from the date of completion of their ten years would adversely affect the State exchequer in a huge manner, the impugned order cannot be sustained on this score also.

19. It is pertinent to note that even the regularisation of services of part-time employees vide G.O. (Rt.) No. 505 Finance (AA-2) Department dated 14-10-2009 and G.O. (2D) No. 32 Finance (T.A.

2) Department dated 26-3-2010 was effected by extending the benefit of G.O. dated 28-2-2006 only from the date of government orders and not from the date of completion of their ten years of service. The Division Bench also failed to take note that GOMs No. 22 P & AR Dept. dated 28-2-2006 is applicable only to full-time daily-wage employees and who had completed ten years of continuous service as on 1-1-2006 and not to part-time employees. As per G.O. (Rt.) No. 84 dated 18-62012, the respondent is entitled to the monetary benefits only from the date of issuance of government order regularising his service, that is, 18-6-2012. The impugned order [Commercial Taxes and Registration Deptt., State of T.N. v. A. Singamuthu, Writ Appeal No. 1209 of 2012, decided on 4-7-2012 (Mad)] of the Division Bench affirming the order [A. Singamuthu v.

Commercial Taxes and Registration Deptt., State of T.N., WP No. 26702 of 2010, order dated 26-11-2010 (Mad)] of the Single Judge granting benefits to the respondent from the date of completion of ten years of service is erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside.

20. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal is allowed. No costs."

9. In view of the legal principles settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the High Courts in exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance unless the employees claiming regularisation has been appointed in pursuance of the regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process against the sanctioned vacant post. The equality clause contained in Article 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and Courts should not issue a direction for regularisation of services of an employee, which would be violative of the constitutional schemes. While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection does not go to the root of the process can be regularized back door entries,

appointments contrary to the constitutional schemes and appointment of individual candidates cannot be regularized.

10. This being the principles to be followed and the fact remains in respect of these writ petitions that all the writ petitioners were appointed on contract basis and every year the petitioners themselves have executed agreements with the employer consenting for the terms and conditions, there is no legally acceptable grounds to consider the case of the writ petitioners.

11. Accordingly these writ petitions are devoid of merits and stand dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners are claiming to accommodate them in any other future projects to be implemented by the State. In this regard, it is made clear that in the event of commencement of any other new projects, the case of the writ petitioners also shall be considered along with all other candidates who are all submitting the respective applications to participate in the process of selection. The case of the petitioner also shall also be considered on merits and in accordance with law and on par with other similarly persons who are applying for such contract appointments.

Sd/- Asst.Registrar (CS VI) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar To

1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, FORT SAINT GEORGE, CHENNAI - 600 009.

2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, FORT SAINT GEORGE, CHENNAI - 600 009.

4 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR PUDHU VAAZHVU PROJECT/VAZHNDHU KAATUVOM PROJECT ANNAI THERESA MAGALIR VALAGAM 1ST FLR. VALLUVAR KOTTAM HIGH RD NUNGAMBAKKAM CHENNAI-34.

5 THE MANAGING DIR CUM CHIEF EXE. OFFR.(CEO) TN CORPN. FOR DEVEP.OF WOMEN LTD. /TNSRLM ANNAI THERESA MAGALIR VALAGAM 1ST FLR. VALLUVAR KOTTAM HIGH RD NUNGAMBAKKAM CH-34.

6 THE DISTRICT PROJECT MANAGER PUDHU VAAZHVU DISTRICT SOCIETY(PVDS) NO.

5/243-B PVK AVENUE-1 MOHANUR RD NAMAKKAL NAMAKKAL DISTRICT.

7 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU REVENUE & DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT FORT ST. GEORGE CHENNAI-600 009 8 THE DIRECTOR TAMILNADU STATE DISASTER MANAGEMENT CHEPAUK CHENNAI-05 9 THE DIRECTOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATRAJ PANAGAL BUILDING SAIDAPET CHENNAI-15 10 THE DIRECTOR STATE INSTITUTE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATRAJ MARAIAMALAINAGAR KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT 11 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY THIRUVARUR DISTRICT

12 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THIRUVARUR DISTRICT +1cc to Mr.R.S.Selvam, Advocate sr.no.68908 +1cc to Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan, Advocate sr.no.68603 +1cc to Government Pleader in sr.no.68558 +2cc to Mr.M.Muthappan, Advocate sr.no.68400 W.P. Nos.1131 of 2018, 28865, 28885, 28951, 28952, 28982, 28999, 29276, 29392, 29419, 29422, 29693, 29867, 29952, 30025, 33990 of jp(co) nr 20/12/2018 nr 21/01/2019