Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
S. Mageswari - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary to Government, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 9300 of 2021
Decided On : 21-06-2022
Regularization - Part-Time Instructor - G.O.Ms.No.42, Tourism and Culture Department dated 28.03.2017, G.O.Ms.No.112, Tourism and Culture Department dated 03.08.2011 - The court discussed the petitioner's claim for regularization as a part-time instructor and the application of G.O.Ms.No.42 and G.O.Ms.No.112. The court analyzed the responsibilities of regular contract lecturers and the petitioner's appointment conditions. The court also referred to the principles of regularization and parity in pay as established by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and Others v. Dayalal and Others [AIR 2011 SC 1193] and the decision in Dr.R.M.Thirumaran v. The Administrator General and Others [2013 SCC Online Mad 346].
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a part-time instructor, sought regularization of her services as a full-time lecturer based on her qualifications and previous appointments. The second respondent rejected her request, citing her temporary consolidated basis appointment and lack of responsibilities as a regular contract lecturer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claim for regularization could not be granted as it amounted to a back-door entry and did not meet the requirements for regular appointment. The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the petitioner's service did not qualify for regularization.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, appointed as a part-time instructor on a contractual basis, was entitled to regularization.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of regularization and parity in pay as established by the Supreme Court and previous decisions to determine that the petitioner's claim for regularization could not be granted.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, concluding that the petitioner's service did not meet the requirements for regularization and amounted to a back-door entry.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relevant to the order in Proceedings Order No.6341/A1/2017 dated 26.09.2020 passed by the second respondent and quash the same as illegal, improper, unreasonable, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and thereby direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner.0
1. The petitioner, challenging the impugned order of the second respondent dated 26.09.2020, in and by which his claim for regularization has been rejected, has filed the present writ petition.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she has qualified in M.A.(Music) in May 2007, Diploma in Bharathanatiyam in May 2017, Diploma in Music Teacher Training in May 2008 and passed M.Phil., (Fine Arts) in November, 2009. One Thiru.B.Srinivasan, who was working as an Instructor (Music and Dance) in the third respondent College retired in the year 2010 and as the said post became vacant, the third respondent invited application for Lecturer (Music and Dance) and the petitioner applied for the said post and joined as Part Time Lecturer on contract basis on 27.06.2011. The petitioner continued with the said job till 2015 with some artificial break. The petitioner made several representations to the respondents to regularize her service as full time Lecturer (Music and Dance) according to her qualification.
3. The representation of the petitioner dated 14.07.2015 was kept pending without any action and therefore, she has filed W.P.No.22833 of 2015 seeking for a Mandamus to consider her representation. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner was transferred from the third respondent College to Tamil Nadu Music College, Adyar, Chennai-600 028, as Lecturer in the same department on a monthly contract basis and she joined in the said post during September, 2015. The petitioner served in the said post till 2019 without being regularized. According to the petitioner, the second respondent had regularized many Part Time Lecturers from the date of their initial appointment, vide G.O.Ms.No.42, Tourism and Culture Department dated 28.03.2017 and G.O.Ms.No.112, Tourism and Culture Department dated 03.08.2011 and the same analogy applies to the petitioner, but the respondents 1 and 2 have not regularized the services of the petitioner inspite of several requests and representations.
4. The petitioner has filed another writ petition in W.P.No.30074 of 2017 and the same was dismissed on 23.11.2017 on the ground that she did not posses NET/SLET/SET, which is a compulsory requirement for appointment as Lecturer. The earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.22833 of 2015 came up for hearing on 02.01.2020 and the same was disposed of by this Court with a direction to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.07.2015 as expeditiously as possible and in compliance of the same, the present impugned order dated 26.09.2020 came to be passed by the second respondent, rejecting the petitioner's request for regularization. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
5. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein it has been stated as follows:
(i) As per the earlier orders of this Court, the petitioner was requested to appear in person with relevant documents on 08.09.2020, wherein she did not give proper reply to the questions raised and the second respondent, after scrutinizing the representations dated 14.07.2015 and 08.09.2020, has passed the impugned order dated 26.09.2020 rejecting her request on the reasoning that she was appointed as Part Time Teacher to handle 2 periods in a week and totally 8 classes in a month and therefore, her claim cannot be accepted due to the reason that the petitioner was appointed only on temporary consolidated basis only.
(ii) The question of shifting the petitioner by the respondents
Regularization of part-time employees must adhere to the principles of regular appointment and cannot be granted as a back-door entry.
Point of law : The one-time exercise should consider all daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10-4-2006 without availing the protection of any interi....
Regularization of services of lecturers requires adherence to specific eligibility criteria and procedures; failure to comply results in the denial of such claims.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the prohibition of replacing adhoc employees with another set of adhoc employees and the need for fair consideration of adhoc employees for regular....
Temporary or contractual employees lack legal entitlement to regularization unless appointed through lawful selection processes as established by precedent.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
