Single Judge dismissed writ petition seeking regularization of service for Civil Engineers engaged in Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. Court held relief barred by delay and zone of consideration lies with respondents despite Uma Devi exception.
Writ Petition dismissed. Respondents liberty to consider representation within sixteen weeks. 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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.09.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.No.5615 of 2018
and
W.M.P.Nos.6940 & 32078 of 2018
Vs.
2
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioners with effect from the date of their appointment in the post of Civil Engineers engaged to carry on Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Programme aimed to attain the mandate of Article 21A of the Constitution and compliance with the exception curved out in Para No.53 of the Uma Devi case (2006) 4 SCC 1 CB by considering their representation dated 10.01.2018.
For Petitioner .. Mr.N.Manokaran For R1 .. Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekananthan, Deputy Solicitor General of India For R2 to R6 .. Mr.S.Ravikumar, SGP.
3
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed in the nature of Mandamus seeking a direction to regularize the service of the petitioners with effect from the date
of their appointment in the post of Civil Engineers to carry on Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Programme to attain the mandate of Article 21A of the Constitution and compliance in accordance with the exception curved out in Paragraph No.53 of the Uma Devi case reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 CB by considering the representation dated 10.01.2018.
2.Even before proceeding further, since the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on Paragraph No.53 of the judgment reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 CB , which he calls as Uma Devi case , but the citation is, the Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi and others has to be examined. It had been held that the State Governments should take steps to regularize those who had been working for 10 years or more, within a period of six months from the date of said judgment. The judgment in Uma Devi case , was delivered on 10.04.2006. The petitioners had filed the
4
writ petition on 06.03.2018 nearly 12 years after the said judgment. In paragraph No.53 of the said judgment, a direction was given that such regularisation should be within a period of six months. The petitioners seek that such relief should be granted to them after the period of ten years. On that one ground itself, the relief of the petitioners can never be acceded to by this Court. But even otherwise, the issue of regularisation, can never be adjudicated by this Court. It is purely within the zone of consideration by the respondents.
3.It is contended by the learned Special Government Pleader that the scheme itself has been abolished and therefore, there cannot be any regularisation under the said scheme of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and it is stated that, as on date, there is no such scheme in force.
4.There are two orders of this Court, which relate to similar reliefs sought.
5.The first one is dated 27.02.2018 in W.P(MD)No.13678 of 2013,
D.Aramvalarthan and others Vs. The Secretary to Government,
5
Government of Tamilnadu, School Education Department, Chennai and others . In that particular writ petition, the petitioners therein also sought a Mandamus for continuation of service under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Scheme or to give them alternate employment. A learned Single Judge of this Court had dismissed the writ petition.
6.There is yet another order of a learned Single Judge dated 10.09.2019 in W.P.No.5616 of 2018, M.Velmurugan Vs. the Secretary to Government, Department of Elementary Education and Literacy, Government of India, New Delhi , wherein, the learned Single Judge had taken a straight forward approach, since the writ petition was only for a Mandamus seeking a direction to the respondents to examine a representation given by the petitioners, a direction was issued to examine the representation within a period of six weeks keeping in mind, the relevant decisions of both the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court. But in the course of the said order, there is no reference to the earlier order of the learned Single Judge in W.P(MD) No.13678 of 2013 (D.Aramvalarthan) referred supra .
6
7.It is highly doubtful, that the exception stated in Paragraph No.53 of
the said judgment reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 (CB), Uma Devi case referred supra which in fact is not an exception can be applied to the facts of this case.
8.In view of conflicting decisions of this Court, a Mandamus can never be issued.
9.Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
10.However, the respondents are at liberty to consider the representation. If they take a decision to consider the representation, they must do so within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Court however is not issuing any such Mandamus in this regard.
21.09.2023
smv Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No Speaking order:Yes/No
7
To
8
Thiruvannamalai District.
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
smv
W.P.No.5615 of 2018
21.09.2023
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to regularize the service of petitioners appointed under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan Programme based on the Uma Devi judgments exception.
Whether conflicting decisions of this Court permit the issuance of a mandamus regarding regularization under the said scheme.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi and othersDistinguished¶36
2006 (4) SCC 1 CB · Who else cites this
K.Sampath and others
Secretary to the Government Department of Elementary Education and Literacy, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India
State of Tamil Nadu
State Project Director, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, District Primary Education Programme, Chennai
Chief Educational Officer/District Project Co-ordinator, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Thiruvallur
Chief Educational Officer/District Project Co-ordinator, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Krishnagiri
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
