When a recruitment notification does not specify zone-wise vacancies, the employer cannot subsequently deny the regularization of selected candidates based on the lack of vacancies in specific zones.

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment, though the petitioners have been working from 2001 onwards having selected against sanctioned vacancies through regular selection process conducted as per the recruitment rules in force, vide G.O.Ms. No. 233 Social Welfare [T.W.SER.III] Department dt:15.12.2008 and the consequential Procgs. Rc.No. B1/4617/ 2012 dt:24.4.2012 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside G.O.Ms. No. 233 dt:15.12.2008 and the consequential Procgs. Rc.No. B1/4617/2012 dt:24.4.2012 to the extent of dates of regularization mentioned therein and direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in the their posts from the date of their initial appointment with all consequential benefits thereof

IA NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP 49281 OF 2012

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners in the ensuing counseling for promotions to the next higher posts on par with 351 candidates who were appointed along with the petitioners between 2001 and 2004 and whose services were regularized vide Procgs. Rc.No. B3/ 4617/07 of the years 2008 and 2009, pending disposal of the writ petition

The Court made the following:

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were initially appointed in the year 2001 by the 1st respondent to work as trained teachers in the 2nd respondent Society. The petitioners underwent a regular selection process and were initially recruited on a contract basis. The 1st respondent issued a notification for the recruitment of about 400 teachers and conducted an examination for selecting eligible candidates. The petitioners were also selected and have been discharging their duties in various schools run by the 2nd respondent. The grievance of the petitioners is that their services were not regularized on par with other teachers, and that the respondents regularized the services of the petitioners only on 24.04.2012.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are entitled for regularization from the date of their initial appointment. The petitioners were selected to work against existing vacancies, and all the petitioners underwent a regular selection process. It is submitted that some of the selected teachers were regularized on 30.08.2008 by the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.233, dated 15.12.2008.

3. The Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that though the Board of Governors/2nd Respondent recommended regularization of all contract teachers working against 401 regular posts and 523 sanctioned posts, the respondents, for the reasons better known to them, have regularized the services of only 351 contract teachers, and such regularization was notified as w.e.f., 30.08.2008. It is submitted that the petitioners were left over from the lot and have approached this Court seeking regularization from the date of their initial appointment.