Madras High CourtWP(MD)/9142/2019dismissed

N.Sankar v. The Registrar General

2023-11-21Honourable Mr Justice S.M. Subramaniam,Honourable Mr Justice V. Lakshminarayanan4 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21.11.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN 1.N.Sankar 2.A.Jothilakshmi 3.M.Vaanmathi 4.M.Suriyakumar 5.M.Muthumani 6.M.Murugesan 7.V.WajithaBanu 8.R.Andal 9.T.Achiammal 10.K.Kannagi 11.V.Jeyakumaran 12.A.Dhanapal ... Petitioners 1/4

Vs.

1.The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

2.The Principal District Judge, Principal District Court, Ramnathapuram.

... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned orders of the 2nd respondent by the proceedings in Order No.A1/14/2016 dated 08.02.2016 and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the respondents to reappoint the petitioners in the post of Typists. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Pon Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.N.Mohideen Basha Standing Counsel

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.) The order dated 08.02.2016, ousting the services of the writ petitioners is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

2. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed as Temporary Typists under Rule 10(a)(1) of Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules. The 2/4

petitioners were initially appointed in between the years 2009 and 2013 and they were ousted on 20.02.2015. Further, they were re-engaged on 23.07.2015 and ousted on 08.02.2016. The said order is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

3. Temporary appointees under Rule 10(a)(1) cannot seek the benefit of permanent appointment or regularisation. Admittedly, the petitioners are not in service for the past about seven years and most of the petitioners have crossed the age of 50 years. Therefore, the relief as such sought for cannot be considered at this length of time and more over the petitioners have not established any right for the purpose of considering the relief.

4. Consequently, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. (S.M.S., J.) & (V.L.N., J.) 21.11.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No SJ To 1.The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

3/4

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

AND V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

SJ 2.The Principal District Judge, Principal District Court, Ramnathapuram.

21.11.2023 4/4