Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 786
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
P. Subramani
Versus
Director of School Education, College Road, Chennai & Others
W.P. No.4859 of 2009 & M.P. No.1 of 2009
Decided On :24-02-2010
For the Petitioner:Su. Srinivasan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: A.C. Mani Bharathi, Additional Government Pleader (Education).
The purpose for which G.O.Ms. No.2136 was issued for appointments in aided schools could be extended and made applicable to the case of the petitioner, considering the facts and circumstances and the fact that persons who have registered themselves in the Employment Exchange do not come forward to take up the work of a scavenger and other incidental work of consolidated pay of Rs.60/- per month.
Headnote:
Regularisation - Sweeper - G.O.Ms. No.22, P & AR Department, 1986, G.O.Ms. No.2136, Education Department, 1986, Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 - The court directed the government to consider the applicability of G.O.Ms. No.22, P & AR (F) Department, 2006, to the case of the petitioner and pass orders on merits in accordance with law. The court observed that the school requires a sweeper to keep it clean and tidy, and directed the government to consider the need for the appointment of a sweeper in the school, as evident from the order of the District Educational Officer, dated 20.01.1983. The court found that the second respondent failed to take note of the observations of the court and the circumstances under which a direction was issued to consider the case of the petitioner. The court held that the purpose for which G.O.Ms. No.2136 was issued for appointments in aided schools could be extended and made applicable to the case of the petitioner, considering the facts and circumstances and the fact that persons who have registered themselves in the Employment Exchange do not come forward to take up the work of a scavenger and other incidental work of consolidated pay of Rs.60/- per month. The court allowed the Writ Petition and directed the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner as a sweeper in the third respondent-School with effect from 01.11.1990 and pay all monetary and other attendant benefits within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was appointed as a part-time sweeper in a school and sought regularisation of his service with effect from 01.11.1990. The court considered the various government orders, the petitioner's length of service, and the necessity of the sweeper position in the school with a large student and staff population.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the second respondent failed to consider the observations of the court and the circumstances under which a direction was issued to consider the case of the petitioner. The court held that the purpose for which G.O.Ms. No.2136 was issued for appointments in aided schools could be extended and made applicable to the case of the petitioner, considering the facts and circumstances and the fact that persons who have registered themselves in the Employment Exchange do not come forward to take up the work of a scavenger and other incidental work of consolidated pay of Rs.60/- per month.
Issues: The issues revolved around the regularisation of the petitioner's service as a sweeper, the applicability of government orders, and the necessity of the sweeper position in the school.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the purpose for which G.O.Ms. No.2136 was issued for appointments in aided schools could be extended and made applicable to the case of the petitioner, considering the facts and circumstances and the fact that persons who have registered themselves in the Employment Exchange do not come forward to take up the work of a scavenger and other incidental work of consolidated pay of Rs.60/- per month.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to regularise the services of the petitioner as a sweeper in the third respondent-School with effect from 01.11.1990 and pay all monetary and other attendant benefits within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
1. By consent the Writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for issue of Writ of Certioarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the third respondent dated 18.11.2008 and to direct the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner with effect from 01.11.1990 and to pay all monetary and other attendant benefits.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a part time sweeper on 01.11.1990 in the third respondent school on a consolidated pay of Rs.70/- per month, by an order passed by the third respondent dated 20.01.1983. The work assigned to the petitioner was cleaning school and also maintaining toilets in the school, which had about 1500 students during the relevant time. According to the petitioner, he has to report from duty at 8.00 At the time, when the Writ petition was filed, the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs.3556/- per month. The fourth respondent by proceedings dated 15.07.1992 requested the second respondent to regularise the petitioner’s service and it was specifically stated that there were 1500 students both boys and girls and 28 staff members. Subsequently, a new incumbent, who occupied the post of Headmaster of the School by proceedings dated 21.10.1994 requested the third respondent to regularise the petitioner’s service, which the followed by another request on 25.10.1995. The third respondent by proceedings dated 10.03.1995 called for particulars regarding daily wages/part time employees in the school to be furnished in a particular format and this was complied with on 13.12.1994.
3. Once again by proceedings dated 21.09.2000, the third respondent called for the same details and the Headmaster of the School furnished such particulars on 10.10.2000. The petitioner also submitted a representation on 19.04.2001 requesting for regularisation. The third respondent by proceedings dated 16.12.2002 requested all Headmasters of Government High/Higher Secondary schools to send particulars of part time basic staff, who were appointed prior to 28.02.1993 and subsequent to 01.03.1993 in two different lists in the prescribed format. The particulars were furnished and the petitioner was stated to be working from 01.11.1990 and at that point of time the school strength was 1800 students with 59 teaching and non-teaching staffs. According to the petitioner, he registered his name with employment exchange during 1993 and he belongs to a Scheduled Caste community and was working as a part time scavenger for more than 19 years and requested for sympathetic consideration that even in accordance with the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959, exempted unskilled category of work from being notified for recruitment. The Government of Tamil Nadu of G.O.Ms, No.2136 dated 31.12.1986, gave an exemption with regard to consultation with the employment exchange. In G.O.Ms. No.107, P & AR Department, dated 05.02.1987, empowered Heads of Departments to create posts to bring the contingent staff to regular establishment and to appoint a contingent staff in the post if no relaxation of rule is involved and if relaxation is involved necessary proposal should be sent to the Government. Further in G.O.Ms. No.22, P & AR, Department, dated 28.02.2006, the service of employees working in various Government Departments on daily wages, who have completed more than 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006 were to be regularised. Further in G.O.Ms.(ID) No.37, School Education Department, dated 08.02.2007 empowered 224 posts of sweeper and 96 post scavengers to be filled through outsourcing.
4. The petitioner by placing reliance on all the above Government Orders would contend that his case should have been considered for registration. The petitioner also placed reliance on G.O.Ms. No.35, School Education Department, which regularised 213 temporary part time technical teachers, who are working for more than 10 years. Since the petitioner was not favoured with any order
