Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.Suresh Kumar, C.Saravanan, JJ
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Principal Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department – Appellant
Versus
P. Ramesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(C. SARAVANAN, J.)
This Intra Court appeal is preferred challenging the Impugned Order dated 18.12.2023 passed by the Writ Court in W.P. No.12493 of 2023.
2. The said Writ Petition was filed by the Respondent herein for the following relief:-
“Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of order in Na.Ka.No.3940714/Pa Tho3/Iru2/2023 dated 13.04.2023, passed by the 2nd Respondent and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to issue formal order declaring the completion of probation of petitioners service and give all consequential monetary benefits from 01.03.2016.”
3. In the aforesaid writ petition, the Respondent/Writ Petitioner had challenged the Order dated 13.04.2023 bearing Na.Ka.No.3940714/Pa Tho3/Iru2/2023 passed by the 2nd Appellant, wherein, the order regularizing the service of the Respondent/Writ Petitioner was canceled.
4. Relevant portion of the Order dated 13.14.2023 impugned in the W.P.No.12493 of 2023 reads as under:
5. By the Impugned Order dated 18.12.2023, the Writ Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by the Respon
Irregular appointments can be regularized, distinguishing them from illegal appointments, which cannot be ratified, as established by the Supreme Court.
Regularization of service is permissible for employees with long-term engagement despite irregular appointments, emphasizing the distinction between illegality and irregularity under established juri....
The court established that regularization of temporary employees must comply with constitutional mandates, ensuring equal opportunity and adherence to service rules.
The court ruled that employees employed for lengthy periods cannot be denied regularization of service, emphasizing principles of fairness and equality under the Constitution.
Long-term employment based on transparent recruitment cannot be invalidated solely due to procedural irregularities, reinforcing principles of natural justice and legitimate expectations.
Appointments not being sponsored by the employment exchange, as prescribed under Rule 149(2) of the Rules, would only make the appointments irregular and not illegal.
The main legal point established is that the appointment of the petitioners was not illegal, and they were eligible for regularisation of their services.
Employees engaged through contractors cannot be arbitrarily denied rights and benefits if recognized as direct employees by prior judicial decisions.
The court emphasized that rights to regularization must not be undermined by interim orders, as continuous service in a permanent role bears entitlement to regularization under fair labor practices.
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
