Temporary or contractual employees lack a legal right to claim regularization unless appointed through proper recruitment processes, as established by Supreme Court precedents.

ORDER :

M.Jothiraman, J.

The present Writ Petition has been filed to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner with other candidates, who were recruited through employment exchange, taking into consideration of the length of service of the petitioner, in the light of Judgment, dated 28.11.2017, of the Honble Division Bench of this Court, made in W.A.No.1594 of 2017.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Computer Assistant in the year 2008 on consolidated pay. The third respondent issued a paper publication in a daily newspaper on 14.03.2008. The petitioner participated in the interview and, it was only on that basis, appointment order was issued under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS). The said appointment was made in a sanctioned post. While he was working as Computer Assistant, the third respondent terminated his services, vide proceedings, dated 31.07.2008, on account of administrative reasons. He was again appointed, but, his appointment seemed to have been made on the basis of outsourcing, as if he was recruited through private agencies. But, the fact remained that he was originally appointed on the basis of paper publication. He rendered more than ten years of service. While so, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.37, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E5) Department, dated 22.03.2017, for absorption of 906 Computer Assistants, working under MGNREGS, as Junior Assistants. The said G.O. would go to show that that there were as many as 1791 posts of Computer Assistant, out of which 906 alone were sought to be absorbed. The petitioner was not brought within the purview of the said G.O. The mode of absorption was to the effect that those 906 Computer Assistants should be allowed to participate in special qualifying test, conducted by TNPSC exclusively, and, thereby, they would be absorbed. The petitioner sent a representation, dated 21.02.2019, but the same was not considered by the respondents. Similarly placed persons filed a writ petition in W.P.28961of 2014 before the Principal Seat of this Court and this Court, by its order, dated 27.04.2017, directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners therein. In this regard, the writ petitioner states that the Government filed a writ appeal in W.A.No.1594 of 2017 and the same was dismissed on 28.11.2017, with an observation that the petitioner could be treated on par with Computer Assistants, who were recruited through employment exchange. Hence, this Writ Petition.

3. Learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, would submit that G.O.Ms.No.37, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E5) Department, dated 22.03.2017, was not acted upon and absorption was directed to be made without special qualifying test. The sole reason for differentiating the candidates was that they were recruited through employment exchange and the petitioner was not recruited through employment exchange. The petitioner also rendered more than ten years of service and, after having long length of service, the petitioner should not be discriminated, that too without any reason, and, if the same was allowed to proceed, it would only result in violation of equality clause, namely, Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents, would submit that the petitioner was appointed on consolidated pay on contract basis through a Non-Governmental Organisation. He would further submit that only 906 Computer Assistants, who were appointed through employment exchange and had completed five years of service as on 30.09.2015 and were working in District Rural Development Agencies and Blocks under MGNREGS, were recruited, following due procedures and communal roster. The other persons, who were not recruited through employment exchange by following rule of reservation, like the petitioner herein, were not entitled to be ab