SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Mad) 1098

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. SRIMATHY, J.
A. Kathirvel – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries Department, Chennai – Respondent
W.P. (MD) Nos. 8873, 8874 of 2026, W.P. (MD) Nos. 7158, 7162 of 2026
Decided On : 02-06-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : T. Aswin Raja Simman
For the Respondents: V. Om Prakash, M. Thirunavukkarasu

Casual employees recruited to sanctioned posts possessing mandatory qualifications are considered irregularly appointed rather than illegally appointed; they are entitled to regularization where similarly placed employees have received such benefits, and administrative denials of such relief must be supported by reasoned, speaking orders.

Headnote:(A) Employment and Service Law - Regularization of casual employees - Distinction between irregular and illegal appointments - Appointment to sanctioned posts within cadre strength where candidates possess essential educational qualifications and meet age criteria constitutes irregular appointment rather than illegal appointment - Lack of sponsorship via official recruitment exchange does not invalidate eligibility. (Paras 6, 7, 8)

(B) Administrative Law - Duty to provide reasoned orders - Administrative authorities must provide speaking orders when rejecting representations for service benefits, especially where similarly placed individuals have been granted such relief - Denial of parity without recording substantial distinguishing factors is arbitrary. (Paras 6, 8, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought the regularisation of their service as formerly casual employees in a collective entity. They had completed a significant number of working days and satisfied all prescribed educational and age requirements at the time of their initial recruitment. Despite being similarly situated to other employees who had been granted regularisation pursuant to government policies and judicial directions, the authority rejected their claims through non-speaking orders, leading the incumbents to approach the court for redressal.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the rejection of the request for regularization was non-speaking and failed to provide valid legal justification. The tribunal found that the petitioners' appointments were irregular, not illegal, due to the possession of requisite qualifications at the time of engagement. The court ruled that denying regularization when such benefits were extended to others in identical circumstances violated the principle of equality.

Issues: The main issues addressed were whether casual employees fulfilling all essential eligibility criteria at the time of appointment are entitled to regularization and whether the administrative denial of such requests via non-speaking orders constitutes valid exercise of discretion.

Ratio Decidendi: Where employees are recruited to sanctioned posts within the cadre strength and possess the mandatory qualifications, the failure to follow procedure regarding recruitment channel sponsorship constitutes an irregularity that can be rectified. Such employees are eligible for regularization, and parity must be maintained with similarly placed individuals to avoid discriminatory treatment.

Result: Writ petitions allowed; impugned orders set aside with directions to the authorities to grant regularization, without conferring additional monetary benefits beyond those consequential to the regularization, effective from the relevant date.

Table of Content
1. historical factual background of employment, continuous service, and regularization attempts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. respondents' arguments regarding employment legality, absence of employment exchange referral, and application of uma devi precedent. (Para 4)
3. court establishes distinctions between illegal and irregular appointments for regularization purposes. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. applying judicial precedents and circulars to mandate regularization for irregular appointees meeting eligibility criteria. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. final order setting aside impugned rejections and directing service regularization without retrospective monetary arrears. (Para 11)

ORDER :

1. Both the writ petitioners are similarly placed persons and are seeking similar prayer, hence both the writ petitions are taken together and passed a common order.

2......

(i) The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.8873 of 2026 has been filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order dated 05.01.2026 passed in Letter (Ms) No.6/MP2-1/2026 by the 1st respondent and direct to regularize the service of the petitioner on par with the regularization of the similarly placed persons in G.O.(D) No.145, Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (MP II), department dated 03.03.2025 and G.O.(2D) No.138, Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (MP.II) Department, dated 28.09.2007 and to grant all consequential monetary and retirement benefits to the petitioner.

(ii) The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.8874 of 2026 has been filed for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order dated 05.01.2026 passed in Letter (Ms) No.7/MP2-1/2026 by the 1st Respondent and to direct the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner on par with the regularization of the similarly placed persons in G.O.(D) No.145, Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (MP II), department dated 03.03.2025 and G.O.(2D) No.138, Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (MP.II) Department, dated 28.09.2007 and to grant all consequential monetary and retirement benefits to the petitioner.

3......

(i) The case of the writ petitioner A.Kathirvel, the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.8873/2026 is that he belongs to Kallar Backward Community and had completed his schooling in May 1980, then B.Com. through correspondence in Madurai Kamaraj University in July 1988. He was appointed as Casual Employee in Thanjavur District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. (TDCMPU Ltd.) on 25.08.1988. Thereafter he had passed the Diploma in Cooperative Management (D.Com.,) in March 1998. He had discharged his duties to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors and have rendered about 34 years of dedicated service without any blemish. He was retired from service on attaining superannuation on 31.07.2022.

(ii) The case of the writ petitioner, Mr.A.William Charles, the petitioner in W.P(MD) No.8874/2026 belonged to the backward community and he had failed in his 10th standard. He was appointed as Casual Employee in Thanjavur District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. (TDCMPU Ltd.) on 25.11.1992, and has rendered about 28 years of dedicated service without any blemish. He was retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2020.

(iii) The other facts are that considering the age, qualification, vacancy position and on completion of 480 days in continuous two calendar years as required under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status) Act, 1981 and the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, the then Managing Director, TDCMPU Ltd., has regularized the petitioners' service with effect from 02.01.1996, based on the decision of Personnel Committee, dated 09.10.1995, but the regularization was subject to the approval of the 2nd respondent viz., the Commissioner, Milk Production and Diary Development. Thereafter, the petitioners were given the time scale of pay and other attendant benefits, like encashment of Earned L

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top