SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 76475

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
F.PRIYA DEVI – Appellant
Versus
THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 05.11.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

W.P.Nos.23975, 23979, 26608, 26674, 26679, 26683, 26689, 27059, 27060,

27064, 27065, 27067, 27068, 27070, 27071, 27073, 27075, 27077, 27079,

31518, 31526, 31573, 31595, 31602, 31616, 31632, 41929 of 2025

W.P.No.23975 of 2025:-

1. F.Priya Devi

2. M.Thaslim Fathima ... Petitioners

-Vs-

1. The Secretary to Government,

Health and Family Welfare Department,

Fort St.George, Chennai-09.

2. The Director,

Medical and Rural Health Services,

DMS Building, Annasalai,

Teynampet, Chennai-06.

3. The Chairman,

Medical Services Recruitment Board (MRB),

7th Floor, DMS Building,

Anna Salai, Teynampet,

Chennai-06. ... Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to absorb the petitioners as Staff Nurse on regular time scale of pay from the date of their

initial appointment.

In all W.Ps For Petitioners : Mr.K.Venkataramani, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Sivakumar For R1 and R2 : Mrs.M.Sneha Special counsel for Health Department For R3 : Mr.L.Murugavelu Standing Counsel

COMMON O RDER

These writ petitions have been filed for direction directing the respondents to absorb the petitioners as Staff Nurse on regular time scale of pay from the date of their initial appointment.

2. The issue in all the writ petitions are one and the same. Hence, this Court is inclined to pass a common order.

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

4. The petitioners are fully qualified and eligible to apply for the post of Staff Nurse in the direct recruitment in Medical and Para Medical or non- Medical category. The appointments were made either through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission or through Employment Exchange. The Government had formed a separate recruitment board viz., Medical Services Recruitment Board vide G.O.No.1 dated 02.01.2012 and framed Rules as Rules of Procedure of the Medical Services Recruitment Board, 2013. Accordingly, a notification was issued on 19.04.2015. However, the entire selection process was on fault and it was failed to follow the communal reservation. Therefore, second notification was issued on 07.02.2019 for a total vacancy of 2345. The petitioners had applied for the post of Staff Nurse and participated in the selection process. After succeeding in their examinations, they were directed to appear for certificate verification. Thereafter, the respondents had appointed 2580 candidates on contract basis, by an order dated 29.11.2019, including the petitioners. They were insisted to work for minimum of two years on contract basis and thereafter, they were said to be brought under regular post.

5. The petitioners were appointed as Staff Nurse after undergoing regular selection process and their appointment was on contract basis, which is illegal. Therefore, similarly placed persons made representations seeking regularization from the date of their appointment. It was rejected by an order dated 11.05.2022 by relying upon G.O.No.230 dated 04.09.2001, which was issued prior to formation of Medical Recruitment Board. The said order was challenged before this Court and the same was allowed and this Court directed to regularize them into regular time scale of pay with effect from the date of their initial appointment.

6. The case of the petitioners are that they made representations and the same was not considered so far.

7. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent filed a counter stating that the prayer of the petitioners to regularize their services is no way connected to the third respondent and it is a subject matter which comes under the purview of the second respondent who is the appointing authority of the petitioners. However, the first and second respondents did not file any counter.

8. Mrs.M.Sneha, the learned Special Counsel for the Health Department appearing for the respon

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top