2024:MHC:2237 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 05.06.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN W.A.No.1092 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.13340 of 2020

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary, Municipal Admn., & Water Supply (MC 3) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

2.Director of Town Panchayats, Kuralagam, Chennai – 600 108 Presently at Urban Administration Office Complex, 7th and 8th Floor, MRC Nagar, Chennai – 28.

3.The Executive Officer, Sirumugai Town Panchayat, Sirumugai, Mettupalayam Taluk, Coimbatore District. ... Appellants Vs.

K.Ramakrishnan ... Respondent Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside order dated 03.02.2020 made in W.P.No.26482 of 2010 and allow the writ petition.

For Appellants : Mr.R.Neelakandan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.S.John J.Raja Singh Additional Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr.R.Thanjan

J U D G M E N T

[Judgment was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

The writ order dated 03.02.2020 passed in W.P.No.26482 of 2010 is under challenge in the present Intra-Court appeal.

2. The State is the appellant and the respondent instituted writ proceeding to quash the order of regularisation granted to the respondent with effect from 01.11.2007.

3. The respondent was initially engaged as daily wage employee for water cleaning in Water Supply Maintenance of Panchayat. The work was allotted for limited hours. The wage per day was increased periodically based on the minimum wage stipulated by the District Collector.

4. Mr.R.Neelakandan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the 'State' would submit that post of the Water Cleaner and Supplier is a part-time job and no post was sanctioned by the competent authority. Thus, the initial appointment of the writ petitioner was not in accordance with the Service Rules. However, considering the length of service of the respondent, the Government regularised the services of the writ petitioner with effect from 01.11.2007 in proceedings dated 31.10.2007. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.2011 and allowed to retire from service.

5. The learned Additional Advocate General would contend that the learned Single Judge granted retrospective regularisation of services of the respondent without considering the fact that the post was not sanctioned at the time of engaging the petitioner as daily wage water supplier. Thus, the writ order is to be set aside.

6. Mr.R.Thanjan, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the initial appointment of the petitioner was made through District Employment Exchange and it is not illegal. When the respondent was appointed through District Employment Exchange on daily wages basis and considering the length of service, the benefit of regularisation was extended, it is to be extended from the date of initial appointment and not from the date of passing of the proceedings of regularization. Thus, the learned Single Judge has rightly considered the facts and circumstances and granted the relief and the writ appeal is to be rejected.

7. Considering the arguments as advanced between the parties to the lis on hand, the legal principles governing regularization and permanent absorption are no more res integra. The Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India settled the legal principles in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1

8. The appointment to the public posts are to be made scrupulously in accordance with the Service Rules in force. Equal opportunity in public employment is the constitutional mandate. Back door appointments at no circumstances be regularised depriving the right of eligible candidates to get equal opportunity to participate in the open competitive process under the Constitutional Scheme of recruitments.

9. Equal opportunity in public employment is a mandate under the Constitution. In the event of grant of regularisation of