K.Muthukumar, v. The Principal Secretary,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.11.2022 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM Writ Petition No.4653 of 2016 1.K.Muthukumar 2.M.Pushpa Balan 3.K.Ramesh 4.D.Prakash 5.R.Sivanandan 6.C.Sakthimurugan 7.S.Thirulogasandar 8.P.Vivekanandan 9.D.Anbazhagan 10.M.Pandian 11.S.Vijay 12.N.Veeramani 13.N.Senthilkumaran 14.r.Saravanan 15.M.Karthi 16.R.Murugan 17.A.Srinuvasan 18.U.Kannappan 19.C.Kalaiselvan 20.A.Sowndarapandian 21.R.Murugayee 22.J.Balasaravanan 23.M.Ramakrishnan 24.A.Moorthy 25.M.P.Venkatesan 26.T.Michelraj 27.N.Rajagopala Krishnan 28.D.Sriman Kamaraj 29.D.Senthilkumar 1/8
30.A.Katturajan 31.T.Ramesh 32.P.Sivamanikandeswaran 33.R.Mani 34.P.Senthilkumar 35.P.Periyasamy 36.R.Suyambulingam
...Petitioners
-VsThe Principal Secretary, Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu, No.116-A, Periyar EVR High Road, Nehru Park, Chennai - 600 084.
...Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to regularize the services of the petitioners in the Group-D posts in which the petitioners are working with regular time scale of pay by considering the representation submitted by the petitioners dated 14.09.2015 in the light of orders passed in favour of similarly placed persons as per the proceedings of respondent in Proc.No.51239/A2/93 dated 10.09.1997 based on the powers for fixation of cadre strength conferred under Rule 7 of Service Rules.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Nedunchezhiyan For Respondent : Mr.S.Santhosh Kumar for Mr.K.Azhagu Raman 2/8
ORDER
The relief sought for in the present Writ Petition is to direct the respondent to regularize the services of the petitioners in Group-D posts.
2. The petitioners are working as Lifeguard, Marker, Pump Operator cum Electrician, Scavenger cum Gardener, Night Watchman in Group-D posts under the control of the Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu. The petitioners are working for several years on daily wage basis.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the services of the petitioners are to be regularized in the sanctioned post, in view of the fact that the petitioners are allowed to continue as Group-D employees The learned counsel further submitted that when the job is available under the Sports Development Authority, they have to absorb the petitioners on permanent basis. The petitioners made several representations based on the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.74, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 27.06.2013. However, the respondent had not considered the representations and 3/8
therefore, the petitioners are constrained to move this writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent made a submission that several conditions are imposed by the Government for grant of regularization under G.O.Ms.No.74. The petitioners were not appointed in accordance with the Recruitment Rules in force and therefore, their services cannot be regularized in the sanctioned post. Thus, the writ petition is to be rejected.
5. The petitioners were appointed as daily wage employees on contract basis and their initial appointments were not in accordance with the Recruitment Rules in force. Thus, initial engagement of employees on daily wage basis is irregular and therefore, they are not eligible for permanent absorption in a sanctioned post.
6. Regular appointments are to be made only by following the procedures as contemplated and in accordance with the Recruitment Rules in force. All appointments are to be made strictly in accordance with the Rules through open competitive process and by affording equal opportunity to all the eligible candidates who are all aspiring to secure 4/8
public appointment. Thus, the equality clause enshrined under the Constitution at no circumstance be violated by the public authorities while undertaking the process of selection to the sanctioned posts.
7. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, settled the principles in the matter of regularization and permanent absorption. Even subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai vs. R.Govindaswamy and others reported in (2014) 4 SCC 769, has issued a direction that the High Courts are not empowered to issue a direction to regularize the services of employees who were not appointed in accordance with the Recruitment Rules in force.
8. In the present case, the petitioners were appointed as daily wage employees on contract basis. If at all they wish to secure regular employment, they are at liberty to participate in the process of selection whenever a recruitment notification is issued.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent brought to the notice of 5/8
this Court that the daily wage employees are engaged on need basis, based on the activities of the Sport Development Authority of Tamil Nadu and therefore, they cannot be regularized in a sanctioned post, since the nature of job is not permanent.
10. This Court is of the considered opinion that the services of the petitioners may be utilized whenever there is a need and on certain terms and conditions. However, the petitioners are not entitled for the benefit of regularization and permanent absorption, since their initial appointments were irregular and not in accordance with the Recruitment Rules in force. For securing regular appointments, the petitioners have to participate in the process of selection, if any notified.
11. With these observations, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
15.11.2022 Index:Yes Internet:Yes Speaking order hvk 6/8
To The Principal Secretary, Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu, No.116-A, Periyar EVR High Road, Nehru Park, Chennai - 600 084.
7/8
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
hvk 15.11.2022 8/8