ORDER

The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the writ petitioner with effect from 12.01.2002.

2. The petitioner states that she completed SSLC, +2 and Diploma in Teacher Education and registered her name in the District Employment Exchange in Tirunelveli District. She further states that she got married in the year 1998 and migrated to Hosur and transferred the employment registration to the District Employment Exchange, Krishnagiri.

3.The name of the writ petitioner was sponsored for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. However, the registration was canceled with the Employment Exchange at Krishnagiri District on the ground that it was fraudulently obtained. The petitioner challenged the cancellation of registration before this Court in W.P.No.10195 of 2022 and the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent to proceed with the process of selection. The fact remains that the petitioner was not appointed on 12.01.2002, along with the other candidates who were sponsored through the District Employment Exchange.

4. The petitioner, after disposal of the above writ petition, was selected and appointed on 15.08.2004. Thus, the services of the writ petitioner was regularized by the competent authority with effect from date of initial appointment on

15.08.2004.

5. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that she was sponsored along with the other candidates in the year 2002 for selection and appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher and the other persons who were sponsored were appointed on 12.01.2002 and therefore, her services are also to be regularized with effect from 12.01.2002.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the said period at least to be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculation of qualifying service for pensionary benefits. The period during which the petitioner had not served cannot be taken into consideration as qualifying service.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that this Court considered the case of other similarly placed persons and granted the relief of retrospective regularization with effect from 12.01.2002. Thus, the case of the petitioner is also to be considered along with other candidates who were conferred with the said benefit through an order dated 06.04.2011 in W.P.No.13931 of 2009.

8. This court is of the considered opinion that the benefit of regularization is to be conferred with effect from the date on which the employee was appointed. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed and permitted to join duty on 15.08.2004. She is working in the post of Secondary Grade Teacher with effect from the said date on 15.08.2004. The petitioner was not at all selected nor appointed on 12.01.2002 and therefore, the question of granting retrospective regularization or counting of the period during which the petitioner was not in service cannot be counted for the purpose of calculating the qualifying services for pensionary benefits.

9. It is needless to state that an employee who was not even appointed and not served in the department can not claim the benefit of regularization or calculation of the period for the purpose of pensionary benefits.

10. The petitioner was not at all an employee of the department on

12.01.2002. She became an employee of the department only with effect from 15.08.2004 and therefore, the service conditions is to be applied only from the date on which the employee was appointed and this being the principles to be followed, the earlier judgment of the year 2011 relied on by the petitioner cannot be considered for the purpose of granting retrospective regularization from

12.01.2002.

11. Regarding the claim of equality under Article 14 of Constitution of India, it is relevant to place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Director of Sericulture Department vs.

K.Kumar