Madras High CourtWP(MD)/4871/2013dismissed

D.Karthikeyan v. The State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep.

2019-06-11Honourable Mr Justice S.M. Subramaniam8 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.06.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.(MD)No.4871 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)Nos.3,4,5 and 6 of 2013 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.17649 and 926 of 2017 1.D.Karthikeyan 2.V.Sivakumar 3.K.Vijay Anand 4.C.Rajamanickam 5.S.T.Vijayalakshmi 6.P.Vijayakumar 7.D.Prabhu Neill Rajkumar 8.G.Manickavasagam 9.M.Ragunath 10.R.Selvakumar 11.P.Amutha 12.D.Selvaganesan 13.P.Karuppu 14.P.Rajavel 15.N.Rameshkannan 16.N.Satheesh 17.S.Lakshmanakumar 18.N.Raja 19.T.Muthumani 20.M.Dharani Devi 21.P.Dharman ... Petitioners Vs 1.The State of Tamilnadu represented by Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Environment and Forest Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.

2.The Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Afforestation) and Chief Project Director of Tamil Nadu Biodiversity Conservation and Greening Project, JFM Centre, Vellacherry main Road, Chennai- 600 032.

3.The District Forest Officer, Madurai Forest Division, Madurai-2.

4.Conservator of Forests and Principal, Tamilnadu Forestry Training College, Vaigaidam.

5.The Forestry Extension Officer, Sivagangai.

6.The Forestry Extension Officer, Pudukkottai.

7.The District Forest Officer, Kodaikanal Division, Kodaikanal.

8.The Forestry Extension Officer, P.K.Agaram (Post), M.R.Palayam, Trichy-105.

9.The Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Tirunelveli.

10.The Forestry Extension Officer, Virudhunagar, Srivilliputhur- 626 125.

11.The Forest Extension Officer, Extension Division, Dindigul.

12.The Forestry Extension Officer, Tirunelveli.

13.The District Forest Officer, Pudukkottai Division, 2429, Thakchinamoorthy market, Opposite Head Post Office, Pudukkottai- 622 001.

14.The Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Madurai -2.

15.The District Forest Officer, Dindigul Divisio n, Velunatchiar Valagam, Collectorate Complex, Dindigul- 624 004.

16.The Divisional Forest Officer, Varushanadu Soil Conservation Division, Theni.

17.The District Forest Officer, Kanniyakumari Division, nagercoil - 629 001.

18.The District Forest Office, Tirunelveli Division, North Main Road, N.G.O. "A"Colony, Tirunelveli - 627 001.

19.The Forestry Extension Officer, Madurai.

20.The Forestry Extension Officer, Vaigaidam, Theni.

21.The Forestry Extension Officer, Ramanathapuram.

22.The Forestry Extension Officer, Chinnadhathampalayam, Pallamaruthapatty Post, Karur- 639 002.

23.The Chief Conservator of Forests, Madurai Circle, Madurai.

... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the file of the first respondent herein in G.O.Ms.No.276, Environment & Forest (FR-6) Department, dated 13.12.2012 and the proceedings of the second respondent herein in Endt.No.TBGP6/15/2012 dated 28.12.2012 to quash the same insofar as the posts of Data Entry Operators alone is concerned and to direct the respondents herein to continue the services of the petitioners as Data Entry Operators in Tamil Nadu Biodiversity Conservation and Greening Project, on the basis of their service and performance until their regular absorption in the Forest Department.

For Petitioners : Mr.M.Ravi For Respondents : Mr.K.Mu.Muthu, Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

The present writ petition is filed to quash the G.O.Ms.No.276, Environment & Forest (FR-6) Department, dated 13.12.2012 and the proceedings of the second respondent herein in Endt.No.TBGP6/15/2012 dated 28.12.2012 and to direct the respondents to continue the services of the petitioners as Data Entry Operators in Tamil Nadu Biodiversity Conservation and Greening Project, on the basis of their service and performance until their regular absorption in the Forest Department.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners were initially engaged as Computer Operator on daily wages basis during the year 2001 and they are working continuously for more than 11 years. The petitioners state that they are fully qualified for appointment to the post of Computer Operator and therefore they are entitled to be regularised and permanently absorbed in the sanctioned posts.

The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.276, Environment & Forest (FR-6) Department, dated 13.12.2012 issuing Operation manual for the Project management unit of "Tamil Nadu Biodiversity Conservation and Greening Project". Accordingly, the staffs are engaged on contractual basis as well as the employment of contractual staff through outsourcing. The contractual staff of the Project Management Unit / Divisional Management Unit shall be recruited from two sources namely by engaging the retired staff from the Tamil Nadu Forest Department or through open market through outsourcing. The said amendment made in the operation manual of Project management Unit of Tamil Nadu Biodiversity Conservation and Greening Project is under challenge in the present writ petition.

3.The writ petitioners were engaged on daily wage basis. Their initial appointment was not in accordance with the recruitment Rules in force. The writ petitioners were engaged on daily wages basis to work under the project namely Tamil Nadu Biodiversity Conservation and Greening Project. Thus, the very claim set out in the writ petition is untennable. The writ petitioners were not appointed in accordance with the recruitment Rules in force nor they were appointed by the competent authority by following the selection process. In fact, these writ petitioners were engaged in a project to perform the duties of a Computer Operator and therefore, the petitioners cannot claim the benefit of regularization or permanent absorption nor they are entitled to challenge the mode of selection amendment in the impugned G.O.Ms.No.

276, Environment & Forest (FR6) Department, dated 13.12.2012. 4.The counter affidavit filed by the respondents also reveals that the Tamilnadu Biodiversity Conservation and Greening Project is assisted with the funds of Japan International Co-operation Agency for the duration of 8 years from the year 2011-2012 to the year 2018-2019.

implications and objective and implementation of the project. The petitioners, who are appointed by the respective Divisional Management Unit of the project, cannot challenge the Government authority in the mode of contractual appointment. Admittedly, the petitioner's are not governed by any service rules and there is no post of Technical Assistant/ Data Entry Operator governed by any rules in the Forest Department. The engagement of Technical Assistants / Data Entry Operator was decided purely on casual contract basis to utilize the service and knowledge as required from time to time. The petitioners who were engaged on contractual basis cannot have right of continuance, which is not provided and such continuance which is not provided and such continuance will defeat the object of the project.

The factual basis in respect of the project are also enumerated by the respondents. 5.Admittedly, the writ petitioners were not appointed as per the Rules in force. The benefit of regularization and permanent absorption or continuance of service cannot be granted in violation of the legal principles that are settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Secretary, State of Karnataka and others . vs. Umadevi(3) and others reported in (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1. In respect of such contractual appointments / daily wage engagements in a project, the employees who accepted the terms and conditions of such engagement cannot go back and claim permanency or regularization contrary to the terms of appointment. 6.Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the very amendment made in G.O.Ms.No.

276, Environment & Forest (FR-6) Department, dated 13.12.2012, is a policy decision of the Government to engage the employees on contractual basis and through outsourcing and such a policy decision taken to complete a special project cannot be set to be irregular nor the petitioners can claim continuous engagement in a project which is temporary in nature.

7.Thus, the writ petitioners have not established any acceptable legal ground for the purpose of granting the relief sought for in the present writ petition and consequently this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )

To 1.The State of Tamilnadu represented by Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Environment and Forest Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.