Allowed

G. Sri Priya v. the Director of Fisheries

Madras HC11 May 2017WP(MD)/1439/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court held that appointments made under a non-sanctioned post nomenclature were irregular, not illegal. The Court found termination unjustifiable and in violation of natural justice. It quashed the termination orders and directed reinstatement without back wages, while treating the period as continuous service.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions allowed; Termination orders quashed; Petitioners reinstated immediately; Period treated as continuous service; No back wages.

G. Sri Priya Vs the Director of Fisheries — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 11.05.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD).Nos.1439 to 1443 of 2014 and 4550 to 4554 of 2014 G.Sri Priya ..Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.1439 of 2014 C.Latha ..Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.1440 of 2014 K.Krishnakumari ..Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.1441 of 2014 M.Rajeswari ..Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.1442 of 2014 N.Arul Thaya ..Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.1443 of 2014 Vs.

¶7

1.The Director of Fisheries, Directorate of Fisheries, Administrative Buildings, Teynampet, Chennai 06. 2.The Chief Engineer, (Earlier Superintending Engineer) Fishing Harbour Project Circle) DMS Complex, Teynampet, Chennai 06. 3.The Executive Engineer, Fishing Harbour Project Division, Chinnamuttam, Near Vadasery Bus Stand, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. .. Respondents in W.P.(MD).Nos.1439 to 1443 of 2014

¶8

COMMON PRAYER: Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Costitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondent in connection with the impugned orders passed by the 3rd respondent herein proceedings No.1083/6/2007 dated 23.01.2014, issued under the instructions of the Chief Engineer, the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of her joining viz.,16.05.2008, 19.06.2008, 13.06.2008, 16.05.2008 and 16.05.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respectively and pay to her all other consequent benefits.

¶9

¶10

G.Sri Priya ..Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.4550 of 2014 K.Krishnakumari ..Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.4551 of 2014 C.Latha ..Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.4552 of 2014 N.Arul Thaya ..Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.4553 of 2014 M.Rajeswari ..Petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.4554 of 2014 .Vs. 1.The Director of Fisheries, Directorate of Fisheries, Administrative Buildings, Teynampet, Chennai 06. 2.The Chief Engineer, (Earlier Superintending Engineer) Fishing Harbour Project Circle) DMS Complex, Teynampet, Chennai 06. 3.The Executive Engineer, Fishing Harbour Project Division, Chinnamuttam, Near Vadasery Bus Stand, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. .. Respondents in W.P.(MD).Nos.4550 to 4554 of 2014

¶11

COMMON PRAYER in WP(MD). 4550 to 4553 of 2014 :

¶12

Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Certiorairified Mandamus , calling for the Records of the 2nd Respondent in connection with the impugned orders passed by the 2nd Respondent herein in Impugned Letter No. 2145/E1/2007 dated 22.01.2014 and quash the same and consequently quash the order of termination order passed by the 3rd Respondent and to direct the Respondent s herein to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of her joining viz., 16.05.2008, 13.06.2008, 16.05.2008, 16.05.2008 and 16.05.2008 respectively and pay to them all other consequent benefits.

¶13

In all the Writ Petitions:

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Alaguram Jothi in all the WP's For Respondents : Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthaiah https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in all the WP's Government Advocate

¶15

¶16

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶17

Though ten writ petitions have been filed in this batch by the five writ petitioners the Writ Petition in W.P.(md)No.4550 of 2014 and its facts are taken into account for disposal of this batch of cases as the issue raised in all the writ petitions is one and the same.

¶18

2.The prayer in the W.P.(md)No.4550 of 2014 is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent in connection with the impugned orders passed by the second respondent herein in Letter No.2145/E1/2007 dated 22.01.2014 and quash the same and consequently quash the order of termination passed by the third respondent and direct the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner from the date of her joining viz., 14.05.2008 and pay to her all other consequential benefits.

¶19

All the five petitioners were appointed as Work Inspector Grade-III at the office of the third respondent by the orders of the third respondent dated 14.05.2008. Before making such appointments, the names of the petitioners were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and based on which only, the appointments were made by the third respondent. After having been appointed so, these petitioners had been working for nearly about six years and only thereafter abruptly an order of termination was issued by the third respondent through his proceedings in No. 1083/6/2007 dated 23.01.2014, by which, the appointments made in respect of these five petitioners were cancelled.

¶20

4.The reason for cancelling the appointments of the petitioners, according to the third respondent, as reflected in the order dated 23.01.2014, is that the Chief Engineer, Fishing Harbour Project Circle, Chennai-6, who is the second respondent herein, had issued instructions vide his order dated 22.01.2014, to cancel the temporary appointment of Work Inspector Grade-III and promotion given to Head Mazdoors as the change in nomenclature of the posts is gross violation of the Government norms.

¶21

5.By citing the said reason, the appointment made to all these five petitioners had been cancelled by the third respondent by his said proceedings dated 23.01.2014. In the very same order, the promotion given to four other persons also had been cancelled and they were reverted back to the original post of Head Mazdoor. The issues relating to five petitioners, who had been appointed on 14.05.2008 and their appointment had been cancelled, by the Order dated 23.01.2014, are considered in this batch of writ petitions.

¶22

6.Challenging the said order of cancellation of appointment dated 23.01.2014 of the third respondent, these five petitioners had filed the first batch of five writ petitions viz., WP(MD)Nos.1439 to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1443 of 2014. After the first five writ petitions were filed before this Court, then only, the petitioners were able to get the actual

¶23

¶24

order of the second respondent giving the instructions to the third respondent to cancel the appointment of the petitioners. Therefore, the said order of the second respondent dated 22.01.2014, as the said order was the sole reason for making the order of cancellation of appointment by the third respondent was challenged in the second batch of writ petitions viz., in WP(MD)Nos.4550 to 4554 of 2014. Therefore if the second batch of cases, which includes W.P.(MD) No.4550 of 2014, are decided, that will cover the first batch of writ petitions also, that is the reason why, all the 10 writ petitions are taken up together for hearing and are disposed of by this common order.

¶25

7.Mr.J.Alaguram Jothi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that all the 5 writ petitioners are ITT Certificate holders and only with these qualifications, when the third respondent called for names to be sponsored by the concerned District Employment Exchange to fill up the posts of Work Inspector Grade -III, the names of these five writ petitioners were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and only on that basis, after conducting an interview along with other candidates, who competed with these petitioners, the third respondent selected these petitioners and they were appointed as Work Inspector Grade-III by the order of appointment of third respondent dated 14.05.2008.

¶26

8.The learned counsel would further submit that insofaras the designation of the post namely, Work Inspector Grade-III is concerned, originally the petitioners, who were appointed, were called as Head Mazdoors, however by G.O.Ms.No.74, Public Works Department dated 12.01.1984, the Government has changed the nomenclature from Head Mazdoors into Work Inspector Grade-III. After having changed the nomenclature only, sanctioned posts of Head Mazdoors, re^- designated/changed the nomenclature with the designation of Work Inspector Grade-III, applications were called for and the names were requested for sponsorship^• from the Employment Exchange and only on that basis, appointments were made to the petitioners.

¶27

9.The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that if at all the change of nomenclature of the posts of Head Mazdoors into Work Inspector Grade-III is not approved or accepted by the head of the Department or Government, the maximum rectifiable action on the part of the second respondent is to direct the third respondent to re-designate the petitioners' job only as Head Mazdoors and instead of resorting the same, the second respondent has directed the third respondent to terminate the services of the petitioners abruptly, that too, without any notice. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned orders issued by the second respondent and the consequential order of termination given by the third respondent are wholly unjustifiable and unlawful and therefore, the same are liable to be interfered with.

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

10.The learned counsel for the petitioners would also submit that whatever be the reason the order of second respondent giving instructions to the third respondent to terminate the service of the petitioners abruptly without any notice is bad in law as it is violation of principles of natural justice. He further adds that the consequential order of termination by merely saying the reason that the instructions given by the second respondent through his letter dated 22.01.2014 cannot be a plausible reason for terminating the services of the petitioners without getting the explanation of the petitioners and without giving any notice to that effect and therefore the learned counsel would submit both the impugned orders passed by the second and third respondents respectively are in utter violation of provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and hence, the same are liable to be quashed.

¶31

11.Per contra Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that even though eight numbers of Head Mazdoor posts were sanctioned to the unit of the third respondent office, at no point of time the said Head Mazdoor posts were changed/the nomenclature got altered by the Government or the Department. The G.O.Ms.No. 74 dated 12.01.1984 of the Public Works Department re-designating the posts of Head Mazdoors as work Inspector Grade-III would be applicable only to the Public Works Department and not to any other department much less the Fisheries Department under whom the second and third respondents are functioning.

¶32

12.The learned Government Advocate would further submit that if at all, the third respondent wanted to fill up the posts of Head Mazdoors sanctioned permanently to the said division, the third respondent could have got a clarification from the second respondent office as to whether the re-designation of Head Mazdoor into Work Inspector Grade-III can be applied to this Fisheries Department also and accordingly the said post of Head Mazdoor sanctioned to the third respondent office can be filled up. The third respondent without getting any clarification or permission from the head of the department namely, the office of the second respondent has independently proceeded with making appointments in the posts of Work Inspector Grade-III at the office of the third respondent. Therefore, when appointments were made to a particular post, which was not at all sanctioned or even re-designated, the very appointment itself cannot be treated as a valid appointment in the eye of law and therefore, there is absolutely no infirmity or illegality attached with the instructions given by the second respondent to terminate the services of the petitioners.

¶33

13.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would also submit that in the very appointment order itself issued by the third respondent dated 14.05.2008, it has specifically been stated that the said appointments were purely https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ temporary and at any point of time such appointments can be cancelled without any notice or without assigning any reason. Since the very appointment itself is temporary in nature, that too, in a

¶34

¶35

non-sanctioned posts or non re-designated posts with the rider or condition that such temporary appointments could be cancelled without any notice, there can be no hue and cry on the part of the petitioners to state that before cancellation of the appointment notice should have been given to the petitioners. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate would submit that the action initiated by the second respondent giving instructions to the third respondent to cancel the appointment, which culminated in the termination order issued by the third respondent, absolutely is in order as the same has not violated either the principles of natural justice or any other service conditions/ regulations. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate would submit that invokation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the part of the petitioners in this case would not arise at all.

¶36

14.The learned Government Advocate would also submit that the service Rule governing the services of the Fisheries Department including the post of Head Mazdoor is a different one from the service Rule of Head Mazdoor of the Public Works Department. Unless and until the relevant service Rule governing the service of the Fisheries Department get changed or amended by the Government redesignating those posts of Head Mazdoor in the Fisheries Department as Work Inspector Grade-III or any other nomenclature, no Appointing Authority can make a fresh appointment to a non-sanctioned or non re-designated posts. Therefore, at any rate, the very appointment order issued to the petitioners in the year 2008 itself is unlawful and therefore, when the same was brought to the notice of the second respondent, the same has been found to be unlawful and accordingly, proper instructions were given through impugned order by the office of the second respondent, which has been scrupulously followed by the third respondent and accordingly the services of the petitioners were terminated and therefore, the learned Government Advocate would submit that absolutely there is no infirmity in the orders of both the second and third respondents herein.

¶37

15.This Court has considered the said rival submissions made by both sides.

¶38

16.It is an admitted fact that the posts of Head Mazdoor numbering 8 were sanctioned to the office of the third respondent. These factors are evidenced from the proceedings of the third respondent dated 04.01.2008 which reads thus:

¶39

ehfh;Nfhtpy; kPdgpb JiwKf jpl; l Nfhl; ;l nraw;nghwpahshpd; nray;Kiw eltbfiffs; ;: gpwg;gpg;gth;: jpU. v];.Nf.Nkhfdd;>gp.,.I.,.>

¶40

nr.K.e.vz;.1083-M-07

¶41

ehs;:04.01.2008

¶42

nghUs;: gzpahsh; njhFjp-kPd;Jiw -jiyikg; gzpahsh;fs; gzpaplk; ngah; khw;wk; - gzpfs; Ma;thsh; juk; 111 Mf ngah; khw;wk; nra;jy;- rhh;ghf

¶43

ghh;it: 1) muR Miz vz;.74> ngh.g.J. ehs; 12.01.1984 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2) muR Miz vz;.2151> ngh.g.J. ehs; 27.12.1988 3) muR Miz vz;.308> fhy;eil guhkhpg;G kw;Wk; kPd;tsj;Jiw ehs; 22.09.1992

¶44

¶45

muR Miz vz;.58> fhy;eil guhkhpg;G kw;Wk; kPd;tsj;Jiw ehs; 27.04.2000.

¶46

Mizfs:;

¶47

,t;tYtyf fl;Lg;ghl;by; vl;L jiyikg; gzpahsh; gzpaplq;fs; Njhw;Wtpf;fg;gl;L ghh;it 4-y; fhZk; muR Mizfspd;gb epue;ju gzpaplq;fshf khw;wk; nra;j Mizfs; toq;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. ghh;it 1-y; fhZk; muR Mizfspd;gb jiyikg; gzpahsh; gzpaplq;fs; ahTk; gzpfs; Ma;thsh; juk;-111 Mf ngah; khw;wk; nra;a Mizfs; toq;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. NkYk; ghh;it 2 kw;Wk; 3-y; fhZk; muR Mizfspy; ,; ggzpaplq;fSf;F (jiyikg; gzpahsh; kw;Wk; gzpfs; Ma;thsh;) nraw;nghwpahsh; epakd mYtyuhfTk; Mizfs; toq;fg;gl;Ls;sJ.

¶48

VdNt ghh;it 2 kw;Wk; 3-y; fhZk; muR Mizfspy; toq;fg;gl;Ls;s mjpfhu tuk;gpw;Fl;gl;L ,t;tYtyf fl;Lg;ghl;by; nray;gLk; vl;L jiyikg; gzpahsh; gzpaplq;fSk; mit nray;gl njhlq;fpa ehs; Kjy; gzpfs; Ma;thsh; juk;-111 Mf ngah; khw;wk; nra;J Mizfs; toq;fg;gLfpwJ. jw;NghJ ,g;gzpaplq;fspy; gzpGhpAk; jiyik gzpahsh;fs; gzpfs; Ma;thsh; juk;-111 Mf gjtp khw;wk; nra;Jk; Mizfs; toq;fg;gLfpwJ. ,e;j gjtp ngah; khw;wj;jpdhy; ,th;fspd; Cjpaj;jpy; ve;jtpjkhd khWjYk; Vw;glhJ vdTk; Mizfs; toq;fg;gLfpwJ.

¶49

nra;nghwpahsh;

¶50

kP.J.jp.Nfh. ehfh;Nfhtpy;

¶51

17.Since 8 posts of Head Mazdoor were sanctioned to the office of the third respondent, through the Government order inG.O.Ms.No.58 Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department dated 24.07.2010 and the third respondent has been designated as the Appointing Authority for filling up the said 8 posts through the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No. 308 of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department dated 22.09.1992, there can be no quarrel that 8 posts of Head Mazdoor were permanently sanctioned to the office of the third respondent and the third respondent is the Appointing Authority to fill up the said posts.

¶52

18.With the strength of these Government Orders only, the third respondent had acted upon. However, when he attempted to fill up the vacant posts of Head Mazdoor in 5 numbers, the third respondent seems to have taken note of the import of G.O.Ms.No.74 Public Works Department dated 12.01.1984 which reads thus:

¶53

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

¶54

G.O.Ms.No.74

¶55

Dated: 12.01.1984

¶56

ORDER:

¶57

The Government have decided that the designation of Head Mazdoors appointed under Work-charged establishment in Public Works Departments Ground Water Wing and Instituted of Hydraulics and Hydrology, Poondi upto 1973, be redesignated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ as Work Inspector Grade-III in the scale of pay of Rs.295-5315-10-475 admissible to them as Head Mazdoors. The change of

¶58

¶59

designation will not involve any change in their duties and responsibilities. Any request in future for increase in pay scale on the basis of this revised designation will not be entertained.

¶60

2.Necessary amendment to the ad hoc rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.461 Public Works dated 15.03.1980 will be issued separately.

¶61

19.In view of the redesignation having been made for the posts of Head Mazdoor into Work Inspector Grade III in the Public Works Department, which according to the third respondent could be made applicable to the Fisheries Department also and therefore on that premises, the third respondent seems to have proceeded with filling up the 5 posts at the office of the third respondent with redesignation as Work Inspector Grade III. That is the reason why the names of the candidates were directed to be sponsered by the Employment Exchange to fill up the post of Work Inspector Grade III at the office of the third respondent and based on such sponsership of the names of candidates with required qualifications, which includes the names of the petitioners, interview was conducted and ultimately, an order of appointment was issued on 14.05.2008 by the third respondent to all these five petitioners.

¶62

20.Therefore, there is no quarrel in the qualifications of these petitioners to hold the originally sanctioned posts of Head Mazdoor and it is also not in dispute that their names have been sponsered by the concerned Employment Exchange and only after conducting proper interview competently, these petitioners were selected and appointed. If at all any indifference find place in the said appointments, it is only the nomenclature of the posts which, in fact, was sanctioned permanently by G.O.Ms.No. 58 as referred to above. Instead of Head Mazdoor the nomenclature was considered to be Work Inspector Grade III and only in that nomenclature such appointments were made to the petitioners. Pursuant to the appointments made in the year 2008, all these five petitioners have been continuously working under the the third respondent's office. While so, by way of sudden move, these petitioners have been served with an order of termination dated 23.01.2014 by the third respondent whereby the very appointments made to these petitioners were cancelled. The reasons given for making such cancellation in the order of termination dated 23.01.2014 proceed to say like this and the said portion is extracted hereunder for better appreciation of the issue:

¶63

The Chief Engineer, Fishing Harbour Project Circle, Chennai has issued instructions vide the ref. eighth cited to cancel the temporary appointment of Work Inspector Grade III and promotion given to Head Mazdoors. as the change in nomenclature of the posts https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is gross violation of Government norms.

¶64

¶65

21.Though initially this order dated 23.01.2014 of the third respondent was under challenge and only subsequently actual instructive order issued by the second respondent dated 22.01.2014 was made available to the petitioners and therefore that order dated 22.01.2014 was also to be put under challenge in the second batch of writ petitions. For better appreciation, the said order dated 22.01.2014 is also extracted hereunder:

¶66

Rc.No.2145/E1/2007 dated 22.01.2014

¶67

Sir,

¶68

Sub: Establishment- FHP Division, Nagercoil- Filling up of the Vacant posts of Head Mazdoor and Work Inspector Grade I- Recruitment through District Employment exchangeViolation of Rules- Reg.

¶69

Ref: 1.Executive Engineer, FHPD, Nagercoil Lr.No 1083/B/2012 dt: 10.09.2013 2.Director of Fisheries Letter Rc.No. 508/M4/2014 dated 21.01.2014.

¶70

¶71

With reference to the above, it is informed that, the Government is the only competent authority to change the nomenclature of the posts, already sanctioned to the Department. The then Executive Engineer, Fishing Harbour Project Division, Nagercoil has grossly violated the Government norms.

¶72

As per the adhoc rules for the posts of Head Mazdoor and Work Inspector Grade-I, the appointing authority shall be the Executive Engineer, Fishing Harbour Division. Under these circumstances, the Executive Engineer is instructed to cancel the temporary appointment of Work Inspector Grade-III( 5 Nos.)and to revert the promotion given to the Head Mazdoors to the posts of Work Inspector Gr-I and work Inspector Grade II and report the fact at once.

¶73

22.Even in the said order dated 22.01.2014 the second respondent has stated that as per the adhoc Rules for the posts of Head Mazdoors and Work Inspector Grade-III, the Appointing Authority shall be the Executive Engineer, Fishery Harbour Division. Therefore as per Rules, the Appointing Authority is the third respondent to make appointments to the posts of Head Mazdoor. As per the Government order in G.O.Ms.No. 58 referred to above, 8 posts of Head Mazdoor were sanctioned to the third respondent. Only out of 8 permanently sanctioned posts, 5 posts were filled up and three other people were already working with the candidature of the petitioners. The said appointments were made through proper method of recruitments by getting sponsership of names from the Employment Exchange. The appointment also was made only by the Appointing Authority namely the Executive Engineer of the Fishery Harbour https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Division i.e the third respondent herein.

¶74

¶75

23.From the said records/documents it is cristal clear that the petitioners were qualified to hold the post of Head Mazdoor and their names were sponsered by the Employment Exchange and they attended the interview along with similarly placed persons sponsored by the employment exchange and after completing the interview process, the petitioners were selected and appointed by the third respondent, who is the Appointing Authority as per the adhoc Rules governing the services of the petitioners. Therefore, this Court finds no illegality or unlawfulness in making such appointments. Hence, those appointments cannot be treated as illegal appointments in the eye of law.

¶76

24.0nly error on the part of the third respondent, who made appointments to the petitioners 6 years back from the termination, is that, instead of appointing those petitioners in the nomenclature of Head Mazdoors, they have been appointed in the nomenclature of Work Inspector Grade III. If at all Work Inspector Grade-III redesignation was not permitted by the Government or by the Head of the Department, only course of action open to the second respondent is to give suitable instruction to the third respondent to redesignate these petitioners as Head Mazdoors. Instead, the second respondent had given instruction abruptly to cancel the appointment and service of the petitioners for no fault of them. Therefore, the action of the second respondent, giving such instructions through the impugned order dated 22.01.2014, in the opinion of this Court, is wholly unjustifiable and unsustainable.

¶77

25.Before taking any such drastic action against the petitioners if notices were issued to the petitioners seeking their explanation, certainly, these petitioners would have been in a postition to tell that their job can continue with the nomenclature of Head Mazdoor instead of Work Inspector Grade-III. This stand is also affirmed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before this Court. Instead of resorting to such an established procedure under law, before taking the drastic action of terminating services of the petitioners, both the second respondent as well as the third respondent have issued these impugned orders taking away the accrued right on the part of the petitioners without giving any opportunity or notice to the petitioners, which is definitely violation of principles of natural justice and thereby, the very action on the part of the second and third respondents, as reflected through the respective impugned orders, are in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to hold that both the impugned orders dated 22.01.2014 and 23.01.2014 issued by the second and third respondents respectively terminating the 'services of the petitioners, after having been selected and appointed them in a permanently sanctioned posts and allowed them to work for 6 years, are absolutely unjustifiable.

¶78

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 26.If at all the petitioners were appointed in the redesignated posts of Work Inspector Grade-III instead of appointing them with the designation of Head Mazdoor, the same can only be

¶79

¶80

construed as irregular appointment and at no point of time, the same can be construed as illegal appointment.

¶81

27.Law is well settled in this regard that if there is any irregularity in the appointment, the same can be rectified. Here in the case in hand, neither the basic qualification required to hold the posts of Head Mazdoor nor the method of recruitment were compromised, nor any other authority than the designated authority for appointing the post of Head Mazdoor has made such appointments. Therefore, on these grounds the appointments cannot be termed even as irregular appointments. Therefore, if the nomenclature of the posts held by these petitioners is changed into the earlier one as has been sanctioned i.e Head Mazdoor, then the defect could have been cured. Instead of curing the same, the respondents have hastily terminated the services of the petitioners, which, in the opinion of this Court, gravely unjustifiable and unlawful and therefore, these impugned ordres are liable to Accordingly, the impugned orders are quashed.

¶82

28.In the result, the following orders are passed in these batch of writ petitions:

¶83

i) The writ petitions are allowed. Since the writ petitioners are out of service pursuant to the order of termination from January 2014, they should be re-instated into service forthwith at any rate within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, the petitioners shall not be entitled for any back wages during the period from 23.01.2014 till re-instatement by invoking the Rule of 'No work No Pay'. However, such period can be taken into account as continuity of service for all other purposes in the services of the petitioners. No costs. connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶84

Sd/-

¶85

Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶86

/True Copy/

¶87

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶88

To,

¶89

1.The Director of Fisheries, - Directorate of Fisheries, Administrative Buildings, Teynampet, Chennai 06.

¶90

2.The Chief Engineer, (Earlier Superintending Engineer) Fishing Harbour Project Circle) DMS Complex, Teynampet, Chennai 06.

¶91

3.The Executive Engineer, Fishing Harbour Project Division,

¶92

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Chinnamuttam, Near Vadasery Bus Stand, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶93

¶94

+5cc to M/S.J.Alaguram Jothi, Advocate SR.No. 56393 to 56397 +1cc to Special Government Pleader, SR.No. 56493

¶95

ORDER MADE IN

¶96

W.P.(MD).Nos.1439 to 1443 of 2014 and 4550 to 4554 of 2014 11.05.2017

¶97

CM/TSG/GNS

¶98

JM/SKN RSK/SAR 2/22.11.2017/12P/10C

¶99

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

G. Sri Priya v. the Director of Fisheries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Sri Priya v. the Director of Fisheries

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

P.Babians Vs the Principal Accountant

M.Peer Mohamed Vs the Chief Immigration

K.Ayyakannu, S/O.Kandasamy Vs the Revisional Authority U/S.

V. Chandru Vs the Commissioner

Dr.M.Balakrishnan, Vs the Director of Collegiate

V.Sundaravadivel Vs the State of Tamil Nadu