The main legal point established in the judgment is that the denial of regularization of the petitioners' services from the completion of 10 years of service in 2002 was discriminatory and contrary to G.O.No.22, which did not include a requirement for continuous service of 240 days per year for 10 years.

ORDER :

Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records leading to the issue of G.O.(2D) No.124, Agriculture Department dated 25.05.2009 issued by first respondent the letter No AUP2/125176/2006 dated 01.06.2009 and letter no. AUP2/110129 /2018 dated 15.02.2019 issued by second respondent and the proceedings no. A5/7861/2009 dated 17.06.2009 issued by third respondent and quash the same and direct the Respondents to regularise the service of the petitioners with effect from the date of completion of ten years of service as daily wage employees with monetary and service benefits.

The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records leading to the issue of G.O.(2D) No.124, Agriculture Department dated 25.05.2009 issued by first respondent the letter No AUP2/125176/2006 dated 01.06.2009 and letter no. AUP2/110129 /2018 dated 15.02.2019 issued by second respondent and the proceedings no. A5/7861/2009 dated 17.06.2009 issued by third respondent and quash the same and direct the Respondents to regularise the service of the petitioners with effect from the date of completion of ten years of service as daily wage employees with monetary and service benefits.

2. These four petitioners initially were appointed as daily wagers in the Bio Fertilizer Unit at Cuddalore on 22.07.1992, having their name being sponsored by the Employment Exchange concerned, by the proceedings of the Agricultural Chemist (Bio Fertilizer Unit, Cuddalore) vide is proceedings dated 22.07.1992.

3. Though the petitioners had been working in that capacity for several years, their services were not regularized and they were also not brought under the time scale of pay. Hence, the petitioners approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.25441 of 2004, where a direction was given by this Court dated 08.09.2004 to decide the representation of the petitioners with regard to their grievance of regularisation.

4. Pursuant to the said order passed by this Court, by taking into account of the import of G.O.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 28.02.2006, the second respondent had sent a communication to the first respondent on 16.11.2006, where inter alia the following has been stated,

5. Along with the said letter, the second respondent also annexed a tabular column, where details of casual employees ie., the petitioners herein working in the Chemistry Wing of the Agriculture Department has been stated. The tabular column suggests that, all these petitioners were appointed or initially engaged as daily wagers at the respondent department ie., the office of the Agricultural Chemist, BFPC, Cuddalore with effect from 27.07.1992. They completed 10 years of service as 27.07.2002. All these petitioners were appointed through employment exchange. Insofar as their educational qualification is concerned, they failed in 10th standard except one candidate viz., Selvaraj, who passed only 9th Standard. By making this communication by way of recommendation, the second respondent had requested the first respondent to regularize their services in view of the Government Order ie., G.O.No.22, Having considered the said recommendation made by the second respondent, the first respondent issued an order in G.O.(2D) No.124, Agriculture Department dated 25.05.2009, where the first respondent ordered to regularize the services of the petitioners in the post of Watchman in the respondent Department with effect from the date of issuance of the G.O.(2D) No.124 dated 25.05.2009.

6. By virtue of this order having been passed by the first respondent, the chance of getting regularization on completion of 10 years of service ie., in the year 2002 for the petitioners is defeated, thereby they may not be eligible or entitled to