The court ruled that the matter regarding the regularization of part-time workers must be re-examined based on all relevant documents, emphasizing the need for factual clarity.

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

(Judgment was delivered by S.S. SUNDAR, J.

All the above five Appeals are against the common order of the learned Single Judge, dated 16.07.2021, in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.23878 to 23882 of 2012 filed by the respondents in these Appeals.

2.The respondents in these Appeals, who are hereinafter referred to as writ petitioners, claim that they were working on part time basis as Assistants in Veterinary Sub-Centres. They filed the writ petitions for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the appellants not to fill up the post of Animal Husbandry Assistants on the basis of the letter dated 08.05.2012 on the file of the 2^nd appellant without absorbing/regularising the writ petitioners while filling up the vacancies of Animal Husbandry Assistants in any one of the vacancies in Dindigul District.

3.The case of the writ petitioners is that they were appointed as part time workers as Veterinary Assistants in the Animal Husbandry Department and they have put in more than 12 years of service as on the date when the writ petitions were filed. The date from which the respective writ petitioners joined in service are given in the following table :

4.Referring to the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 28.02.2006, the writ petitioners contended that they are to be regularised on completion of 10 years of service. When the appellants sought to appoint Assistants on regular basis based on subsequent Government Orders, the writ petitioners approached this Court by filing the above writ petitions for the relief above indicated.

5.The writ petitions were disposed of by the learned Single Judge by common order dated 16.07.2021 with a direction to the appellants to consider the case of the writ petitioners for absorption in the post of Animal Husbandry Assistants on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 28.02.2006, and G.O.Ms.No.74, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 27.06.2013. A time limit of 12 weeks was also fixed by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petitions. Aggrieved by the same, the above Writ Appeals are filed.

6.Several grounds were raised by the appellants challenging the common order of the learned Single Judge. Apart from the factual submissions, it is contended by the appellants that the order of the learned Single Judge is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and others v. Daya Lal and others reported in AIR 2011 SC 1193 and the judgment in the case of Secretary to Government, School Education Department v. R.Govindasamy reported in CDJ 2014 SC 146 .

7.Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants submitted that G.O.Ms.No.74, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 27.06.2013, is not applicable to part time and casual employees who are not entitled to the concession in Para No.2 of the said Government Order. It is also stated that G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 28.02.2006, is also not applicable, as the writ petitioners are not engaged on full time basis. Factually, it is stated that the writ petitioners were engaged not by the Department, but by the individual Livestock Inspectors to assist them in domestic works like cleaning and other purposes. It is also stated that no sanctioned post was available for recruiting or appointing the writ petitioners on regular basis.

8.The appellants have not given factual details before the Writ Court or before this Court as to the nature of