IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes the principle that continuous service and compliance with recruitment requirements can create a legal basis for regular appointment, and emphasizes the prohibition of unfair labour practices.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing Respondents 1 to 6 to regularize the Services of the Petitioner in cadre of Executive officer or section officer as the Case may be at their discretion based on the recruitment process initiated under the Advertisement No.03/2014 of Respondents 1 and 2 encompassing the invitation Letter dated 02.10.2014 for Written test followed by an Interview invitation Letter, dated 21.11.2014 again followed by a direction for Medical Examination letter dated 12.03.2015 culminating in the compliance of the petitioner thereof vide mail dated 18.03.2015 addressed to Respondents 1 and 2 enclosing therein the Medical Report of the Superintendent of Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital Chennai. Thus effectively completing the recruitment process in March, 2015 itself albeit withholding issue of the appointment letter by Respondent 1 and 2 to the petitioner for reasons unknown despite availability of vacancies in cadre of Executive Officer or Section Officer for Faculty position in the Information Technology Training Centre in the office of Respondents 3 and 5 from the year 2015 till now by taking into account the continuous service of the petitioner for more than 11 years period from 07.12.2009 to 24.12.2020 as faculty the office of Respondents 3 and 5 by declaring that the oral order of termination dated 24.12.2020 of the petitioner by Respondent 3, is void, inoperative, arbitrary, unfair, unjust, arbitrary, malafide, discriminatory, without any lawful authority and denial of natural justice, which is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.)

1. This petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to regularize the service of the petitioner in the category of Executive Officer or Section Officer based on the recruitment process initiated vide advertisement No.03/2014 and consider the petitioner's continuous 11 years service between the period from 07.12.2009 to 24.12.2020 as faculty in the office of the respondents 3 to 5 and to declare the oral order of termination dated 24.12.2020 as void.

2. Mr.A.Irudayam, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was initially engaged through M/s.Ma foi Ranstad for the period from 07.12.2009 to 31.08.2013 as a contract faculty under a contract. The contract was terminated on 31.08.2013. However, at the instance of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner continued as a faculty from 01.09.2013 through the 7th respondent. The petitioner was never interviewed by the 7th respondent. The alleged contract was sham and nominal one. Actually the petitioner is the direct employee of the respondents 1 to 6. On seeing the Advertisement No:03/2014 for recruitment to the post of Assistant Secretary / Section Officer etc., the petitioner participated in the Selection process and engaged with the 3rd respondent. However, the respondents withheld the appointment order for the reasons best known to them. Hence, the respondents cannot treat the petitioner like a contractual employee and terminate his service through the impugned order.

3. Mr.M.Rajesh Ramanathan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 6 submitted that the petitioner was only engaged as a contractual employee through the contractor with whom the 1st respondent institute has a separate contract; the appointment order of the petitioner was issued by the contractor of the petitioner; the monthly pay slips were issued by the Contractor and attendance was maintained by the Contractor through Biometric system placed in the Institute; the contractor can terminate the petitioner at any time; the petitioner was initially appointed as a contract faculty in the year 2009. The contract ended in the year 2013. The Recruitment for the post of Assistant Secretary, Executive Officer and Section Officer is of the year 2014 and the same has not been concluded and it was withdrawn subsequently; the