Irregular or illegal appointments cannot be regularised, and the benefit of regularisation already granted by the government is a concession that cannot be extended further.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to G.O.Ms.No.130, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E5) Department, dated 19.07.2007 of the first respondent and the consequential order passed by the third respondent vide proceedings bearing Na.Ka.No.12030/2009/Pa E1-1 dated 25.05.2011 and quash the same in so far it relates to regularisation of the service of the petitioner in the cadre of Night Watchman after completion of 10 years of service in the cadre of Night Watchman and further direct the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner in the cadre of Night Watchman from the date of his initial appointment viz., 20.03.1990 with all consequential benefits.

1. The writ on hand has been instituted questioning the validity of the order passed by the first respondent-Government in G.O.Ms.No.130, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E5) Department, dated 19.07.2007 and the consequential order passed by the third respondent implementing G.O.Ms.No.130 in proceedings dated 25.05.2011, are under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner was initially appointed as Part Time Panchayat Clerk on 28.06.1989. Subsequently on 19.03.1990, the petitioner was appointed as Night Watchman in Tiruvannamalai Panchayat Union and joined the service on 20.03.1990 on consolidated pay. Admittedly, the writ petitioner was not appointed through District Employment Exchange. Thus, his services were sought to be terminated on 17.06.1992.

3. The petitioner filed O.A.No.8056 of 1992 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and obtained interim orders and accordingly continued in service. The said Original Application was allowed on 24.08.1999. Thereafter, the writ petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant in Tiruvannamalai Panchayat Union on 01.08.2006.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the similarly placed persons like the petitioner who were not appointed through the District Employment Exchange had approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and obtained orders were granted the benefit of retrospective regularisation from the date of their initial appointment. However, the case of the writ petitioner was not considered on par with those similarly placed persons. The case of the writ petitioner was independently considered subsequently and the Government issued the impugned G.O.Ms.No.130, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E5) Department, dated 19.07.2007 and the benefit of regularisation was granted with effect from the date of passing of the Government Order on 19.07.2007. Therefore, the petitioner lost the benefit of his services from the year 1990.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that when similarly placed persons were granted with the benefit of retrospective regularisation, the same benefit cannot be denied to the writ petitioner as it resulted in discrimination. When the petitioner was admittedly appointed as Part Time employee and thereafter on consolidated pay and subsequently absorbed in the regular establishment, the benefit of regularisation is to be extended from the date of appointment on par with the other similarly placed persons.

6. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. Accordingly, the respondents distinguished the case of Mr.K.Mayilvaganan with that of the case of the writ petitioner. It is contended that the case of Mr.K.Mayilvaganan is not identical and it is different. Further the judgment in both the cases are also not identical. In the case of the writ petitioner, this Court in its judgment dated 24.08.1999 passed in WP No.8056 of 1992 quashed the order of termination dated 17.06.1992 on the ground that the order was passed without is