O R D E R

A writ of declaration has been instituted to declare the termination of the petitioner from the post of Data Entry Operator by the third respondent without notice and without passing any order as illegal and to direct the third respondent to reinstate her in the post of Data Entry Operator with consequential benefits and fix time scale of pay as per G.O.No.151, dated 16.10.2006, issued by the first respondent, within a time stipulated by this Court.

2. The petitioner states that she was appointed as Data Entry Operator on 14.03.2015 by the third respondent in the Disaster Management Section on temporary basis. The appointment was on consolidated pay. The petitioner further states that she was subjected to sexual abuse by an official. Therefore, she was forced to prefer a complaint against the said official on 09.10.2018 to the third respondent. By taking vengeance against the petitioner, the fourth respondent cancelled her appointment abruptly without furnishing any reason. The third respondent directed the petitioner to receive salary for the period from 01.09.2018 to 21.09.2018 and the services of the petitioner were dispensed with from 22.09.2018.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before ousting her from the post of Data Entry Operator and therefore, the order of ousting is in violation of principles of natural justice. In the place of the petitioner, two other temporary Data Entry Operators were posted and therefore, the very action of the third respondent ousting the petitioner from service is untenable.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that a temporary employee should not be replaced by another temporary employee and such temporary employment is to be dispensed with only in the event of making a regular appointment, but not otherwise. The petitioner, who is differently abled, was appointed on consolidated pay and served for about 3 years. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for regular time scale of pay.

5. The District Collector / third respondent has filed a counter affidavit. Relying on the said affidavit, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 contended that the petitioner has suppressed the real facts and approached this Court. The petitioner was appointed as temporary Typist / Data Entry Operator in the Tamil Nadu Disaster Management Agency renamed as Tamil Nadu Risk Reduction Agency, which was constituted under the Coastal Disaster Risk Reduction Production through a Disaster Management Agency with funds sourcing from the World Bank. The said Agency is a separate entity not belonging to any State / Central Government or Quasi Government. The petitioner, who worked as temporary Typist on consolidated pay, was terminated from her temporary appointment by duly following the proper formalities and after issuance of a prior notice by the competent authority for dereliction of duty with information to submit her explanation within the time stipulated about the unauthorized absence from duty with effect from 21.09.2018 A.N. As per letter No.E5/18067/2013, dated 22.09.2018. As no explanation was received from the incumber either through written submission or over email / phone and it was found necessary to appoint another suitable person to handle the essential 24X7 hours duty in order to handle the Disaster Risk Reduction Agency, termination orders were issued by the Competent Authority vide proceedings No.E5/18067/2013, dated 27.09.2018 against the incumbent and another eligible person was engaged to continue the essential disaster risk management duty.

6. It is further contended that the name of the petitioner was not considered for appointment already made in her favour either on the basis of her physical disability or on compassionate grounds. More over, considering the purely temporary nature of the post as such rule or reservation was not adopted as such the copy of th