Back
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice R. MAHADEVAN
R. KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner – Respondent
Employment - Writ Appeal - Tamilnadu State and Subordinate Service Rules - Sections 10(a)(i) - The court upheld the order rejecting the appointment request, emphasizing temporary appointment conditions and qualification requirements under the Tamilnadu rules.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was appointed as a Punch Operator on a temporary basis and later ousted for lack of vacancies. He challenged his termination and sought permanent appointment, which was denied due to failure to meet qualification criteria.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was rightfully appointed on a temporary basis, and his qualifications did not meet the requirements for a permanent position. Thus, the denial of his request for permanent employment was upheld as lawful.
Issues: Whether the appellant had a legitimate right to seek permanent employment as a Punch Operator despite his temporary appointment and lack of requisite qualifications.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the appellant's temporary status did not grant him entitlement to a permanent position, especially given his failure to meet the required qualifications as stipulated in relevant government orders.
Final Decision: The writ appeal is dismissed without costs.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by R. MAHADEVAN, J.)
The appellant / writ petitioner has preferred this intra-court appeal, as against the order dated 14.07.2023 passed by the learned Judge in dismissing the writ petition in W.P. No. 26519 of 2014 filed by him.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it was stated by the appellant that he was appointed as Punch Operator on 07.05.2007 on contract basis, after conducting an interview and he was posted in the Government Data Centre, Guindy, Chennai - 600 025. Subsequently, the appellant joined duty on 22.05.2007 and discharged his duties satisfactorily. However, on 26.12.2007, he was ousted from service for want of vacancy. Challenging the order dated 26.12.2007, the appellant filed WP No. 13787 of 2009 praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order dated 26.12.2007 and consequently direct the respondents to reappoint or re-employ him as Punch Operator in Government Data Centre on regular basis in compliance with G.O.Ms.No.122, Finance (C.A) Department dated
10.04.2007. By order dated 29.09.2009, the learned Judge disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the appellant and to reappoint him on temporary basis till the vacancies are filled on a regular basis. Pursuant to such order, the appellant was re-engaged and he continued in service. Thereafter, on 22.01.2014, he submitted a representation to the respondents to appoint him in the regular post. The said representation dated 22.01.2014 was rejected by the first respondent by his proceedings dated 05.03.2014. Challenging the order dated 05.03.2014, the present writ petition was filed by the appellant.
3. The learned Judge, after hearing the counsel for both sides, dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant on 14.07.2023. The relevant portion of the order dated 14.07.2023 reads as follows:-
"4. On perusal of counter filed by the respondent, revealed that the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis, that too for a period of five months or it may be continued till the examination work is completed, whichever is earlier. He was appointed under the consolidated wage of Rs.4,000/- per month as Punch Operator on 22.05.2007. Thereafter, the service was extended for two months as per GO.Rt.No.1146 Finance(CA) Department dated 19.10.2007. Thereafter the period of contract was over and his service had to be terminated after lapse of extended period of two months since he was appointed on temporary basis under adhoc appointment. In fact, he was recruited on temporary basis subject to the condition that his service will be terminated as and when post of Punch Operator is filled up with regular employees or candidates selected through Public Service Commission. Therefore, his service was not required to the Government Data Centre. He was appointed under Rule 10(a)(i) of Tamilnadu State and Subordinate Service Rules .
5. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court in WP.No.13787 of 2009 and this Court though rejected the claim of the petitioner, on regular basis before filling up vacancies in the post of Punch Operators through Public Service Commission in the event of any need for temporary appointment, the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner to reappoint him on temporary basis till the vacancies are filled on the regular basis. Therefore, again the petitioner was considered for appointment under Rule 10 (a) (i) of Tamilnadu State and Subordinate Service Rules on the basis of the need of the Government Data Centre. Further, the qualifications prescribed for the post of Punch Operators as amended in GO.Ms.No.294 Finance (CA) Department dated 01.08.2012 are as follows:
(i) Must have passed +2 (Plus two) Higher Secondary Grade examination conducted by the Government of Tamilnadu, or an equivalent Examination (ii) Must have passed the Government Technical Examination Typewriting in English and in Tamil by Seni
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
