Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, C. KUMARAPPAN, JJ.
A.J. Ethiraj – Petitioner
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Law Department – Respondent
W.P. No. 7087 of 2023, W.M.P. Nos. 7170 to 7174 of 2023
Decided On : 24-07-2024
Appointment - Junior Administrative Assistant - Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Sections 6(5), 9(5) - The court emphasized the necessity of following proper recruitment procedures as mandated by the Act and constitutional provisions, declaring the appointments made without due process as unconstitutional.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the appointment of respondents 3 to 18 as Junior Administrative Assistants, arguing that the appointments were made without following proper recruitment procedures, denying them their right to participate in the selection process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointments were made without issuing a recruitment notification or following established procedures, violating the principles of equality and fair opportunity in public employment as mandated by the Constitution.
Issues: Whether the appointments of respondents 3 to 18 were made in accordance with the legal provisions and established recruitment procedures, and whether the petitioners were denied their right to participate in the recruitment process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that appointments made without following the statutory rules and constitutional mandates are void ab initio, emphasizing the need for transparency and equal opportunity in public employment.
Result: The impugned appointment orders were quashed, and the Tamil Nadu State Legal Service Authority was directed to follow proper recruitment procedures for filling the posts.
ORDER :
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the record in Order TNSLSA No. 8080/E/2022 dated 12.10.2022 on the file of 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and further direct the respondents to promote the petitioners to the post of Junior Administrative Assistant.
1. The lis on hand has been instituted questioning the legal validity of the appointment of the respondents 3 to 18 to the post of Junior Administrative Assistants in the services of the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority. Perusal of the impugned appointment order reveals that in exercise of the powers under Sub-Section (5) of Section 6 and Sub-Section (5) of Section 9 of “The Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987” [hereinafter shall be referred to “Act”], read with Sub-Rule 2 Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu District Legal Services Authorities Rules, 1997, the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice/Patron-in-Chief and the Hon'ble Executive Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority have ordered provisionally to appoint the respondents 3 to 18 to the post of Junior Administrative Assistant in the existing vacancy in the pay band of Rs.19,500-62,000/- as per Pay Matrix Level-8 with all admissible allowances under the orders and Rules now in force.
2. Section 6(5) of the Act enumerates that “the State Authority may appoint such number of Officers and other employees as may be prescribed by the State Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court, for the efficient discharge of its functions under this Act.” The provision unambiguously clarifies that the State Legal Services Authority may appoint such number of officers as may be prescribed by the State Government. Therefore, the State Government is the Authority to sanction the posts for the State Legal Services Authority. The State Government has to disburse the salary to the employees appointed by the State Authority under Section 6(5) of the Act.
3. Section 6(5) of the Act empowers the State Authority to appoint such number of officers and other employees as may be prescribed by the State Government. Therefore, the appointment order impugned dated 12.10.2022 cannot be construed as contract appointment. Though certain conditions are stipulated stating that the appointment is purely temporary and liable to be terminated, the said appointments are capable of being considered as regular appointment by declaring probation of the respondents 3 to 18. Even contract appointments to the public posts are to be made by following due procedures as contemplated and by following established principles as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
4. The appointments of respondents 3 to 18 came to be challenged in the present writ petition by the writ petitioners mainly on the ground that they are serving as Office Assistants in the 2nd respondent-Authority and they are permanent employees. They are eligible for the promotion to the post of Junior Administrative Assistants and that apart, the petitioners are eligible to participate in the process of recruitment to the post of Junior Administrative Assistants, if any recruitment notification is issued. In other words, their right to participate in direct recruitment process is also denied. Thus, they are constrained to institute the present writ proceedings.
5. Mr.P.Senthil Dhandapani, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the right of the petitioners to consider their name for promotion to the post of Junior Administrative Assistants has been denied. The petitioners are in verge of promotion and by making illegal appointments, their opportunities are taken away. The respondents 3 to 18 were appointed even without issuing recruitment notification or any publication. The appointments are made merely by receiving individual applications and without conducting any selection process. Therefore, the petitioners are deprived
Appointments in public service must adhere to constitutional mandates and established procedures; failure to do so renders such appointments void.
In order that a mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty on the authority and the aggrieved party had a legal right under t....
Long-term employment based on transparent recruitment cannot be invalidated solely due to procedural irregularities, reinforcing principles of natural justice and legitimate expectations.
Appointments made on contractual basis, without following the regular process of selection as per the relevant rules, do not confer any right to the appointee for regularization.
The court recognized the right of the State to appoint persons on temporary basis to meet its exigencies, and held that the failure of the ATTC to maintain the student to lecturer ratio and the petit....
Employers must clearly specify the nature of appointments in job advertisements; failure to do so leads to regularization of initially contractual positions when recruitment processes are followed.
The court established that regularization of temporary employees must comply with constitutional mandates, ensuring equal opportunity and adherence to service rules.
Appointments in public service must comply with constitutional mandates and recruitment rules; backdoor appointments cannot be regularized.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
