Intermittent service on daily wages cannot be considered as continuous service for the purpose of regularisation.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: PETITION filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to regularize the service of the petitioner herein as Cook in Adi Dravidar Welfare Students Hostel, Sooaduthurai, on the time scale of pay from the petitioner''s initial entry into service i..e, on June 1992 with all consequential services and monetary benefits in terms of the order of this Court in w.P.Nos.31248 and 31249 of 2013 dated 07.01.2014.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a mandamus directing the second respondent District Adi Dravida and Tribal Welfare Officer, Perambalur to regularise the services of the petitioner as Cook in Adi Dravidar Welfare Students Hostel, S.Aduthudari on time scale of pay, according to the petitioner, from the initial entry into service, i.e., June, 1992 together with all consequential and monetary benefits.

2. The petitioner places reliance upon an order passed in W.P.Nos.31248 and 31249 of 2013 dated 07.01.2014 which was passed with respect to two different other individuals. In the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition, the petitioner claimed that he had registered his name in the District Employment Exchange on 03.09.1992 and was appointed as Cook in June, 1992 on daily wages in Adi Dravidar Students Welfare Hostel, Pennakonam. The details of the period during which he had so worked on daily wages have been given in the affidavit.

3. Subsequently, he had attended an interview consequent to having been sponsored by the District Employment Exchange at Perambalur in the year 2011 and the interview was conducted by the District Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Perambalur on 18.02.2011. The petitioner had attended the interview, but did not receive any posting orders. Therefore, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.5502 of 2011 seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent therein, viz., The District Adidravidar and Tribal Welfare Officer, Perambalur to issue an order of appointment based on the interview held on 18.02.2011.

4. A learned single Judge of this Court vide order dated 20.01.2017, after examining the stand of the respondent, though the petitioner did not satisfy the conditions on the eligibility criteria, had however held as follows:

''7. In the counter affidavit, the respondent has stated that the petitioner has not satisfied the conditions on the eligibility criteria laid down for the said post. Hence, the petitioner was not selected. But in the detailed counter filed by the respondent, they have not even spelt any reasons for nonselection of the petitioner. The only reason stated in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner has not submitted any proof for his age and community and therefore, he was not eligible for appointment for the post of ''Cook''. Further, the other contention is that the decision taken by the appointing selection authority/respondent is final and therefore the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right over the decision taken by the Authority concerned. There is no proper explanation for the reasons for non-selection of the petitioner is stated in the counter affidavit. The only reason stated in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner has not produced the Age and Community Certificate before the authority concerned. It is also noted that, at the time of admission, by an order dated 26.04.2011, this Court has granted an interim direction to the respondent to keep one post vacant in each of the Writ Petition till further orders passed by this Court.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the counsel for the parties, an opportunity shall be given to the petitioner even though the petitioner has submitted that he has produced the age and community certificate to the respondent. However, another opportunity shall be given to the petitioner to produce the age and community certificate befor