IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 10.03.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA W.P.No. 7356 of 2026 G.John Anthony ...petitioner Vs.

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by it’s Principal Secretary, Environment, Climate Change and Forest Department, Fort St. George, Chennai- 600 009.

2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Head of Forest Department, Guindy -Velachery Main Road, Near Kannigapuram Check Post Guindy, Chennai- 600 032.

3.The District Forest Officer, Dharmapuri Forest Division, Dharmapuri District-05. ...respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to order passed by the 2^nd respondent vide his proceedings in Proc.No.S2/9774/2022 dated 07.10.2024 and to quash the same as illegal, and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to regularize the petitioner’s service from date of completion of 10 years i.e., 01.05.2003, with all service and monetary benefits as per the G.O(Ms) No.22 P & AR Department dated 28.02.2006.

For petitioner : Mr. S.Anbazhagan For respondents : Mr. C.Selvaraj Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

“To call for the records pertaining to order passed by the 2^nd respondent vide his proceedings in Proc.No.S2/9774/2022 dated 07.10.2024 and to quash the same as illegal, and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to regularize the petitioner’s service from date of completion of 10 years i.e., 01.05.2003, with all service and monetary benefits as per the G.O(Ms) No.22 P & AR Department dated 28.02.2006.”

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was selected and appointed to the post of Driver in the 3^rd respondent office on a daily wage basis. The petitioner has been rendering service without any break and blemishlessly till date. On account of the satisfactory working of the petitioner and others, the Government of Tamil Nadu had issued GO.Ms.No.22, P & AR Department dated 28.02.2006 to absorb employees working in the department temporarily for more than

10 years.

3. By virtue of this GO, the petitioner’s service was regularised by the 1^st respondent by passing GO.(3D).No.28 dated 03.06.2010. GO.No.22 directed the absorption of the employees who had completed 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006. The petitioner completed his service of 10 years on 30.04.2003, much before 01.06.2006. However, the 1^st respondent had regularised his services only from 03.06.2010, whereas the petitioner ought to have been regularised with effect from

01.05.2003.

4. On receiving GO (3D).No.28 dated 03.06.2010, the petitioner had approached the 3^rd respondent office to regularise him from service on completion of 10 years i.e., from 01.05.2003. Since there was no satisfactory response from the respondents the petitioner had filed WP.No.6046 of 2023, seeking a direction to the respondents to regularise his services with effect from 01.05.2003. This Court by order dated 04.03.2024, was pleased to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case in the light of the Judgement of the Full Bench dated 26.02.2024 and pass orders within a period of 12 weeks.

5. The petitioner would submit that after the orders of this Court, the impugned order has been passed by the 2^nd respondent in which he has stated that regularisation of the petitioner’s service from the date of his completion of 10 years is not feasible on account of GO.(Ms).No.22 dated 28.02.2026 and GO.(Ms)No.74 Dated 27.06.2013.

6. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the rejection was made on account of the fact that the post held by the petitioner did not fall into any one of the 86 categories that has been described in Special Rules for Tamil Nadu Basic Service and the petitioner was not initially appointed through employment exchange. The petitioner would submit that these conditions ar