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

MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J
I.PAULRAJ, 5/90-C, SOUTH STREE – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU – Respondent
WP(MD)/871/2019



W.P.(MD)Nos.871 & 872 of 2019

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 16.02.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

W.P.(MD)Nos.871 & 872 of 2019

I.Paulraj

... Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.871 of 2019

S.Subramanian

... Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.872 of 2019

vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu

rep.by its Secretary to Government

Health and Family Welfare Department

Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009

2.The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine

D.M.S.Compound, Teynampet

Chennai

3.The Deputy Director

Public Health Services

Kovilpatti,

Thoothukudi District

... Respondents in all W.Ps.

PRAYER (in W.P.(MD) No.871 of 2019) : Writ Petition filed under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of

certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of the

2nd respondent in connection with the impugned order of rejection

passed by him vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.12892/Vaa.Pa/A1/2013

dated 27.04.2018 served by the 3rd respondent on 07.05.2018 and quash

the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the

respondents to regularise/ absorb the Petitioner's service as Driver

in the existing regular vacancies of the respondent department by

extending the benefit of G.O.(Ms) No.292, Health and Family Welfare

(L1) Department, dated 22.08.2017, within the time limit stipulated

by this Court.

PRAYER (in W.P.(MD) No.872 of 2019) : Writ Petition filed under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of

certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of the

2nd respondent in connection with the impugned order of rejection

passed by him vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.38455/Vaa.Pa/A3/2015

dated 23.01.2016 served by the 3rd respondent on 16.02.2016 and quash

the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the

respondents to regularise/ absorb the Petitioner's service as Driver

in the existing regular vacancies of the respondent department by

extending the benefit of G.O.(Ms) No.292, Health and Family Welfare

(L1) Department, dated 22.08.2017, within the time limit stipulated

by this Court.

1/4

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

W.P.(MD)Nos.871 & 872 of 2019

For Petitioner

:

Mr.G.Thalaimutharasu, Advocate

(in both W.Ps)

For Respondents

:

Mr.A.K.Manikkam

(in both W.Ps)

Special Government Pleader

C O M M O N O R D E R

Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions are

identical, they were clubbed and heard together and are being

disposed of by this common order.

2.The orders of rejection rejecting the claim of the

petitioners for grant of regularization are under challenge in the

present writ petitions.

3.The impugned orders state that based on the order, dated

15.11.2010, passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) Nos.1418 of 2010 etc.,

batch, the claim of the petitioners was rejected. In the said

order, the benefit of regularization and permanent absorption were

not granted by applying the principles laid down by the Constitution

Bench of this Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and

others vs. Umadevi and others, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the case

of the similarly placed persons were considered and their services

were regularized vide G.O.(Ms) No.325, dated 11.09.2017.

5.The petitioners in the present case were appointed as

Ambulance Drivers through an outsourcing agency in a Primary Health

Centre at Nagalapuram. They are discharging their duties

continuously and therefore, submitted applications seeking permanent

absorption. However, the case of the petitioners was not considered

on the ground that their initial appointment was not in accordance

with the Service Rules. Further, the appointment itself was made

through outsourcing agency.

6.The learned Special government Pleader appearing for the

respondents states that th

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