P. SANKAR Vs. THE HOME SECRETARY
LAWS(MAD)-2018-2-375
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on
February 07,2018
P. Sankar
Appellant
VERSUS
The Home Secretary
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. V. PRANAY SETHI [REFERRED TO]BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD V. HERRINGTON [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA PRAKASH V. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
COUNCIL FOR CIVIL SERVICES UNION V. MINISTER OF CIVIL SERVICE [REFERRED TO]
HERRINGTON V. BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD [REFERRED TO]
PRADIP CHANDRA PARIJA V. PRAMOD CHANDRA PATNAIK [REFERRED TO]
C. BALACHANDRAN V. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR V. KALIKA KUER ALIAS KALIKA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA V. MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION [REFERRED TO]
JAISRI SAHU VS. RAJDEWAN DUBEY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. JAGDIP SINGH:GURDHIAN SINGH:MALVINDER SINGH:RAJWANT SINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MYSORE VS. S V NARAYANAPPA [REFERRED TO]
TRIBHOVANDAS PURSHOTTAMDAS THAKKAR VS. RATILAL MOTILAL PATEL [REFERRED TO]
R N NANJUNDAPPA VS. T THIMMIAH [REFERRED TO]
HIS HOLINESS KESAVANANDA BHARATI SRIPADAGALVARU SHRI RAGHUNATH RAO GANPAT RAO N H NAWAB MOHAMMAD IFTIKHAR ALI KHAN SHETHIA MINING AND MANUFACTURING CORPORATION LIMITED THE ORIENTAL GOAL GO LIMITED VS. STATE OF KERALA:UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
B N NAGARAJAN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. GODFREY PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED :INDIA TOBACCO COMPANY LIMITED :VAZIR SULTAN TOBACCO COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
D C WADHWA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
SUNDARJAS KANYALAL BHATIJA PRAHALAD HIRANAND ADVANI VS. COLLECTOR THANE MAHARASHTRA:COLLECTOR THANE MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
DHARWAD DISTT P W D LITERATE DAILY WAGE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
JACOB M PUTHUPARAMBIL JACOB M PUTHUPARAMBIL P MOHANAN SASIDHARAN C P C A JOSE MARY C L NAZAR K M P V SASIKUMAR PARASSALA SIVANANDAN M S SREEKUMAR VS. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY:KERALA WATER AUTHORITY:KERALA WATER AUTHORITY:STATE OF KERALA:STATE OF KERALA:STATE OF KERALA:KERALA WATER AUTHORITY:KERALA WATER AUTHORITY:KER [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. SURINDERKUMAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. PIARA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. SURESH KUMAR VERMA [REFERRED TO]
ASHWANI KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION VS. S RAGHUNATHAN:S P SINGH [REFERRED TO]
INDIRA SAWHNEY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY VS. RATHOD LADHU BECHAR [REFERRED TO]
PADMASUNDARA RAO DEAD VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
CHANCHAL GOYAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. UMADEVI [REFERRED TO]
AVAS VIKAS SANSTHAN VS. AVAS VIKAS SANSTHAN ENGINEERS ASSN [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. UMADEVI [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL FERTILIZER LTD VS. SOMVIR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MINERAL EXPLORATION CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION VS. MINERAL EXPLORATION CORPORATION LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. YOGESH CHANDRA DUBEY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M P VS. LALIT KUMAR VERMA [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD VS. RANJODH SINGH [REFERRED TO]
POST MASTER GENERAL KOLKATA VS. TUTU DAS [REFERRED TO]
U P STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. POORAN CHANDRA PANDEY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTRANCHAL VS. PRANTIYA SINCHAI AVAM BANDH YOGANA SHRAMIK MAHAPARISHAD [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. M L KESARI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. DAYA LAL [REFERRED TO]
RATTIRAM VS. STATE OF M PTHROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. H GANESH RAO [REFERRED TO]
NIHAL SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
G.L. BATRA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
AMARENDRA KUMAR MOHAPATRA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI VS. THIRU R. GOVINDASWAMY [REFERRED TO]
NAND KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
MALATHI DAS (RETD.) NOW P.B. MAHISHY VS. SURESH [REFERRED TO]
AMARKANT RAI VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
PREM RAM VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR, UTTARAKHAND PEY JAL & NIRMAN NIGAM, DEHRADUN [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA KUMAR AND ORS. VS. GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
SANDHYA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J. -
(1.)The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to direct the respondents 1 to 6 to regularize the services of the petitioner in the post of Sweeper.
(2.)The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner made a submission that the writ petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant by the resolution passed by the Parent Teacher Association. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the appointment made by the Parent Teacher Association was with the consent of the School Head Master. Thus, there was no irregularity in the matter of appointment of the writ petitioner. Further, it is contended that the writ petitioner is working for a long period and therefore, he is entitled to be regularised in the sanctioned post. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a concern that, when a person is appointed by the Parent Teacher Association in the sanctioned post with the consent of the Head Master, then it is the failure of the State Government in maintaining the proper selection and appointed in respect of the sanctioned post. The concern is to be looked into.
(3.)This Court is of an opinion that the sanctioned permanent posts cannot be filled through the daily wages employees. The Parent Teacher Association is not the appointing authority in respect of the Government Sanctioned posts. The appointing authority for the Government sanctioned posts are well provided in the Rules. Mere consent by the Head Master will not be a ground to say the appointment was made in accordance with the recruitment Rules. The consent of the Head Master by oral or even in writing will not have any sanctity. The sanctioned Government posts are to be filled only by following the regular recruitment Rules in force and an order of appointment are to be issued by the appointing authority as prescribed under the Rules. This being the legal procedures to be followed to fill up the sanctioned posts, the appointment made by the Parent Teacher Association cannot be said to be a valid appointment. Thus, the appointment of the writ petitioner was not in accordance with the recruitment Rules in force and in fact, the appointment was illegal.
(2.)The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner made a submission that the writ petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant by the resolution passed by the Parent Teacher Association. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the appointment made by the Parent Teacher Association was with the consent of the School Head Master. Thus, there was no irregularity in the matter of appointment of the writ petitioner. Further, it is contended that the writ petitioner is working for a long period and therefore, he is entitled to be regularised in the sanctioned post. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a concern that, when a person is appointed by the Parent Teacher Association in the sanctioned post with the consent of the Head Master, then it is the failure of the State Government in maintaining the proper selection and appointed in respect of the sanctioned post. The concern is to be looked into.
(3.)This Court is of an opinion that the sanctioned permanent posts cannot be filled through the daily wages employees. The Parent Teacher Association is not the appointing authority in respect of the Government Sanctioned posts. The appointing authority for the Government sanctioned posts are well provided in the Rules. Mere consent by the Head Master will not be a ground to say the appointment was made in accordance with the recruitment Rules. The consent of the Head Master by oral or even in writing will not have any sanctity. The sanctioned Government posts are to be filled only by following the regular recruitment Rules in force and an order of appointment are to be issued by the appointing authority as prescribed under the Rules. This being the legal procedures to be followed to fill up the sanctioned posts, the appointment made by the Parent Teacher Association cannot be said to be a valid appointment. Thus, the appointment of the writ petitioner was not in accordance with the recruitment Rules in force and in fact, the appointment was illegal.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.