The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the respondent's order rejecting the petitioner's appointment regularization. Directing approval for the watchman post with consequential benefits.
The impugned order dated 12.08.2010 was set aside; respondents directed to approve appointment and pay service benefits within two months.
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.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 08.02.2017
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN
W.P.(MD).No.5463 of 2011 and
M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011
S.I.Selvakumar
... Petitioner
.Vs.
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned letter No.3789/C2/2009 dated 12.08.2010 passed by the 2nd Respondent herein and to quash the same as illegal and direct the 1st and 2nd respondents herein to grant approval for the Petitioner's appointment in the post of watchmen in the 3rd Respondent college with all consequential benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Sundaravadivel For Respondents : Mr.R.Velmurugan (for R1 and R2)
Government Advocate
O R D E R
The Petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition for Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned Letter No.3789/C2/2009 dated 12.08.2010 passed by the 2nd respondent herein and to quash the same as illegal and direct the 1st and 2nd respondent herein to grant approval for the petitioner’s appointment in the post of watchmen in the 3rd respondent college with all consequential benefits.
2.It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as
2
watchmen in the 3rd respondent polytechnic college followed by the interview conducted by the staff selection committee on 08.07.2002. The petitioner’s name was sponsored by the District Employment Office, Nagercoil along with 29 other names. The petitioner was appointed as watchmen in consolidated scale of pay. Thereafter, the petitioner made several representations to the 2nd respondent to regularize his service in the post of watchmen. The 2nd respondent by his letter dated 14.01.2008 directed the 3rd respondent to furnish the particulars to approve the appointment of the petitioner. The 3rd respondent by its office Letter dated 25.11.2008 forwarded the particulars to the 2nd respondent with a request to approve the appointment of the petitioner to the post of watchmen. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent through impugned proceedings dated 12.08.2010 informed the 3rd respondent that the appointment of the petitioner cannot be approved, since he was appointed during the ban period was in force. According to the petitioner the Government in G.O.Ms.No.14 dated 07.02.2006 lifted the ban order for filing up of the post by direct requirement, even after the 2nd respondent is refusing to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition is filed challenging the order of the 2nd respondent.
3.The 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit and contented that the 3rd respondent polytechnic college has conducted interview for the post of watchmen during the ban in recruitment issued by the Government and hence, the process of selection is not in accordance with law and the same cannot be approved. Therefore, the 2nd respondent sought for the dismissal of the writ petition.
4.I have heard Mr.C.Sundaravadivel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Velmurugan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and also perused the records.
5.It is seen from the records that the petitioner was appointed as watchmen in the 3rd respondent polytechnic college. In the 3rd respondent polytechnic there are 3 watchmen post and out of which 2 posts fell vacant due to the retirement of watchmen. Therefore the 3rd respondent polytechnic sought for eligible candidates list from the District Employment Office, Nagercoil. The District Employment Office, Nagercoil furnished the list of 30 suitable candidates for the post of watchmen. Out of 30 candidates, only 20 candidates were appeared for the interview held on 08.07.2002 before the staff selection committee of the 3rd respondent polytechnic. In the said interview the petitioner was appointed as watchmen under open competition.
3
6.Thereafter, the petitioner made several representations to the 2nd respondent to regularize his service in the post of watchmen. The 3rd respondent polytechnic also submitted particulars of the petitioner to approve his appointment as watchmen. But the 2nd respondent by his impugned order dated 12.08.2010 communicated to the 3rd respondent polytechnic college that the approval for the post of watchmen cannot be given since the appointment was made during the ban period. The petitioner has challenged the above said impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent. Admittedly the post of watchmen is a sanctioned post. Further the petitioner’s name was sponsored by the District Employment Office, Nagercoil and after appointment, the petitioner name was removed from the role of the District Employment Office and therefore the petitioner may not get any other employment opportunity through the Employment Office. The government has lifted the ban vide G.O.Ms.No.14 Personal and Administrative Reforms (P) Department dated 07.02.2006. That apart, the petitioner has been continuously working as watchmen right from 08.07.2001 onwards till date.
7.In this regard the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment reported in 2008 (5) CTC 648 in the case of Thiruvalluvar Higher Secondary School v. The Government of Tamil Nadu represented by its secretary, Department of School Education and others wherein in para 4 it is held as follows:
“4. Similar issue as to whether after lifting of the ban, approval of appointment of a person appointed in a non-teaching post in an aided school can be kept pending and whether the said person is entitled to get salary at least from the date on which the ban order was lifted, was considered by me in W.P.(MD).No.484 of 2007 by order dated 30.10.2007 and I have allowed the Writ Petition and in Paragraphs 19 and 20, held as follows:
“19. Similar ban order issued by the Department on the ground that new norms are contemplated and pending the same no appointment in aided schools are to be made was set aside by this Court in W.P.No.10237 of 1994 by order dated 16.08.1999. Since the petitioner was appointed from 05.06.2002 and he is continuously working in the sanctioned post, the respondents may be justified in not approving the appointment of the petitioner from 05.06.2002 to 06.02.2006. The petitioner has got a right to got his appointment approved, once the ban order is lifted. Admittedly, the ban order imposed, not to fill up the posts, was lifted on 07.02.2006. Hence, the petitioner has got every right to get his post approved with salary and other benefits with effect from 07.02.2006. Once the ban https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ order is lifted, the provisions contained in Rule 15(1) and (3) of the Tamil Nadu Recognized Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, comes into operation and the
4
petitioner is deemed to be appointed on regular basis, as he was appointed within the sanctioned post in the fourth respondent school.
8.In the light of the discussion made above and in view of the judgment referred above, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition and therefore the impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 12.08.2010 is set aside with a direction to the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as watchmen.
9.In the result,
a) this writ petition is allowed by setting aside the order passed in Letter No.3789/C2/2009 dated 12.08.2010 passed by the 2nd respondent;
b) the respondents are hereby directed to approve the appointment of Watchmen in the 3rd respondent college and to pay all service and monetary benefits;
c) the respondents are hereby directed to complete the said exercise within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (T&P)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
The Directorate of Technical Education, Chennai – 25.
VS/SKN
TE/MR/SAR-II : 05/07/2017 : 4P/4C (IT)
order made in W.P.(MD).No.5463 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 08.02.2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to approval of appointment and consequential benefits after the ban order was lifted despite initial refusal.
Whether the impugned order rejecting approval of the petitioner's appointment as a watchman should be set aside.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Thiruvalluvar Higher Secondary School v. The Government of Tamil NaduRelied on¶29
2008 (5) CTC 648
2 provisions across 2 enactments
S.I.Selvakumar
State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary Department of Technical Education
Commissioner Directorate of Technical Education
Principal N.M.S.Kamaraj Polytechnic College
M.V.Muralidaran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court