IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.11.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN and W.M.P.Nos .1 9849, 19 8 50 and 19851 of 2025 R.Mathivanan ... Petitioner -Vs-

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented By Its Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai -9.

2. The Director of Rural Development, Panagal Building, Saidapet, Chennai-15.

3. The District Collector, Dharmapuri District.

4. The Personal Assistant (Development), to The District Collector, Dharmapuri District.

5. The Commissioner/Block Development Officer, Morappur Panchayat Union, Dharmapuri District. ...Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the third respondent in Na.Ka.No.6786/2025/K3 dated 18.03.2025 and consequently direct the respondents to pass orders for regularization of service of the petitioner in the Post of Masalci from the date of initial appointment with all service and monetary benefits in the light of order passed in Full bench Judgement of this Hon’ble Court passed in W.P.No.23823 of 2023 (Sivappa Vs The State of Tamil Nadu).

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Chandrakumar for Mr.C.Mahendran For R1 to R4 : Mr.R.U.Dinesh Rajkumar Additional Government Pleader For R5 : Mr.E.Sundaram

O RDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 18.03.2025, passed by the third respondent, thereby ordering to discharge the petitioner from the engaged service.

2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

3. The petitioner was originally appointed as Masalchi by an order dated

01.05.1987 on the file of the fifth respondent on consolidated salary. The petitioner was working full time in the office of the fifth respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner had worked as Night Watchman temporarily. Later, he was reverted back to the original post. However, he was not regularized. On the request made by the similarly placed persons, the Government passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.12.2006, thereby ordering that those individuals who were appointed on consolidated pay or daily wages and had completed ten years of service are entitled for regularization.

4. However, the case of the petitioner was not considered and as such, the petitioner was constrained to file an application in O.A.No.2373 of 1998. Subsequently, it was transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.35886 of 2006. Thereafter, the second respondent, by a Memorandum dated 25.11.2008 stated that who are appointed after 01.04.1981 on contingency basis and have completed ten years of service are eligible for regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No.267, Rural Development Department dated 22.12.1999. Accordingly, the services of 218 employees were regularized. However, the petitioner was not considered for regularization. Further, another set of persons were regularized by way of G.O.No.144 dated 09.09.2008. But the petitioner’s service was not considered for regularization. Hence, this writ petition.

5. A perusal of the counter filed by the third respondent and on the submissions made by the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 reveals that the petitioner’s service was not considered for regularization, since the appointment of the petitioner was not made against sanctioned post or through any formal recruitment process. Therefore, he was found ineligible due to the absence of the sanctioned posts and non-regular method of appointment.

6. This issue has been categorically dealt with by the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in W.P.No.23823 of 2023 dated 26.02.2024, wherein the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court held as follows:-

“ 37. We are of the considered opinion that wherever the posts are permanent in nature and they come within 86 categories of posts which form the Tamil N