SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Mad) 4732

High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU, J.
Dr. K. Vinoth Kumar
Versus
Union Territory of Puducherry, rep by the Chief Secretary to Government, Chief Secretariat & Others
W.P.No.23401 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012
Decided on : 26-11-2012

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:I. Arockia Selvaraj, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R3 & R4, Mrs. A.V. Bharathi, Advocate.

Regularization of employment must adhere to the recruitment process and legal principles governing employment regularization.

Headnote:

Regularization - Employment - Karnataka State Private College Stop Gap Lecturers' Association Vs. State of Karnataka, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi (3) and others, S. Srinivasan Vs. Union of India and others, U.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Pooran Chandra Pandey, M. Saravanakumar and others Vs. The Secretary to Government, Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - The court discussed the petitioner's claim for regularization, reliance on previous judgments, and the legal principles governing regularization of employment.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Guest Lecturer, sought regularization of services and pay scale adjustment based on past services. The court noted the petitioner's representation and previous legal actions taken.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's claim for regularization without going through the recruitment process was not tenable. It referenced previous judgments and legal principles governing regularization of employment.

Issues: The main issue was the petitioner's claim for regularization without following the recruitment process.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous judgments and legal principles to conclude that the petitioner's claim for regularization without following the recruitment process was not valid.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Judgment :-

The petitioner, who was working as a Guest Lecturer in the third respondent Pondicherry University Community College, which is a constituent college of the Pondicherry university, has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the 4th respondent University to regularise his services with effect from the date of his initial appointment with all consequential benefits and to count his service and to fix pay of scale in the post of Lecturer by taking into account of his past services rendered by considering his representation dated 09.01.2012.

2. In his representation, dated 09.01.2012, the petitioner claimed that on 15.6.2011, he had applied for the post of Assistant Professor of Biochemistry in the third respondent college and he was the only eligible candidate. He has been working as a resource person in the department of Bio-sciences in the third respondent college from the year 2009 and that he has been teaching subjects both in Biotechnology and Biochemistry. He has taken responsibility of taking undergraduate students of both streams for field trips to various institutions. He belonged to a category of other backward class. He had applied as per the advertisement dated 09.05.2011. But he has not received any communication. He has been exempted by the University Grants Commission from holding NET or SLET certificates. As a Guest Lecturer, he has been paid a very low pay of Rs.14,800/-. Therefore, he requested them to call for the interview based on his application and to give preference in the post applied for. He further demanded to stop any appointment of candidates through backdoor operation.

3. Though in the representation, the petitioner claimed only for consideration of his case in the selection process and to give preference, the main relief sought for in the writ petition is virtually a regularization in the post. In the advertisement issued by the university dated 09.05.2011, for the department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, for the post of Assistant Professor, only two candidates were called for, one ST and one general category and for Biotechnology, no applications were called for the post of Assistant Professor. It is not clear as to how the petitioner had applied for the post meant for general category when he claimed reservation as OBC.

4. In any event, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Karnataka State Private College Stop Gap Lecturers' Association Vs. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 1992 SC 677 and also a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi (3) and others reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 and also a judgment of this court in S. Srinivasan Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2008 Writ L.R. 872.

5. When the matter came up on 28.08.2012, Mrs. A.V. Bharathi, learned counsel for the university took notice. She brought to the notice of this court that the petitioner initially moved the Tribunal in O.A.No.1014 of 2012 seeking for the very same prayer. The Tribunal, by its order dated 21.08.2012 had dismissed the O.A., by stating that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction. The petitioner also filed a writ petition being W.P.No.23849 of 2012 seeking for a direction to call him for the interview for the post of Assistant Professor based on his application dated 15.6.2011 and to appoint him either in the college based on his past services or any colleges under the control of the university in the category of OBC for Biochemistry subject. The said writ petition after notice was dismissed on 03.09.2012 and in paragraph 3 of the order, it was observed as follows :

"3. In my considered opinion, the 1st respondent has not made any recommendation to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Professor. The petitioner appears to have sent a petition to the 1st respondent, who in turn, has simply forwarded the same on 25.01.2012 to the 3rd respondent. This does not m










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top