Madras High Court
S. Ranjani vs The Joint Director Of School Education on 4 June, 2019
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.06.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P(MD)No. 1222 of 2012
S. Ranjani ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Joint Director of School Education,
(Personal Division), Chennai – 6.
2. The District Educational Officer,
Devakottai, Sivagangai District.
3. Assistant Elementary Educational Officer,
Sivagangai District.
4. The Commissioner,
Ceylon Repatriate,
Chepauk, Chennai – 5. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records
relating to the Impugned Order, dated 04.07.2011 in O.MU.NO.
10625/A4/E1/2011, and quash the same and consequently, direct the 1st
respondent to regularize the service of the petitioner appointment from
1989 in the cadre of Typist.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
For Petitioner : Mr. J. Anandkumar
For Respondents : Mr.C. Ramar,
Additional Government Pleader
***
ORDER
The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the writ petitioner was initially appointed as Typist under Rule 10(a)(i) on temporary basis by proceedings, dated 09.02.1999 and subsequently, the writ petitioner succeeded in the Special qualifying examination conducted by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and regularly appointed in the sanction post as Typist in proceedings, dated 06.02.1997.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner states that the service benefits by reckoning the temporary service are not provided to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner is entitled to be regularised with retrospective effect from the date of her initial temporary appointment as Typist under Rule 10(a)(i).
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent disputed the contentions by stating that regularisation cannot be granted with retrospective effect, in view of the fact that the writ petitioner was not appointed initially in accordance with the recruitment rules in force. The petitioner was appointed on temporary basis under Rule 10(a)(i) and therefore, retrospective regularisation cannot be granted in favour of the http://www.judis.nic.in writ petitioner.
3
4. This Court is of the considered opinion that the benefit of regularisation or permanent absorption cannot be granted, in violation of recruitment Rules in force. The writ petitioner, admittedly, was appointed on temporary basis under rule 10(a)(i). Thus, the temporary service rendered by the writ petitioner cannot be a point for grant of regularisation. That apart, a special qualifying examination was conducted by way of concession to the temporary employees. The Special qualifying examination itself was conducted to grant the benefit of regularisation to the temporary employees. The writ petitioner was successful in the special qualifying examination and was subsequently appointed in the sanctioned post in the regular time scale of pay in proceedings, dated 06.02.1997. The benefit of regularisation was also granted to the writ petitioner from the date of her regular appointment in the post of Typist. This being the factum of the case, the claim retrospective regularisation from the date of temporary appointment cannot be granted. The writ petitioner is entitled to be regularised from the date of the regular appointment in the sanction post as per the proceedings, dated 06.02.1997. However, the temporary services rendered by the writ petitioner can not be reckoned as qualifying service for the purpose grant of pensionary benefits with reference to Rule, 11 of Tamilnadu Pension Rules, 1978. The Rule, 11 of the Tamilnadu Pension Rules, 1978 contemplates that such temporary services cannot be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the qualifying services for grant http://www.judis.nic.in of pensionary benefits. In this regard, the respondents are directed 4 to consider the case of the writ petitioner with reference to the service records of the writ petitioner and extend the benefit of Rule 11, if the writ petitioner is otherwise qualified or eligible in accordance with the rules. However, the relief regarding retrospective regularisation cannot be granted, as the benefit of special qualifying examination as well as the regular appointment was made by way of concession, as such concession cannot be extended by the Court, by granting retrospective regularisation.
5. This being the factum, the relief in respect of regularisation stands rejected. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No Costs.
04.06.2019 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No ksa/aav http://www.judis.nic.in 5 To
1. The Joint Director of School Education, (Personal Division), Chennai – 6.
2. The District Educational Officer, Devakottai, Sivagangai District.
3. Assistant Elementary Educational Officer, Sivagangai District.
4. The Commissioner, Ceylon Repatriate, Chepauk, Chennai – 5.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
ksa/aav W.P[MD)]No. 1222 of 2012 04.06.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in