Allowed

P.Shachila Rani v. The Registrar General

Madras HC1 Feb 2017WP/2206/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A common order dismissing writ petitions filed by temporary judicial employees ousted after two years of service. The High Court directed authorities to consider petitioners for future recruitment with relaxed age limits and to restore their seniority in employment exchange rolls.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners to be considered for future recruitment with relaxed age limits; seniority on employment exchange rolls to be restored.

P.Shachila Rani Vs The Registrar General — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated: 01.02.2017

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice NOOTY. RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶5

and The Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P. Nos.2206 to 2212 and 2213 to 2218 of 2017

¶7

P.Shachila Rani .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2206/2017 A.Akilandaparameswari .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2207/2017 N.J.Pushparani .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2208/2017 R.Aruna .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2209/2017 B.Rabila .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2210/2017 G.A.Jayakumar .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2211/2017 A.Selvi .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2212/2017 Sheeba Daisy .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2213/2017 S.Sheela .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2214/2017 S.Srimathi .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2215/2017 M.S.Bharathi .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2216/2017 G.Vijayalakshmi .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2217/2017 S.Lakshmi .. Petitioner in W.P.No.2218/2017 Versus

¶8

The Registrar General, High Court, Madras. .. 1st Respondent in all W.Ps. 2. The Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes,

¶9

Chennai - 600 104. ..2nd Respondent in W.P.Nos.2206 to 2212 of 2017.

¶10

1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur Tiruvallur District. .. 2nd Respondent in W.P.Nos.2213 to 2218 of 2017

¶11

The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Secretary to Government Law and Justice Department, Fort Saint George, Chennai - 600 009. .. Respondents in all W.Ps.

¶12

Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioners'

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

representation dated 17.09.2016 and 14.09.2016 for appointment as Examiner or Reader or Senior Bailiff, Junior Bailiff, Record Keeper, Shroff and Assistant Shroff or Record Clerk or Xerox Operator in any one of the existing vacancies.

¶15

For Petitioners .. Mr.V.Selvaraj

¶16

For Respondents .. Mrs.A.Srijayanthi, Spl. Govt. Pleader.

¶17

COMMON ORDER

¶18

(Order of the Court was Made by NOOTY. RAMAMOHANA RAO, J)

¶19

Heard Mr.V.Selvaraj, learned counsel for the writ petitioners.

¶20

These are all unfortunate cases instituted by young unemployed persons with some hope and desire to get recruited to the services under the Government hold. However, hard, the facts might be and however, much we sympathize with their cause, we have to restrain ourselves from any extravagant indulgence with the legal principles.

¶21

The facts lie in a narrow campus. The various posts included in the Judicial Ministerial Services, to which direct recruitment is provided as a source, such vacancies have been notified to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission which would advertise, conduct examination/selection process and select suitable candidates and allot them for appointment in the Judicial Ministerial Services. Since the said process is a time consuming one and large number of vacancies were found lying in the Courts and consequently the Court's functioning was adversely impacted, a resort was made to make temporary recruitment by inviting through respective District Employment Exchanges which sponsored the suitable candidates existing on its rolls. After a nominal selection process was indulged in the writ petitioners are found to be the successful candidates and hence, they were appointed on a temporary basis, subject to replacement by those candidates selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The writ petitioners have completed a little more than two years of service and as soon as the regular candidates selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission arrived, the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai/Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur have ousted the writ petitioners from out of their temporary employment. Unfortunately, for the petitioners either they have not responded to the recruitment notifications subsequently taken out by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission or in case they have responded they were not successful in securing selection.

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

It is true that having rendered a little more than two years of service and that too satisfactorily and then getting out of employment, such as the Judicial Ministerial Services would cause any amount of heartburn and hardship. But that was reason for us to bend the legal principles backwards and order for consideration of the cases of the writ petitioners exclusively for purposes of filling up of existing vacancies such as Examiner, Reader, Senior Bailiff, Junior Bailiff, Record Keeper, Shroff, Assistant Shroff, Record Clerk and Xerox Operator, lying vacant as of now in various District Courts and Small Causes Court, Madras. In the given facts and circumstances, we consider that equities can be stretched a little in favour of the writ petitioners by issuing the following directions:-

¶24

(1) As and when any regular recruitment or temporary appointments are undertaken by the State Government and or in particular by the Principal District Judges/ Court of Small Causes/ High Court as the case may be, the cases of the writ petitioners may be considered duly relaxing the upper age limit to some extent, rounding it off to the nearest whole number, such as 3 or 4 as the case may be, corresponding to the length of service put in by the respective petitioners.

¶25

(2) The respective District Employment Officers would also grant similar consideration for the purpose of sponsoring the names of the writ petitioners concerned to any other appointing authority.

¶26

(3) The District Employment Exchange concerned will restore the original seniority of the respective writ petitioners, if at all their names have been struck off/rounded off from their Rolls.

¶27

We only hope that the writ petitioners will not lose hope and would trust that their hard work would pay the necessary dividend at some time or the other.

¶28

With this, each writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶29

/true copy/

¶30

Sub Asst. Registrar

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶32

gr.

¶33

Copy to:

¶34

The Registrar General High Court, Madras. 2. The Registrar, Court of Small Causes, Chennai - 600 104. 3. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur Tiruvallur District. 4. The Secretary to Government, Law and Justice Department, Fort Saint George, Chennai - 600 009. 5. The Registrar, Court of Small Causes, Chennai- 600 104. 6. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai-1. 7. The Director of Employment & Training, Govt of TamilNadu Chennai (for Circulation of copies of this Order among the District Employment Officers,

¶35

Chennai& Tiruvallur). +1cc to Mr. V. Selvaraj, Advocate,Vide Sr.No.6543 +1cc to the Govt. Pleader Vide SR.No. 6407. W.P. Nos.2206 to 2218 of 2017

¶36

MV(CO) VR(13/02/2017)

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

P.Shachila Rani v. The Registrar General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Shachila Rani v. The Registrar General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Pondicherry University, Vs C.Rizwana Begum

R. Jayapal Vs the District Collector

A.Elango Vs The Member Secretarty/

Dr.G.Sathiyamoorthy Vs State of Tamilnadu

V.Palanivel Vs the Regional Transport

Mehala Koneru (Minor) Vs Tamilnadu