M.Vanitha v. Union Of India Represented
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.02.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI and W.M.P.Nos.16318 of 2024 and 5977 of 2026 1.M.Vanitha 2.T.Biruvammal 3.G.Sujatha 4.A.Manoharan 5.S.S.Senthil 6.P.Meenatchi 7.V.Nagammal 8.M.Venkatammal 9.K.Sankaran 10.N.Kanthammal 11.B.Suganya 12.C.Mathammal 13.E.Lokesh 14.N.Mahalakshmi 15.M.Usha 16.K.Dhanalakshmi 17.S.Thirugnanam 18.M.Vijayalakshmi 19.G.Asokan 20.V.Subramani 21.G.Sudha 22.K.Raghupathi 23.R.Sridevi 24.R.Usharani
25.S.Mogaleeswaran 26.R.Manjula 27.T.Sheela 28.R.Kalaivani 29.N.G.Poongodi 30.M.Anitha 31.C.Manjula 32.M.Megala 33.M.Sasikala 34.P.Sumathi 35.R.Elavarasan 36.M.Bhuvana 37.K.Lakshmi 38.M.Krishnamoorthy 39.N.Meera 40.B.Chitra 41.G.Suvathini 42.R.Thenmozhi 43.P.Selvi 44.K.Kalaiselvi 45.R.Theivanai 46.M.Valli 47.J.Jayanthi 48.R.Vasu 49.S.Saravakumar 50.S.Jayanthi 51.M.Saritha 52.C.Kumar 53.J.Lakshmi 54.P.Dhanalakshmi 55.S.Gokila 56.N.Usharani 57.A.Zaheer Husain 58.K.P.Sivakumar 59.P.M.Govindaraj 60.M.Sathya
61.M.Abdulameedh 62.S.Kalpana 63.V.Prabhavathi 64.K.Poongodi 65.P.Saratha 66.T.Kanaga 67.S.Viyaya 68.R.Sasikala 69.S.Deepa 70.S.Rasiya 71.K.Manikavalli 72.M.Thimmiammal 73.M.Adhilakshmi 74.S.Thenmozhi 75.G.Saravanan 76.M.Sridevi 77.S.Balaji 78.P.Manohar 79.K.Thenmozhi 80.D.Manimegalai 81.K.Suthakaran 82.B.Ellammal 83.M.Venkatesan ... Petitioners Vs.
1.Union of India, represented by. its Secretary, Department of Human Resources, School Education and Literacy, Sastri Bhavan, New Delhi-110 115.
2.The Director of Adult Education, Ministry of Human Resources, No.10, Jamnagar, Shajahan Road, New Delhi-110 011.
3.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
4.The Director of Non-Formal and Adult Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006.
5.The District Collector, Krishnagiri.
6.The District Collector, Dharmapuri.
7.The District Collector, Erode.
8.The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai. ....Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the third respondent herein in his proceeding letter (efile) No.5301/MS/2023-1 dated 30.11.2023 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to consider the petitioners for regularization and in any event the petitioners should be appointed as the Librarian of Rural Library, High School or Higher Secondary School or should be appointed as Office Assistant or Clerk in the Government High School or Higher Secondary School functioning under the School Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu.
For Petitioner :
Ms.T.Dharani for Mr.M.Kaviveerappan For Respondents : Mr.T.Priscillapandian for R1 and R2 Mr.M.Rajendiran Additional Government Pleader for R3 to R8
O R D E R
The petitioners numbering about 83 have filed this writ petition aggrieved by the order passed by the third respondent dated 30.11.2023 negativing the claim for regularisation in the post of Librarian of Rural Library in High School or Higher Secondary School or Office Assistant or Clerk in the Government High School or Higher Secondary School functioning under the School Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the Government of India has sponsored a Scheme called as "Karkum Bharatham" to increase illiteracy among women. The petitioners were reported and given various posts as Chief Coordinators, Assistant Chief Coordinators, District Coordinators,
Block Coordinators and Central Organizers etc., Among the petitioners, some have put in service upto 35 years. Despite being in-service for very long period as contract employees, the Government did not take any steps to regularize their services. According to the petitioners, all of a sudden, during the end of May 2018, they were relived from service. Thereafter, the petitioners made a series of representations calling upon the Government to regularize their services. Ultimately, by way of the impugned order dated 30.11.2023, the Government negatived their claim for regularization on the ground that the Scheme was sponsored only by the Central Government and that the Central Government have decided to wind up the scheme. Since the petitioners were engaged only on temporary contract basis and they were paid consolidated pay, the respondents reasoned that the petitioners cannot make any claim for regularization. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently argued that despite extracting service for 34 long years, the Government had not taken any steps to regularize the services of the
petitioners. The system of use and through was not appropriate since the petitioners have crossed the eligible age for applying for new Government posts now. The learned counsel therefore prayed this Court to consider the case of the petitioners in a sympathetic manner and direct the Government to make their services regularly.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the scheme was sponsored by the Central Government and the petitioners were engaged only on contractual basis and the petitioners are very much aware that their appointments are temporary and they were paid only consolidated pay and not regular salary. The petitioners are always at liberty to choose the profession of their choice. Since the scheme was sponsored by the Central Government and the Central Government had taken a decision to discontinue or dis-manage the Scheme, the State Government has no role in discontinuing the scheme and the prayer for regularization cannot be accepted by the State Government.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 3 to 8, a perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioners would show that they were appointed only on temporary basis and they were given consolidated pay. Out of 83 petitioners, even one of the petitioners has not produced any appointment order for verification by this Court and the terms and conditions of such appointment. In the absence of the same, this Court cannot pass any orders merely based on the affidavit and the averments made by the petitioners. Moreover, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 3 to 8 have stated that the scheme was sponsored by the Central Government and the Central Government has taken a decision now to discontinue the scheme.
If at all, the petitioner should only approach the Central Government for continuation of the Scheme. Moreover, having accepted to serve on a contractual basis and having received the consolidated pay for all these years, it is not open for the petitioners to claim for regularization at this distant point of time.
regularization of services. However, the petitioners are at liberty to make an application to the Appropriate Authority as and when the scheme is reviewed.
7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 18.02.2026 NCC: Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No ssb
To 1.Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Department of Human Resources, School Education and Literacy, Sastri Bhavan, New Delhi-110 115.
2.The Director of Adult Education, Ministry of Human Resources, No.10, Jamnagar, Shajahan Road, New Delhi-110 011.
3.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary, School Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
4.The Director of Non-Formal and Adult Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006.
5.The District Collector, Krishnagiri.
6.The District Collector, Dharmapuri.
7.The District Collector, Erode.
8.The District Collector, Tiruvannamalai.
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
ssb 18.02.2026