J POONGOTHAI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in the Adult Education Unit, Thiruvallur under Rule 10(a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules on 31.12.1981 through employment exchange. After a period of three years, she was ousted from service for want of vacancy on 31.03.1984. Again, the petitioner was re-appointed as Junior Assistant on 29.06.1984. Though the petitioner has completed ten years of service, her service was not regularised on the ground that she was not in service as Junior Assistant on 25.06.1984 for regularisation as contemplated under G.O.Ms. No.996 dated 22.09.1984 by which ban was imposed for employment and the re-appointment of the petitioner on 29.06.1984 by the Chief Educational Officer during the ban period is contrary to G.O. Ms. No. 996 dated 22.09.1984. According to the petitioner, the respondents have not regularised her service either from the initial appointment or atleast from the date of her re-appointment. At this juncture, it is to be pointed out that originally, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 5980 of 1984 for a direction to the respondents to regularise her service from the date of her appointment namely 31.12.1981, subsequently a petition was filed to amend the prayer and accordingly the prayer was amended seeking regularising her service atleast from the date of re-appointment namely 29.06.1984.

(2.) IN the Original Application, it was contended by the petitioner that she is entitled for regularisation of her service in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 259, P&AR Department dated 24.08.1989 on the basis of the service rendered by her from 1981 to 1984 also. The Tribunal, by order dated 24.12.1994 issuing certain direction, but that order was not complied with. Therefore, the petitioner has filed Contempt Application No. 343 of 1995 before the Tribunal. When the contempt petition was filed, the respondents regularised the service of the petitioner by proceedings dated 14.06.1995 with effect from 10.04.1990 on the ground that the government has allotted the post of Junior Assistant only on 10.04.1990. Subsequently, by an order dated 23.02.1996 of the District Educational Officer, Villupuram, the petitioner's service was regularised in the post of Junior Assistant with effect from 10.04.1990 on condition that the period of probation would be completed as per the condition imposed by the Rules. The Tribunal therefore closed the contempt application on 09.07.1996 giving liberty to the petitioner to make representation to the respondents seeking regularisation of her service from the date of appointment. Pursuant to such direction, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 11.03.1997 to regularise her service from the date of her initial appointment, but no order has been passed. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the above Original Application No. 5406 of 1998 before the Tribunal. On abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as WP No. 33784 of 2006. Pending disposal of the writ petition, the prayer was amended before this Court and now the petitioner is challenging the order dated 14.06.1995 of the first respondent by which the petitioner's service was regularised only with effect from 10.04.1990.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the decision reported in (R. Mohan vs. Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai and another) 2006 Writ Law Reporter 480 to say that if irregular appointment have been ratified, it will confer right to get appointment for an employee from the date of his initial appointment and hence the same is applicable to the case on hand and prayed for allowing the writ petition.