Temporary employees appointed under separate agreements are not entitled to challenge government decisions and are not eligible for promotion based on Adhoc Rules framed for regular government employees.

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

1. The instant Writ Petition has been filed challenging the State Level Seniority list passed by the second respondent under the impugned order in reference Na.Ka.290/ A2/2009 dated 19.02.2009 and the consequential order dated 20.02.2009 and consequently direct the third respondent to absorb the petitioners herein to the post of Grade III Librarian as per the District Level Seniority list maintained by the third respondent out of 9 vacancies maintained from the funds available with the Local Library Authority, with all monetary and service benefits within a reasonable time.

Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant writ petition are as follows:

2. According to the petitioners, they were employed in the post of Village Librarian on a consolidated pay of Rs. 1,500/-. The next promotional post of the petitioners is Grade III Librarian. It is their case that they are eligible for promotion to the said post and that they have requisite qualification and experience for becoming Grade III Librarian. According to them, their appointment as Village Librarian was proper and only through the employment exchange.

3. According to the petitioners, there were 17 posts of Grade III Librarian lying vacant in Theni District for the past 3 years. According to them, the said posts were not filled up and kept vacant without giving any promotion to the Village Librarians. According to them, the third respondent has prepared a District Level Seniority list of Village Librarians in Theni District for promotion to the post of Grade III Librarian. As per the said list of District Level Seniority by following communal rotation system, the first petitioner's name is found in S. No. 3 in the seniority list. The petitioners 2 to 7 are in S. Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7.

4. According to the petitioners, the first respondent issued G.O.Ms. No. 175, School Education Department dated 20.8.2008, indicating that out of 345 vacancies in all the Districts, permission was granted to the Local Library Authority to meet out the funds for filling up 200 vacancies in the respective Districts. Therefore, according to the above G.O.Ms. No. 175 dated 20.8.2008, out of 17 vacancies in Theni District, 9 vacancies are to be filled up with the funds available with the Local Library Authority. It is their case that the petitioners being in S. Nos. 1 to 7 in the District Level Seniority list, they are eligible to be absorbed by the third respondent with the power vested in him and from the funds of the Local Library Authority.

5. According to the petitioners, the first respondent thereafter issued an order in G.O.Ms. No. 60 School Education (K1) Department dated 18.2.2009, directing the authorities concerned to give priority to the Village Librarians while effecting promotion to the post of Grade III Librarian in the Districts. The second respondent herein, by virtue of the said order is said to have prepared seniority list of Village Librarians in all the Districts and sent the said list with the impugned order dated 19.2.2009, to the respective District Library Officers, including the third respondent herein for Theni District, directing him to communicate the same to the concerned Village Librarians for information and for submitting their objection within 7 days, if any, to the seniority list. In the absence of any objection from the concerned Village Librarians, it was informed that the said seniority list will become final.

6. According to the petitioners, immediately on the next day of the impugned order, the first respondent passed another impugned order dated 20.2.2009, directing the third respondent to promote the persons found in the seniority list prepared at the State Level in the pay scale of Rs. 3200-85-4900.

7. According to the petitioners, the impugned orders of the second respondent, which are contrary to the Government Orders and norms followed in the matter of promotion under the impugned orders have denied promotion to the petitioner