The main legal point established in the judgment is that discrimination in the absorption of temporary employees as regular employees is illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

1. The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 09.07.2009 passed in Seyalaga (Nilai) Order No.118 by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Department, the first respondent herein, refusing to regularise/absorb the petitioner as Office Assistant and for a consequential direction to reinstate him in service with full backwages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:

(a) The petitioner studied upto VIII standard. He was continuously engaged as Office Assistant, by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Department from 1989 onwards, during Assembly Sessions. The nature of work was to do all the sundry jobs like serving letters to all the Ministers, Secretaries of all the Departments, Members of the Legislative Assembly and also to attend their daily needs. The works carried out by the Office Assistants appointed during Assembly Sessionss and the other Office Assistants are one and the same. The nature of duties are same and identical. Apart from the petitioner, some others were also appointed as Office Assistants during Assembly Sessions.

(b) The grievance of the petitioner was that while the persons appointed subsequent to him during Assembly Sessions were absorbed as Office Assistants or in other posts, by the first respondent, the petitioner was not given the similar treatment. Hence, he made repeated requests to the first respondent. But his request for absorption was rejected continuously by the first respondent, by orders dated 03.03.1997, 02.05.1997, 16.11.2001, 26.04.2002, 28.08.2002, 29.11.2002 and 25.02.2003 respectively. Therefore, he resorted to various remedies available under law.

(c) Hence the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.9194 of 2004 seeking to quash the last order dated 25.02.2003 of the first respondent refusing to absorb him as regular Office Assistant.

(d) According to the petitioner, after filing of the above said writ petition, he was not given even the little employment that was given during the Assembly Sessions.

(e) Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file a miscellaneous petition in W.P.M.P.No.10730 of 2004 in W.P.No.9194 of 2004 seeking an interim direction to the respondents to provide him employment during Assembly Sessions pending disposal of the aforesaid writ petition. Accordingly, an interim order dated 19.03.2005 was passed by this Court directing the first respondent to continue to provide employment to the petitioner during Assembly Sessions as assured in their letter dated 29.11.2002, pending disposal of the writ petition.

(f) In the letter dated 29.11.2002, while the first respondent refused to absorb the petitioner as regular Office Assistant, the first respondent assured the petitioner to provide employment as Office Assistant during Assembly Sessions.

(g) The writ petition in W.P.No.9194 of 2004 was disposed of on 21.04.2009 directing the petitioner to submit a representation to the first respondent, with regard to the relief sought for in that writ petition, within fifteen days from the date of the order and on such representation being made, the first respondent was directed to dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks thereafter.

(h) Accordingly, the petitioner made a representation dated 02.05.2009 to the first respondent, requesting to absorb him as Office Assistant on regular basis. He pleaded that his juniors who were appointed along with him during Assembly Sessions were absorbed. He gave the names of some his juniors, who were appointed on regular basis. The petitioner also gave a list of persons, who were directly absorbed as Office Assistants, without reference to any procedure of selection. Therefore, he requested the first respondent to consider him for absorption as Office Assistant, as he rendered continuous service from 1989 onwards i.e., for the past about 20 years.