Regularization of service is the exclusive domain of the employer, and temporary and casual employees cannot seek regularization. Government orders come into effect from the date of issuance unless stated otherwise.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: in W.P (MD) Nos. 25224 & 25226 of 2018: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his Letter No.13970/Pa.Ka.4 (1) Department, dated 01.11.2018 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and consequently directing the respondents to give equal scale of pay to the post of Full Time Watchman on par with the permanent Watchman post from 16.05.1997 to 04.05.1998 in the light of the Hon''ble Apex Court judgment reported in 2016(IV) LLJ 513 (SC) State of Punjab Vs. Jagjitsing and others together with interest of 18% respectively.

In W.P (MD)No. 25225 of 2018: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his Letter No.13970/Pa.Ka.4 (1) Department, dated 01.11.2018 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and consequently directing the respondents to give equal scale of pay for the petitioner''s husband to the post of Full Time Watchman on par with the permanent Watchman post from 16.05.1997 to 04.05.1998 in the light of the Hon''ble Apex Court judgment reported in 2016(IV) LLJ 513 (SC) State of Punjab Vs. Jagjitsing and others together with interest of 18% respectively.)

Common Order

1. These Writ Petitions have been filed for Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order, dated 11.01.2018 with a consequential direction to the respondents to give equal scale of pay to the post of fulltime watchman on par with the permanent watchman post for a period from 16.05.1997 to 04.05.1998 in the light of the Hon''ble Apex Court judgment reported in 2016(IV) LLJ 513 (SC) State of Punjab Vs. Jagjitsing and others.

2. Heard Mr. D. Selvanayagam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. V. Om Prakash, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. Perused the material documents available on record.

3. The petitioners in W.P (MD)Nos.25224 to 25226 of 2018 and the petitioner''s husband in W.P.(MD)No.25225 of 2018 had failed in SSLC. They were selected for the post of fulltime watchman through the Employment Exchange on merits and as a contingent staff and joined service in a Government High School, Trichy District. Subsequently, their service was regularized through G.O.Ms.No.367, School Education (R-1) Department, dated 20.08.1997. They were appointed through employment exchange with necessary qualifications in the sanctioned post.

4. The contention of the petitioners is that their service ought to be regularized with effect from the date of initial appointment. But the District Educational Officer, Musiri, vide proceedings, dated 07.10.1999 has regularized their service only with effect from 06.05.1998. The 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction to pass any orders changing the date of regularization from the date mentioned in the Government order. The Chief Educational Officer, Trichy has already ordered for the petitioners'' regularization with effect from 01.04.1983, vide his order, dated 19.02.1998 and inspite of that the District Educational Officer has passed an order, dated 29.01.2008 stating that the regularization with effect from 06.05.1998 is correct. The petitioners have submitted several representations to regularize the service from the initial date of appointment or atleast from the date mentioned in the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.367, School Education (CR.1) Department dated 20.08.1997. But the respondents have not considered the claim. Infact the Headmaster has recommended for regularization from the date of appointment. In the meanwhile, they had attained superannuation.

5. A similarly placed person, namely, Kannan filed a writ petition W.P(MD)No.2392 of 2008 and the same was allowed, vide order, dated 01.08.2011. The respondents have preferred an appeal in W.A.SR(MD)No