The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order which rejected regularization but directed consideration for future recruitment. The Court held the petitioners misunderstood the order as granting regularization.
Writ petition and connected miscellaneous petition dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.07.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN
W.P.Nos.6828 of 2015 and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
1. Union of India,
Rep.by the Director of Postal Services,
O/o.Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Tiruchirappalli
2. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Nagapattinam Division,
Nagapattinam-611 001 ... Petitioners
vs.
1. B.Dhanalatchumi
2. The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
City Civil Court Building,
Chennai-600 104 ... Respondents
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent Tribunal dated 18.6.2014 made in O.A.No.609 of 2012 and to quash the same
For Petitioners : Mr.Venkataswamy Babu, SPCGI
For Respondents : Mr.R.Malaichamy for R1
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN,J.)
The Union of India, represented by the Director of Postal Services, has come up with the above writ petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
2.Heard Mr.K.Venkataswamy Babu, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.R.Malaichamy, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.
3.Claiming that she has been working as a Sweeper cum Water Carrier at Kollapuram Sub Office, for over 20 years from 03.05.1991, the first respondent filed an application in O.A.No.609 of 2012, on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, seeking regularisation of her services. The Tribunal rejected the claim for regularisation, but directed the Postal Department, to consider the case of the first respondent for recruitment to any future vacancy in the Multi Tasking Staff Cadre, if she was qualified for appointment. Taking exception to the said order, the Department of Post has come up with the above writ petition.
"11.It is seen that the applicant was engaged on part time basis for work of sweeper work only for 24.38 minutes per day, according to the additional reply of the respondents, and further, she was not in indigent state as her husband and son were working abroad. This Court cannot direct creation of a post for the sake of the applicant. She cannot claim regularization as a matter of right as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nand Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Ors. in C.A.No.2835 of 2014 with C.A.No.2836 to 2843 of 2014 decided on 25.02.2014
(para 9 above). . . . . . . . . .
Therefore, the writ petitioner has come up on a total misconception as though the Tribunal granted the relief of regularization.
Assistant Registrar(CS III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
msk
To
The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, City Civil Court Building, Chennai-600 104
+1cc to Mr.Venkataswamy Babu, Advocate, S.R.No.34077 +1cc to Mr.R.Malaichamy, Advocate, S.R.No.34115
W.P.No.6828 of 2015
KM(CO)
CA(21/07/2015)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal granted regularization of services or merely directed consideration for future recruitment.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge the Tribunal's order regarding the respondent's qualification.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nand Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Ors.Referred¶18
Nand Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Ors. in C.A.No.2835 of 2014 with C.A.No.2836 to 2843 of 2014 decided on 25.02.2014
Union of India
B.Dhanalatchumi
The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal
V.Ramasubramanian
T.Mathivanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
