Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 1089
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS, (MADURAI BENCH)
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
N. Sasikala - Petitioner
Versus
The Chief Engineer/Personnel, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. and Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(MD)No.13611 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.10648 to 10650 of 2017
Decided On : 28-08-2024
For the Petitioner: Mr. G. Karthik for M/s. T. Lajapathi Roy & Associates.
For the Respondents: Mr. S. Arivalagan, Standing Counsel.
IMPORTANT POINT
Temporary employment does not confer permanent status or the right to challenge termination or appointment decisions.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Employment Law - The court upheld the dismissal of a writ petition challenging the appointment of a maternity assistant, emphasizing that temporary or contract-based employment does not confer permanent status or rights to challenge termination orders, aligning with precedent set in similar cases.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, appointed as a Maternity Assistant on a temporary, daily wage basis, challenged the appointment of another individual under an order from the third respondent, claiming a right to continue in service until the position was filled permanently.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner’s temporary appointment did not confer any permanent status, and referenced a previous ruling that supported the dismissal of similar challenges by contract-based employees.
Issues: Whether a temporary employee has the right to challenge the appointment of another individual to a position they held temporarily.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that temporary or contract-based employment does not grant the right to contest termination or appointment decisions, as established in prior case law.
Result: The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
ORDER :
(Abdul Quddhose, J.) :
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Office Order No. 573/SEG/Tin/Adm/A1/F Mat Assistant/2017 dated 30.06.2017 on the file of the third respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the third respondent to consider the petitioner for continuation in temporary service as the Maternity Assistant till the post is filled permanently within the time stipulated by this Court.)
The petitioner has challenged the appointment of the fifth respondent under the order of the third respondent dated 13.06.2017 in this Writ Petition.
2. As seen from the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, the petitioner has been appointed as Maternity Assistant temporarily, on daily wages basis and the period of contract is for a particular period. Though, this period was extended from time to time, it cannot confer permanent status to the petitioner. In a case involving a similar issue, another learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 29.01.2018 passed in W.P.(MD)Nos.17277 and 17278 of 2016, has held that since the petitioners were only appointed on contract basis and were also outsourced and they were also not holding any regular posts, they are not allowed to challenge the termination orders.
3. The case on hand being of a similar nature and this Court being in agreement with the view taken by another learned Single Judge of this Court in the aforesaid decision, does not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 30.06.2017 passed by the third respondent.
4. In the result, there is no merit in this Writ Petition.
5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
