Dismissed¶56

The Executive Director v. S Vasantha

Madras HC1 Sept 2025WA/2399/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regularisation of long-serving Sweeper; doctrine of legitimate expectation; temporary versus regular appointment; appointment not against sanctioned post; outsourcing of perennial sweeping and gardening duties; Manpower Agency acceptance letter 02.05.2011; communication dated 30.08.2006 monthly salary; educational qualification (8th standard); Uma Devi (2005) 4 SCC 1; Jaggo vs. Union of India SLP (C) No.5580 of 2024 dated 20.12.2024; Article 14; Handloom Export Promotion Council; Clause 15 Letter Patent appeal; W.A No. 2399 of 2025; CMP.No. 18281 of 2025; Madras High Court Division Bench; appeal dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; the writ appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, the connected Miscellaneous Petition (CMP.No. 18281 of 2025) was closed, and there shall be no order as to costs. ¶56

The Executive Director Vs S Vasantha — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; the writ appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, the connected Miscellaneous Petition (CMP.No. 18281 of 2025) was closed, and there shall be no order as to costs.

¶56

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petitioner, appointed as a Sweeper on 01.05.1999 and in continuous service for over a decade, was entitled to regularisation notwithstanding the appellants' contentions that her appointment was purely temporary, not against a sanctioned post, and that she lacked the requisite educational qualification. +1 more

¶29

Court's answer

The writ petitioner/respondent had worked as a Sweeper for more than a decade without any interruption in service, and it is not in dispute that she had studied up to the 8th standard.

¶50

Ratio / Principle

No material was placed on record by the appellants to substantiate their contention that the writ petitioner's appointment was either limited in duration or otherwise irregular in nature.

¶50

Key takeaways

The communication dated 30.08.2006, recording that the writ petitioner was appointed as a Sweeper on 01.05.1999 and drew a monthly salary, does not describe her appointment as temporary or ad hoc and indicates continuity of service on a monthly salaried basis, completely falsifying the appellants' stand that she was appointed only on a temporary basis.ratio¶55
In light of the legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India and Others, the Division Bench found no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.ratio¶56

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent by the Executive Director and Chairman of the Handloom Export Promotion Council, Chennai, challenging the order dated 29.10.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 30331 of 2011, by which the Single Judge — invoking the doctrine of legitimate expectation and following The Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi [(2005) 4 SCC 1] — held the writ petitioner (S. Vasantha), a Sweeper appointed on 01.05.1999 whose sweeping and gardening work was outsourced in May 2011, entitled to seek regularisation, with directions to complete the exercise within four weeks of her representation. The Division Bench (judgment by Hemant Chandangoudar, J.; R. Suresh Kumar, J. on the Bench) relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Jaggo vs. Union of India and Others [SLP (C) No.5580 of 2024, dated 20.12.2024]. The Bench found that the petitioner had served continuously for more than a decade; that a communication dated 30.08.2006 recorded her monthly-salaried appointment without describing it as temporary or ad hoc, falsifying the appellants' stand; and that no material showed her appointment was time-bound or irregular. Finding no infirmity in the impugned order, the appeal was dismissed, the connected CMP.No. 18281 of 2025 closed, with no order as to costs.

¶1

W.A No. 2399 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01-09-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶8

W.A No. 2399 of 2025

¶9

AND

¶10

CMP.No. 18281 of 2025

¶11

The Executive Director, The Handloom Export Promotion Council, Nungambakkam, Chennai -600034.

¶12

2.The Chairman, The Handloom Export Promotion Council, Nungambakkam, Chennai -600034. ..Appellants Vs

¶13

S. Vasantha W/o. Late Sankara ..Respondent

¶14

Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent to set aside the order dated 29.10.2024 passed in W.P.No. 30331 of 2011.

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

For Appellants: Mr. N.a.Srinivasan

¶18

W.A No. 2399 of 2025

¶19

For Respondent : Mr.D.Muthukumar

¶20

For M/s.Paul and Paul

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

(Made by HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J. )

¶23

This intra-court appeal assails the order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.30331 of 2011. By the said order, the learned Single Judge held that the writ petitioner was entitled to invoke the doctrine of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post in which she was appointed, following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi [(2005) 4 SCC 1]. The learned Single Judge further permitted the writ petitioner to submit a representation to the respondents therein for regularisation of her services and, upon receipt of such representation, directed the respondents to complete the exercise within four weeks thereafter.

¶24

¶25

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

¶26

W.A No. 2399 of 2025

¶27

The writ petitioner asserts that she was appointed as a Sweeper with effect from 01.05.1999 and had discharged the duties of Sweeper on a regular basis, akin to that of a permanent employee. In May 2011, the respondents outsourced the sweeping and gardening work of the Export Promotion Council on the ground that the writ petitioner had not produced her school certificate

¶28

pertaining to educational qualifications. This prompted her to approach this Court.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the writ petitioner/respondent herein was not entitled to regularisation of her services primarily on the ground that her appointment was not against a sanctioned post, but was purely temporary in nature. It was further submitted that the writ petitioner/respondent did not possess the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Sweeper and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is unsustainable in law.

¶30

¶31

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

¶32

W.A No. 2399 of 2025

¶33

Per contra, learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent

¶34

submitted that the learned Single Judge, after considering all the relevant facts and following the settled legal principles, had rightly passed the impugned order, which does not warrant any interference.

¶35

We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned

¶36

counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record.

¶37

It is an admitted fact that the respondent/writ petitioner was appointed as a Sweeper on 01.05.1999 and continued in service until 02.05.2011, when the appellants issued an acceptance letter in favour of a Manpower Agency for carrying out the sweeping work. This clearly implies that the writ petitioner/respondent was in continuous employment for more than a decade. As regards the grounds urged in this appeal, it is relevant to note that, more recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India and Others [SLP (C) No.5580 of 2024, dated 20.12.2024], while dealing with the issue of regularisation of services, emphasised the following principles:

¶38

¶39

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

¶40

W.A No. 2399 of 2025

¶41

i. Employment status must be determined by the actual, continuous, and essential duties performed, not merely by the label of “temporary,” “part-time,” or “contractual.”

¶42

ii. Continuous service for over a decade without adverse records creates a legitimate expectation of fair treatment and consideration for regularisation.

¶43

iii.The judgment in Uma Devi bars regularisation of illegal or backdoor appointments but permits consideration of employees in irregular appointments who have served long against sanctioned posts.

¶44

iv.Even contractual/temporary employees are entitled to prior notice and a fair hearing before termination, as arbitrary action would violate Article 14 and the principles of fairness.

¶45

v. Replacing long-serving employees with outsourced workers for the same perennial duties is impermissible and amounts to unfair labour practice. For basic duties such as cleaning or gardening, insisting on formal educational qualifications after a decade of satisfactory service is unreasonable.

¶46

¶47

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

¶48

W.A No. 2399 of 2025

¶49

vi.Furthermore, in paragraph 12 of the said judgment, it was held that despite being labelled as “part-time workers,” the appellants therein performed essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extended periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature; rather, it was regular and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts.

¶50

In the present case, the writ petitioner/respondent had worked as a Sweeper for more than a decade without any interruption in service. It is not in dispute that she had studied up to the 8th standard. The appellants sought to displace her services by engaging outsourced workers. The materials on record clearly establish that the writ petitioner/respondent had been discharging the duties of a regular employee throughout the period of her engagement. Significantly, no material has been placed on record by the appellants to substantiate their contention that her appointment was either limited in duration or otherwise irregular in nature.

¶51

The learned Single Judge has also referred to a communication dated 30.08.2006, which specifically records that the writ petitioner was appointed as

¶52

¶53

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

¶54

W.A No. 2399 of 2025

¶55

a Sweeper on 01.05.1999 and that she was drawing a monthly salary. A bare perusal of the said communication reveals that it does not describe her appointment as temporary or ad hoc. On the contrary, it indicates continuity of service on a monthly salaried basis. This documentary evidence completely falsifies the stand of the appellants that the writ petitioner/respondent was appointed only on a temporary basis.

¶56

In light of the legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, we find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶57

(R.S.K. J.,) (H.C. J.,)

¶58

01.09.2025

¶59

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes / No ak

¶60

¶61

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

¶62

W.A No. 2399 of 2025

¶63