Dismissed¶30

B.Parimala v. The Secretary to Government

Madras HC1 Sept 2025WA/2239/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regularization as Part Time Sweeper refused after resignation; right to regularization extinguished upon cessation of employment; appellant erroneously shown as died in 2004 in annexure to G.O.(Ms).No.68 School Education Department dated 18.04.2013; parity claim with co-worker B.Vadivel (regularized 30.07.2013) rejected; fresh representation pursuant to Single Judge order in W.P.No.34479 of 2014 held futile; W.A.No.2239 of 2022 under Clause 15 Letters Patent dismissed; Madras High Court, 01.09.2025; neutral citation 2025:MHC:2231.

What did the court decide?

Upon the appellant's resignation from the post of Part Time Sweeper (for taking regular appointment as Village Assistant), her rights to seek regularization in that post were extinguished. ¶25

B.Parimala Vs The Secretary to Government — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:MHC:2231

¶2

W.A.No.2239 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED : 01.09.2025

¶5

CORAM :

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

¶7

W.A.No.2239 of 2022

¶8

B.Parimala ... Appellant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009 2.The Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai-600 006 3.The District Educational Officer, Tirupattur Education District, Tirupattur, Vellore District ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to

¶12

set aside the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 11.01.2022 in Writ Petition No.34479 of 2014.

¶13

Page 1 of 6

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.A.No.2239 of 2022

¶16

For Appellant : Mr.J.Saravana Vel For Respondents : Mr.R.Neethiperumal Government Advocate

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

(Judgment of this Court was delivered by M.S.RAMESH.J)

¶19

The appellant was appointed as a Part Time Sweeper through Employment Exchange on 01.06.1998. Subsequently, upon her regular appointment as a Village Assistant, through an interview held on 07.06.2012, she had resigned from the post of Part Time Sweeper. By comparing herself with one B.Vadivel, who is also a Part Time Sweeper and whose services were regularized on 30.07.2013, she sought for similar orders of regularization in her case as well. She further placed reliance on G.O.No.68, School Education Department, dated 18.04.2013, wherein the services of similarly placed part time sweepers were regularized. However, in the annexure to the said G.O., her name was shown as if she had died in the year 2004. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the Department had committed a mistake in treating her as deceased, if

¶20

Page 2 of 6

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

W.A.No.2239 of 2022

¶23

otherwise her services also would have been regularized.

¶24

2.The Writ Court had taken note of the mistake of treating the appellant as a dead person and had granted liberty to her to make a fresh representation to the respondents with a consequential direction to consider it on its own merits, through orders passed in W.P.No.34479 of 2014 dated 11.01.2022, which is impugned in this Writ Petition.

¶25

3.The appeal may not deserve consideration in this case for an obvious reason. While the appellant was serving as a Part Time Sweeper from 01.06.1998, she had resigned from the said post for the purpose of taking a regular appointment as a Village Assistant on 07.06.2012. The moment she had resigned from the post of Part Time Sweeper, her rights to seek for regularization in that post had extinguished. Even though, her name was allegedly shown in the annexure in G.O (Ms).No.68, as a dead person, she was not entitled to be considered for regularization in view of her cessation of employment as a Part Time Sweeper. Thus, even if any representation is made by the appellant pursuant to the order passed in W.P.No.34479 of 2024, it would only be a futile exercise in view of her

¶26

Page 3 of 6

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W.A.No.2239 of 2022

¶29

ineligibility for regularization. As such there are no merits in the Writ Appeal.

¶30