IMPORTANT POINT
Regularisation of employment requires adherence to constitutional provisions and recruitment rules, specifically against sanctioned posts.

ORDER :

1. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the respondents to regularise the services of the writ petitioner in the post of Office Assistant in the Office of the third respondent based on G.O.Ms. No. 74, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 27.06.2013.

2. The writ petitioner was engaged as daily rated employee as Scavenger cum Sweeper. The order of appointment issued by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai dated 07.05.1990 reveals that he was appointed as daily wage employee on temporary basis and his services are liable to be terminated. Admittedly, the petitioner was not appointed in the sanctioned post.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that recommendations were made by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court as well as by the High Court to the Government for sanctioning post or for conversion of post. Since the recommendations are not considered by the Government, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 would oppose by stating that the petitioner was appointed as daily wage employee on temporary basis and he was not appointed in accordance with the Service Rules in force. There was no sanctioned post during the relevant point of time and therefore, the initial appointment of the petitioner was irregular. Thus, he cannot seek the benefit of regularisation or permanent absorption. Accordingly, the present writ petition is to be rejected.

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader would rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court passed in W.A. No. 1483 of 2013 dated 20.02.2018, wherein, the facts are identical. The Division Bench held as follows:

“4. Before the writ court, the appellants 1 and 2 filed separate affidavits contending that there was no sanctioned post of Water Supply Assistant. According to the appellants, the first respondent was engaged on daily wages as a Water Supply Assistant, without there being any recruitment rule. It was contended that as there was no post of Water Supply Assistant sanctioned for Maruthancode village Panchayat, the first respondent is not entitled for regularisation.

5. The learned Single Judge, taking into account the contention taken by the first respondent, issued a mandamus directing the appellants to regularise his services.

6. There is nothing on record to show that the first respondent was appointed against a sanctioned post. Even according to the first respondent, his father donated land to the local body, subject to the condition that he should be given appointment. The then President of Maruthancode Village Panchayat appears to have appointed the first respondent on daily wages. The question of regularization would arise only in case the appointment was against a sanctioned post. The first respondent has no case that there was a sanctioned post of Water Supply Assistant and he has been working ever since his appointment against such sanctioned post. The fact that the first respondent was working from 30 September, 1999 would not give him a right for regularization unless there is a Government Order directing the regularization of such employees. Thee was no order quoted by the learned Single Judge in the matter of regularization of Water Supply Assistants who were appointed without there being a substantive post. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned Single Judge was not correct in regularising the services of the first respondent.”

6. Considering the arguments as advanced between the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the fourth respondent and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 to this lis on hand, the legal principles governing the regularisation and permanent absorption has been settled by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi,