Regularisation or permanent absorption cannot be granted in violation of the recruitment rules in force, and judgments and Government Orders running counter to the principles settled by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India cannot be followed as precedent for the purpose of considering the relief.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, Calling for all the entire records pertaining to the passing of the impugned order dated 16.03.2015 in No.F.Admn.II/2015/363 passed by the 2nd Respondent herein and quash the same consequentially direct the Respondents herein to appoint the Petitioner as permanent staff in any of the department in Indian Institute Technology, Madras, I.I.T Campus, Chennai 600 036.)

1. The order of rejection, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for permanent absorption in Indian Institute of Technology (I.I.T), Madras is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner states that he joined as Nominal Muster Roll (NMR) skilled attendant in Indian Institute of Technology, I.I.T Campus, Chennai in the year 1998. He worked continuously for more than 240 days in a single project in the Indian Institute of Technology and his basic job will be helping and aiding the Professor of various Department in I.I.T., when they indulge in any project. The petitioner studied up to Higher Secondary course and now he has completed Post Graduate in Master of Arts in Economics and also completed Bachelor of Library Science. Suddenly, the petitioner was directed not to attend for duty and he was relieved from the temporary employee. He requested the Management of I.I.T., Madras to regularize the services, since he had served more than 240 days and the Management has not considered his case. Thus, the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.93 of 1997 before the Principal Judge, Labour Court, Chennai. The Industrial Dispute was allowed an an award was passed on 28.04.2004 and the relief of reinstatement with backwages and all attendant benefits were granted. The I.I.T Management filed W.P.No.29626 of 2004 and the said writ petition was allowed on 01.12.2006 and the petitioner preferred Writ Appeal in W.A.No.169 of 2007 and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court passed an order on 15.07.2008, allowing the writ appeal and directed the Management of I.I.T to absorb the petitioner into the services. The respondents preferred S.L.P.(Civil).No.26226 of 2008 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed an order on 02.12.2010 as follows:

“Mr.K.V.Viswanathan, senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, on instructions, states that the respondentworkman will be given employment on some ongoing project. He further assured the Court that the employment on a project, instead of absorption in the Institute, shall not be used by the petitioner Management as a subterfuge to get rid of the respondent-workman within the next few months and, as far as possible, the Management would endeavour to continue to employ the respondent-workman on different projects from time to time.

This arrangement is acceptable to the respondentworkman, as conveyed by him to his counsel Mr.S.Gowthaman.

We dispose of the special leave petition with the direction that instead of absorption, the respondent-workman shall be employed on any of the ongoing project and after its completion the Management will try and accommodate him in any other projects that may be at hand at that time.”

3. The petitioner states that he is continuously working in various projects in I.I.T., Madras, but he is being engaged only as a temporary employee and he has already completed 25 years of temporary services in I.I.T. Therefore, his services are to be regularized.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner is continuing in service as temporary employee (NMR) even now. The petitioner is having rich experience in project works in I.I.T Madras. When he is fully qualified, he must be accommodated in any one of the suitable post. Now, the petitioner is aged about 54 years and at this age, he cannot seek any other employment as he has already served more than 25 years in I.I.T. Thus, he has to be permanently absorbed with all service benefi