2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 74908
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice T. VINOD KUMAR
S.Shengabavalli – Appellant
Versus
The Dean – Respondent
##PAGE1## ##PAGE2##
W.P. No. 22469 of 2019
For Petitioner : Ms. K.V. Jeevalakshmi
for Mr. S. Pon Jeganathan
For Respondents : Mr. K. Tippusultan, Government Advocate
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government
Advocate for the respondents and perused the records.
2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she is a graduate possessing a
B.Com degree; and that when applications were called for the post of Super-
visor to the mess at the women’s hostel under direct recruitment, she applied for
the same and was selected and appointed to the said post on 02.03.2015 by the
3rd respondent; that as per the appointment letter issued to her, the probationary
period was for one year, after which she would be entitled to all other benefits
of hostel workers, similar to a permanent worker; that even though she had
completed her probationary period and is entitled to all the benefit, under the
said order, no such benefits, as per the terms of the appointment order, have
been extended to her; that though the appointment order states that the appoint-
ment is on a purely temporary basis, she was advised to follow all the rules and
regularisations of the hostel and that she would be allowed other benefits of
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/12/2025 09:44:56 pm )
##PAGE3##W.P. No. 22469 of 2019
hostel workers only after completion of one year of undisputed service; and that
she not only completed one year of service but has completed four years of ser-
vice and therefore, her services ought to be considered as regularised.
2.1. It is the further case of the petitioner that she had rendered unblem-
ished service for a period of four years from the date of her appointment; that
the 3rd respondent, with malafide intention and ulterior motive to derive per-
sonal benefit, terminated her services without giving her any opportunity of
hearing and without conducting any enquiry as contemplated under the service
rules and regulations governing the hostel, including the procedure laid down by
law for termination of service; that the 3rd respondent had served a memo on her
on 02.05.2019, granting three days time to submit her explanation; that though
she submitted her explanation on 03.05.2019, the 3rd respondent terminated her
services on 14.05.2019 without conducting any enquiry; and thus the said action
of the 3rd respondent it is contended as highly illegal and unsustainable.
2.2. The petitioner further contended that aggrieved by the aforesaid ac-
tion, though she had submitted representation to respondents 1 and 2 as early as
on 11.06.2019, the respondents neither took any action nor conducted any en-
quiry, nor reinstated the petitioner into service; and as such, the petitioner has no
effective and efficacious remedy except approaching this Court by invoking ex-
traordinary jurisdiction. Contending as above, the petitioner seeks for quashing
3/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/12/2025 09:44:56 pm )
##PAGE4##W.P. No. 22469 of 2019
of the termination order dated 14.05.2019 with a consequential relief to reinstate
her into service with all attendant benefits.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent.
4. The 3rd respondent, in the counter affidavit, primarily contended that
the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 14.05.2019
terminating her service is not maintainable, since the petitioner was appointed
as a Housekeeper in the 3rd respondent hostel purely on a temporary basis and
was paid salary out of the contributions of the hostel inmates; that the post of
Housekeeper in the hostel is neither a Government post nor a sanctioned post
and that for the benefit of the students, the petitioner was appointed by the then
3rd respondent only as a temporary measure. Therefore, the petitioner cannot
claim the post as a matter of right; and that the appointment of petitioner was an
internal arrangement and that her salary was paid from and out of the contribu-
tions collected from t