Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 1558
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, N.SENTHILKUMAR, JJ.
P.Jerlin Annuncia – Appellant
Versus
The University of Madras – Respondent
W.P.No.27087 of 2017 and W.M.P.Nos.1832 of 2018 and 28911 & 28912 of 2017
Decided on : 05-07-2024
Advocate Appeared
For the Appellant : Mr.V.Govardhanan for M/s.Row and Reddy
For the Respondents: Mr.A.S.Vijayaragavan Standing Counsel
IMPORTANT POINT
Temporary employees cannot claim regularization without sanctioned posts and adherence to recruitment rules, as established by constitutional principles.
Headnote:
Employment - Writ Petition - Article 226 - The court discussed the principles of regularization and the necessity of sanctioned posts, emphasizing that temporary appointments cannot claim regularization without adherence to service rules and constitutional mandates.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a temporary Nurse at a University, challenged her termination without due process, citing a resolution for regularization by the Syndicate, while the University argued the lack of sanctioned posts and compliance with service rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was appointed temporarily without sanctioned posts and that the resolution for regularization was not binding, thus upholding the termination as lawful.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regularization and reinstatement despite being appointed temporarily without a sanctioned post.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that regularization requires adherence to service rules and sanctioned posts, and temporary employees cannot claim rights to regularization or parity in salary without legal backing.
Result: The Writ Petition was dismissed.
ORDER :
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the Syndicate Resolution dated 11.08.2017 passed by the 2nd respondent and the consequential order of dismissal bearing ref.no.F1(B)/ESSTT./2017/R-52 dated 22.11.2017 passed by the 1st respondent University (EX-A) and to quash the same as being illegal, malafide and contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice and for a consequential direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service w.e.f.22.08.2017 and to continue in service till her date of superannuation and to grant her full back wages together with all other attendant benefits.
The writ petitioner was appointed as temporary Nurse in the Medical Centre situated in Madras University campus. Her initial appointment was made on consolidated pay. It was a tenure appointment.
2. Mr.V.Govardhanan, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the Syndicate passed a resolution to regularise the services of these temporary consolidated pay employees.
Several recommendations are made by the University. However, the order of termination has been issued in proceedings dated 22.08.2017, without any opportunity to the writ petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.
3. Mr.A.S.Vijayaragavan, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would submit that based on the Audit Objection raised by the Audit party, the University has decided to terminate the services of these contract/temporary staff, who all are engaged in Medical Centre in the University. These employees were appointed in accordance with the service rules. The post of Nurse and Medical Officer sanctioned by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The resolution passed by the Syndicate is recommendatory in nature, but the Government of Tamil Nadu has not granted any sanctioned post. Therefore, the University had no objection to terminate the services of these employees. More-so, University is not in a position to pay salary to these staff members in the Medical Centres.
4. It is not in dispute that the initial appointment of the petitioner was on consolidated pay temporary basis. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Syndicate passed the resolution. Even in one resolution they have passed that the services are to be regularised, but in any other Syndicate resolution dated 11.08.2017, the Syndicate has considered Audit Objection, wherein it is stated that the seven categories of post approved by the Senate on 25.10.2014, are not sanctioned by the Government of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, it is apparently clear that the Government of Tamil Nadu has not sanctioned the post of Medical Officer or Staff Nurse in Madras University. In the absence of any sanctioned post, the benefit of regularization cannot be extended.
5. Since the salary is to be paid by the Government by way of grant. The appointment of the petitioner for a subsequent period would also indicate that certain conditions are imposed. Perusal of the conditions would reveal that the petitioner executed a Deed of Agreement in the prescribed form and approved the terms and conditions in the Stamp Paper Rs.20/- soon after joining duty. Though the appointment order states that the petitioner was appointed in the time scale of pay, but the terms and conditions stipulated and the conditions would reveal that the nature of appointment is temporary and not against sanctioned post.
6. For appointing employees in sanctioned post, the Service Rules as applicable are to be followed. Such appointments are to be made by providing opportunity to all the eligible candidates, who all are aspiring to secure regular employment in the University. However, the writ petitioner was not appointed by following the Service Rules in force. Therefore, she cannot seek regu
