IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02.12.2025 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI P.Rosy Petitioner Vs

1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.

2.The Director of Town Panchayats, 7^th & 8^th Floor, Urban Administrative Office RA Puram, Chennai 600 028.

3.The Director of Municipal Administration, 10^th & 11^th Floor, Urban Administrative Office Campus, RA Puram, Chennai 600 028.

4.The Commissioner, Mangadu Municipality, No.5, Vaikunda Perumal Koil Street, Mangadu, Chennai 600 122. Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 22.05.2025 in Letter (efile)No.1918/

Pan.1/2025-2 passed by the 1^st respondent and the consequential letter dated 23.07.2025 in Na.Ka.No.14482/2024/A5 issued by the 2^nd respondent and quash the same and further direct the respondents to regularize the petitioner’s service from the date of appointment in the 4^th respondent.

For petitioner : Mr. S.T. Varadarajulu For respondents : Ms. S. Pavithra Standing Counsel

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 22.05.2025 passed by the 1^st respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner for regularisation of service, and the consequential order dated

23.07.2025 passed by the 2^nd respondent.

2. It is stated that the petitioner, having completed M.A. in Historical Studies, Diploma in Computer Application, and Typewriting in English and Tamil. Pursuant to a policy decision of the 2^nd respondent dated 12.03.2004 to computerise Panchayat offices, she was appointed as a Data Entry Operator on 01.10.2004 in the 4^th respondent – Mangadu Town Panchayat. Since then, the petitioner has been continuously working without break for more than 21 years.

3. While so, the 2^nd respondent has forwarded a proposal to the 1^st respondent recommending that the post of Data Entry Operator be brought under time scale of pay and that the persons working in the said post, including the petitioner, be absorbed. A reminder along with additional particulars was also sent on 30.03.2017. Subsequently, the Association of Data Entry Operators submitted a representation dated 14.12.2017 seeking regularisation.

4. In the year 2021, the 4^th respondent Town Panchayat was upgraded as a Second Grade Municipality. Thereafter, she submitted a representation dated 04.01.2023 seeking absorption/regularisation. It is further stated that earlier, this Court, in W.P. No.29314 of 2024 dated 14.10.2024, directed the respondents to consider the petitioner and other similarly placed persons request based on the recommendation of the 2^nd respondent dated 19.01.2017.

5. When that being so, the 1^st respondent, by order dated 22.05.2025, rejected the petitioner’s request for regularisation, which was followed by the consequential order dated 23.07.2025. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present writ petition has been filed

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been continuously working as a Data Entry Operator from 01.10.2004 till date, i.e., for more than 21 years. He further submitted that despite long and continuous service and recommending absorption, and therefore, the subsequent rejection by the 1^st respondent is arbitrary and impermissible. He strongly argued that that non-consideration of the recommendation and passing of the impugned rejection order defeats the very purpose of the policy decision and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Hence, he prays for appropriate orders.

7. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the petitioner was appointed only as a contract employee, and her contract has been periodically extended from time to time. The petitioner was not appointed by following the rules of recru