The court upheld the High Court's order for regularization of services based on established precedent.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. Perused the impugned order.

3. The respondent-employee was appointed against one of the 86 sanctioned posts of part-time sweeper in the year 1997.

4. He moved the High Court by filing a writ petition seeking direction for regularisation.

5. The services of the respondent employee were terminated in the year 2018.

6. The High Court, after considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances as emanating from record and while placing reliance on a full bench Judgment of Madras High Court in the case of M. Sivappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2024 (2) CTC 1, directed the petitioner State to regularise the services of the respondent. The State of Tamil Nadu has approached this Court by way of this special leave to appeal seeking to question the legality and validity of the judgment dated 20th February, 2025 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras.

7. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned standing counsel for the State and have gone through the impugned judgment and the material placed on record.

8. The High Court primarily based its conclusions on the full Bench judgment in the case of M. Sivappa (supra). It is not in dispute that the respondent employee was appointed against one of the 86 posts enumerated in the special Rules for Tamil Nadu basic services. He continuously served the State without a demur for a period of almost 21 years whereafter his services were unceremoniously terminated.

9. We, therefore, feel that the questions involved in these petitions have no parity with the pending matter in the case of Director of School Education vs. Ellammal, SLP (C) No. 4575 of 2022, on which reliance was heavily placed by learned counsel for the State.

10. The full Bench judgment in the case of M. Sivappa (supra) has not been challenged any further which fact was admitted by Mr. Balaji Subramanian, learned AAG, during the course of arguments.

11. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned judgment of the High Court. The special leave petitions are dismissed as being devoid of merit leaving the question of law, if any, open.

12. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.