Allowed¶50

The Secretary v. a. Malaichamy

Madras HC16 Jun 2025WA(MD)/241/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regularisation of daily wage helper; G.O(Ms)No.22 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department dated 28.02.2006; 10-year service cut-off 01.01.2006; Government Letter (D) No.83 dated 27.03.2017 rejection; G.O.Ms.No.180 Higher Education Department dated 09.12.2020 creation of High Tension Operator posts; Rule 110 Chief Minister announcement; Clause 15 Letters Patent writ appeal; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; W.A(MD)No.241 of 2023; W.P(MD)No.15572 of 2017; public employment cannot be arbitrarily filled up; call for applications from all eligible candidates; no order as to costs; G.R.Swaminathan J.; K.Rajasekar J.; decided 16.06.2025.

What did the court decide?

The order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P(MD)No.15572 of 2017 dated 30.03.2022 is set aside; the Writ Appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. ¶50

The Secretary Vs a. Malaichamy — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P(MD)No.15572 of 2017 dated 30.03.2022 is set aside; the Writ Appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petitioner, who was working as a daily wage employee, was entitled to regularisation under G.O(Ms)No.22 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department dated 28.02.2006, which required completion of 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006. +1 more

¶44

Court's answer

The writ petitioner admittedly did not fulfil the norm in G.O(Ms)No.22 dated 28.02.2006 of completing 10 years of service as on the cut-off date 01.01.2006, having rendered only 8 years; therefore Government Letter (D) No.83 dated 27.03.2017 rejecting his request ought to have been upheld.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

A public employment cannot be arbitrarily filled up; the appointing authority (the Principal) will have to call for applications from all eligible candidates.

¶45

Key takeaways

Having served the department only as a helper, and that too for 8 years as on 01.01.2006, the writ petitioner could not have been directed to be appointed as a high tension operator.ratio¶49
If the writ petitioner is employed on a daily wage basis, the dismissal of the writ petition will not lead to his disengagement.obiter¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent by State officials (Secretary, Higher Education Department; Commissioner, Technical Education Department) against the order dated 30.03.2022 in W.P(MD)No.15572 of 2017, whereby the learned single Judge had directed regularization of the writ petitioner (a helper/daily-wage employee in the Technical Education Division, Madurai) in the light of G.O.Ms.No.180 dated 09.12.2020 and consideration of his candidature for regularization from 01.01.2006. Held: the only GO invoked by the employee was G.O(Ms)No.22 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department dated 28.02.2006, which specifically contemplated completion of 10 years of service as on the cut-off date 01.01.2006; the petitioner admittedly had rendered only 8 years, so Government Letter (D) No.83 dated 27.03.2017 rejecting his request ought to have been upheld. Further, a public employment cannot be arbitrarily filled up and the Principal must call for applications from all eligible candidates; and one who had served only as a helper for 8 years as on 01.01.2006 could not have been directed to be appointed as a high tension operator. The single Judge's order was set aside; the Writ Appeal was allowed with no order as to costs, with the assurance that dismissal would not lead to the petitioner's disengagement if he is employed on a daily wage basis. Bench: G.R.Swaminathan and K.Rajasekar JJ.; judgment delivered by G.R.Swaminathan J.; decided 16.06.2025.

¶1

W.A(MD)No.241 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 16.06.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

W.A(MD)No.241 of 2023

¶7

1.The Secretary, Higher Education Department, The Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai.

¶8

2.The Commissioner, Technical Education Department, Chennai. ... Appellants / Respondents

¶9

Vs.

¶10

A.Malaichamy

¶11

... Respondent / Petitioner

¶12

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order passed in W.P(MD)No.15572 of 2017 dated 30.03.2022 and allow the Writ Appeal.

¶13

1/8

¶14

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

¶15

W.A(MD)No.241 of 2023

¶16

For Appellants : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar Special Government Pleader

¶17

For Respondent : Mr.F.Deepak

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

(Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J. )

¶20

Heard the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner.

¶21

2.The writ petitioner was working as helper in the office of the Technical Education Division, Madurai since 1995. The details of the service put in by him are captured in the following table:

¶22

2/8

¶23

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

¶24

W.A(MD)No.241 of 2023

¶25

9 ,th; [; ;; ;;	; gzpg[hpe;j ;; ;;	; [; jpdf;Typ	mog;gilapy; pp;	;; ; 01.01.1995	Xg;ge;jfhu; :;	;;h; K:yk;
ehl;fs; ;; tUlk;	;; kw;Wk;	neuoahf mkh;j;jg;gl;l ;; kw;Wk; tUlk; Departmenta	gzay; ;;;; ehl;fs; ;; ; l NMR	; Kjy; 01.01.2006 tiu gzpg[hpe;j ehl;fspd; tptuq;fs;	[; Outsourc Kiwapy; [; ehl;fs;	ing ; gzpg[hpe;j
		tUlk;	ehl;fs;	ehl;fs;	khjk; / tUlk;	ehl;fs;
		1995	182	182	04/2017	150
		1996	150	150	2018	132
		1997	212	212	2019	128
		1998	181	181	2020	132
		1999	149	149	03/2021	45
		2000	153	153
		2001	202	202
		2002	90	90
		2003	gzpg[hpatpy;iy	gzpg[hpatpy;iy
		2004	gzpg[hpatpy;iy	gzpg[hpatpy;iy
		2005	gzpg[hpatpy;iy	gzpg[hpatpy;iy
		2006	gzpg[hpatpy;iy	gzpg[hpatpy;iy
		2007	gzpg[hpatpy;iy	gzpg[hpatpy;iy
		2008	60
		2009	333
		2010	320
		2011	322
		2012	310
		2013	290
		2014	282
		2015	321
		2016	322

¶26

3/8

¶27

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

¶28

W.A(MD)No.241 of 2023

¶29

3.It is beyond dispute that the writ petitioner was not serving in the department in any capacity from 2003 to 2007. In order to regularise the service of those employees who had put in 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006 in various Government departments, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O(Ms)No.22 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department dated 28.02.2006. The petitioner sought relief by invoking the said GO. His request was rejected by the Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu vide Government Letter (D) No.83 dated 27.03.2017. Challenging the same, W.P(MD)No.15572 of 2017 came to be filed. The said Writ Petition came to be disposed of by the learned single Judge in the following terms:

¶30

“5. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was appointed as Helper in the year 1995. The contention of the respondents is that the petitioner has completed only 8 years of service as on 01.01.2006 and the petitioner was initially appointed as temporary Helper on daily wages in the year 1995 and he was not in continuous service on daily wages but he was employed as per the need and nature of work required. The respondents also contended that there is no sanctioned post when the petitioner was appointed. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an announcement was made by the Hon'ble Chief Minister under Rule 110 to create new posts. Based on the announcement through G.O.Ms.No. 180 Higher Education (P1) Department dated 09.12.2020, 61

¶31

4/8

¶32

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

¶33

W.A(MD)No.241 of 2023

¶34

additional posts were created. The petitioner is working as High Tension Operator as on date and he is eligible for the said post. Therefore, the respondents are directed to regularize the petitioner in the light of G.O.Ms.No.180 dated 09.12.2020.

¶35

6. Since the operation of High Tension electrical post

¶36

needs a special qualification, the respondents shall also consider the petitioner's candidature for regularization from the date of 01.01.2006.”

¶37

Challenging the same, the State has filed this appeal.

¶38

4.The learned Additional Advocate General took us through the grounds of Appeal and also the materials enclosed in the typed set of papers and called upon this Court to set aside the impugned order and dismiss the Appeal.

¶39

5.Per contra, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed the learned single Judge is well reasoned and that it does not call for interference.

¶40

6.We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record.

¶41

5/8

¶42

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

¶43

W.A(MD)No.241 of 2023

¶44

7.The only issue before the learned single Judge was whether the writ petitioner who was working as a daily wage employee was entitled to regularisation. The only GO that the employee invoked was G.O(Ms)No.22 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department dated 28.02.2006. The Government rejected the writ petitioner's request by holding that as on 01.01.2006 which was the cut off date set out in the GO, he had rendered only 8 years service. The GO specifically contemplated that the employee must have completed 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006. Admittedly, the writ petitioner does not fulfill the said norm. Therefore, Government Letter (D) No.83 dated 27.03.2017 which was impugned in the Writ Petition ought to have been upheld as such. Instead what the learned single Judge did was to direct the appointment of the writ petitioner as a high tension operator.

¶45

8.The learned Additional Advocate General drew our attention to G.O(Ms)No.180 Higher Education (B1) Department dated 09.12.2020 whereby the post of high tension operator was created. It true that the writ petitioner possesses the C-certificate laid down in the said GO. But the appointing authority is said to be the Principal of the concerned institution. But then, a public employment cannot be arbitrarily filled up. The Principal will have to call for applications from all eligible candidates. In any event, when the writ

¶46

6/8

¶47

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

¶48

W.A(MD)No.241 of 2023

¶49

petitioner had served the department only as a helper and that too for 8 years as on 01.01.2006, he could not have been directed to be appointed as a high tension operator. We do notice that the writ petitioner has been serving in the institution from the year 2008 onwards.

¶50

9.The learned Additional Advocate General would state that from 2008 till 2016, the writ petitioner was serving as a daily wage employee and he appears to have left the service thereafter. We do not want to go into the said controversy. If the writ petitioner is employed on a daily wage basis, the dismissal of this writ petition will not lead to his disengagement. The order passed by the learned single Judge is set aside.

¶51

10.This Writ Appeal is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to

¶52

costs.

¶53

[G.R.S., J.] [K.R.S., J.] 16.06.2025

¶54

NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No MGA

¶55

7/8

¶56

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