The main legal point established in the judgment is that irregular appointments, if not illegal, may qualify for regularization, as determined by the principles laid down in the discussed Supreme Court cases.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer in W.P.No.27667/2015: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records connected with the impugned letter of the 1st respondent vide Letter No.36694/AP-1/2013 dated 13.03.2014 and quash the same and directing the respondents 1 to 3 to regularise the service of the petitioner as Driver w.e.f. 26.06.1980, with all monetary and service benefits and disburse terminal and pension benefits to the petitioner on account of his retirement on 31.03.2012.

Prayer in W.P.No.27668/2015: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records connected with the impugned letter of the 1st respondent vide Letter No.36694/AP-1/2013 dated 13.03.2014 and quash the same and directing the respondents 1 to 3 to regularise the service of the petitioner’s husband V.Manoharan as Driver w.e.f. 20.11.1989, with all monetary and service benefits and disburse death and pensionary benefits to the petitioner on account of death of her husband on 15.05.2010.)

Common Order:

The petitioner in both the writ petitions were appointed on consolidated basis as Drivers under the School Children Health Checkup Scheme under the control of Chief Educational Officers. Through the common impugned letter dated 13.03.2014, the first respondent herein had stated that the appointment of the petitioners under the aforesaid Scheme were irregular and hence, their services cannot be absorbed by the Health and Family Welfare Department.

2. Both these petitioners herein were appointed as Drivers under the Scheme as under:

W.P.No.27667 of 2015

W.P.No.27668 of 2015

Since the order impugned in both the writ petitions are common and the grounds raised by these petitioners are one and the same, a common order is passed.

3. It is not in dispute that both the petitioners herein were appointed on consolidated pay and that their appointments were irregular. When the Scheme of the Education Department, under which the petitioners were appointed was discontinued, their services under the School Education Department was proposed to be absorbed by the Health and Family Welfare Department. Accordingly, the respondents had called for their willingness for absorptions in the Health and Family Welfare Department, to which they had acceded. Thereafter, their request for absorption to the Health and Family Welfare Department has now been rejected on the ground that the appointments were irregular.

4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 had held that the High Court should not issue directions for absorptions or regularization of temporary, contractual, ad hoc employees, etc., who had continued for a long term in public employment, unless the recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional scheme. Presumably, the respondents have denied absorption / regularization of the services of the petitioners herein on the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umadevi’s case (supra).

5. Admittedly, the claims of these petitioners have been rejected only on the ground that their initial absorption into the scheme was irregular. It is not the case of the respondents that these appointments were “illegal” appointments. As a matter of fact