Irregular appointment and non-compliance with Recruitment Rules can disentitle an employee from seeking the benefit of regularisation.

JUDGMENT :

S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for entire records connected with the impugned orders passed by the 2nd respondent vide Revision Petition No. 4/2013/Sapa (Na. Ka. No. 1102/2013/SaPa dated 18.07.2013 and Review Order of the 3rd respondent passed in Na. Ka. No. 9069/2013 SaPa dated 13.12.2013, and quash the same and direct the respondents to regularise the petitioner in service as Salesman in the 4th respondent Society with all consequential benefits.

1. The Revisional order passed under Section 153 of the Act by the 2nd respondent, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for grant of regularisation is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Salesman on temporary basis. The petitioner, admittedly, was not recruited through District Employment Exchange and appointed by the erstwhile Board of the Co-operative Society. The petitioner was terminated from the service on 28.05.2002 and his services were not regularised. Relying on the Government order in G.O.Ms. No. 86 dated 12.03.2001, the petitioner made a request to regularise the service in the sanctioned post of salesman in the time scale of pay and the order of appointment was also questioned. The Revisional Authority considered the claim of the writ petitioner and rejected the same on the ground that the petitioner was not appointed in accordance with the Recruitment Rules in force and therefore, as per the judgment of the High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, his services cannot be regularised, more specifically, it is contended that as per Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, the appointment of the writ petitioner was irregular and therefore, he is not entitled for the reinstatement of service.

3. The Learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the appointment through District Employment Exchange was dispensed with by the Government and therefore, the case of the writ petitioner ought to have been considered during the relevant point of time.

4. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner was terminated from service on 29.05.2002 and the Revisional order was passed on 18.07.2013, and even at the time of the filing the writ petition, the petitioner was 48 years old and now he is around 56 years of age. Besides the age of the writ petitioner, his initial appointment was made not in accordance with the Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. Since, the initial appointment was irregular, the petitioner cannot seek the benefit of regularisation. In view of the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of L. Justin vs. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, (2002) 4 CTC 385.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also disproved the irregular appointments in the case of A. Uma Rani vs. Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Others, (2004) 7 SCC 112.

6. This Court is of an opinion that the order impugned, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner by the Revisional Authority is not infirm. However, the case of the writ petitioner may be considered by the Co-operative societies for engaging him as a daily wage employee on the need basis, if the services are required.

7. With these observations, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.