Regularization of service remains contingent upon the existence of a regular vacancy and recruitment process; where the government has exercised a valid policy option for temporary recruitment over permanent absorption, and that order remains unchallenged, the court cannot mandate permanent regularization in the absence of a notified recruitment process.

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent in Letter No.4975172/C2/2023-5, dated 24.02.2025 and quash the same and further direct the respondent to regularise the service of the petitioner as Hospital Worker or in a post equal to Hospital Worker as per the appointment of the petitioner in G.O.Ms.No.135 of Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 12.04.2022, and proceedings of the fourth respondent dated 06.01.2023 in Ref.No.5142/E4/2018 with all backwages and monetary benefits from the date of initial appointment following G.O.Ms.No.325, Health and Family Worker Department dated 11.09.2017.

O R D E R

Heard Mr.T.S.Mohamed Mohideen, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Dinesh Hari Sudarsan, learned counsel for the Government appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner herein, who was initially appointed as Hospital Worker, on 03.08.2005, in the fourth respondent – College, continued for a prolonged period on contract basis and thereafter, he made a claim for regularization of his service in the said post by approaching this Court by filing a writ petition unsuccessfully. Thereupon, the petitioner, along with certain other co-employees, filed a writ appeal in W.A.(MD) No.922 of 2019 and the said writ appeal came to be disposed of by the learned Division Bench of this Court vide Judgment dated 27.11.2019 by passing the following order:

“8.Considering these facts, we are inclined to direct the respondents to consider the case of the appellants by taking note of G.O.Ms.No.325, Health and Family Welfare(C1) Department, dated 11.09.2017. In the alternative, if the respondents are proposed to conduct a recruitment, then the appellants should be permitted to participate in the recruitment by relaxing the qualification with regard to age and a preferential consideration can be given, because they have been working in the same post in the same Medical College ever since 2005 onwards.

9.At the first instance, the first respondent is directed to consider the representation of the appellants by taking note of the G.O.Ms.No.325, Health and Family Welfare(C1) Department, dated 11.09.2017 and only if same is not visible of consideration, the second option given by this Court shall be complied with.”

3. In terms of the above Judgment, the case of the petitioner herein was considered by the first respondent / Government and accordingly, issued a Government Order in G.O.(Ms) No.135, Health and Family Welfare (C2) Department, dated 12.04.2022. The operative portion of the said Government Order reads as under:

“9. The Government have examined the case carefully and independently along with the case records in the light of the Order dated 27.11.2019 of the Hon'ble Madural Bench of Madras High Court and have decided to implement the orders of the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, dated 27.11.2019 and accordingly direct the Director of Medical Education to comply with the second option given by the Hon'ble High Court by giving preferential consideration to TvI.R.S.Ravi, G.Balasubramanian for appointment as Drivers and P.Selvakumar for appointment as Hospital Worker, in relaxation of the rule relating to age in favour of them, and rule of reservation if need be, as a special case, in consultation with the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services / Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, wherever recruitment is possible, subject to other rule