Madras High Court Dismisses Part-Time Sweeper's Regularization Claim in Library Service — Appointment Not Against Sanctioned Post or Through Regular Recruitment. Part-time employees not recruited as per rules cannot claim regularization under Article 226 of Constitution of India, 1950.

High Court: Madras High Court In Favour of Prosecution
  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, K. Velmurugan, was appointed as a part-time sweeper on 01.12.1999 on consolidated pay in the Tamil Nadu Public Libraries Department. He filed a writ petition seeking regularization of his services. The Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.385 dated 01.10.2010 granting Special Time Scale of Pay to part-time employees who served three years, but the appellant sought full regularization. The learned single judge dismissed the writ petition, leading to this intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The appellant argued that he performed many other works beyond sweeping. The respondents opposed, stating that part-time employees are not working against sanctioned posts and perform only one hour duty cleaning library halls. The court noted that the issues are no longer res integra following the Constitution Bench judgment in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 and the subsequent order in Secretary to Government School Education Department v. R.Govindaswamy. The court held that part-time employees not appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process against sanctioned vacant posts are not entitled to regularization. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the order of the learned single judge.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Regularization - Part-Time Employees - Part-time sweeper appointed on consolidated pay without recruitment rules - Claim for regularization rejected - Held that part-time employees not appointed against sanctioned posts or through regular recruitment are not entitled to regularization following State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 and Secretary to Government School Education Department v. R.Govindaswamy (Paras 2-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether a part-time sweeper appointed on consolidated pay without following recruitment rules is entitled to regularization of services

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Law Points

  • Part-time employees not appointed against sanctioned posts or through regular recruitment are not entitled to regularization
  • Umadevi principle applies
  • Article 226 cannot be used to bypass recruitment rules
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (MAD) (02) 321

WA No. 2792 of 2022 and CMP No. 22690 of 2022

2026-02-06

S. M. Subramaniam, C. Kumarappan

2026:MHC:529

Mr.P.Ganesan for Ms.S.Vinodha (for appellant), Mr.K.H.Ravikumar, Government Advocate (for respondents)

K. Velmurugan

The Principal Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai; The Director of Public Libraries, Chennai; The District Library Officer, Salem

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ Appeal against dismissal of writ petition seeking regularization of part-time sweeper

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought regularization of services as part-time sweeper

Filing Reason

Appellant was appointed as part-time sweeper on consolidated pay and sought regularization

Previous Decisions

Writ Petition No.15953 of 2019 was dismissed on 28.04.2022 by learned single judge

Issues

Whether a part-time sweeper appointed on consolidated pay without following recruitment rules is entitled to regularization

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that though engaged as part-time sweeper, he performed many other works Respondents argued that part-time employees are not working against sanctioned posts and perform only one hour duty

Ratio Decidendi

Part-time employees not appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process against sanctioned vacant posts are not entitled to regularization. Courts under Article 226 should not issue directions for regularization unless the employees had been appointed through regular recruitment against sanctioned posts.

Judgment Excerpts

Since these part time employees are not appointed in a sanctioned post nor they were recruited as per the Recruitment Rules in force, they are entitled to be regularized to the sanctioned post in the time scale of pay. The issues raised in this appeal are no more res integra.

Procedural History

Appellant filed WP No.15953/2019 seeking regularization, which was dismissed on 28.04.2022. The present Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent was filed against that order.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226, Article 14, Article 16
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Dismisses Part-Time Sweeper's Regularization Claim in Library Service — Appointment Not Against Sanctioned Post or Through Regular Recruitment. Part-time employees not recruited as per rules cannot claim regularization under Artic...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Conviction for Murder in Private Defence Claim — Evidence of Intentional Fatal Stabbing on Vital Part Establishes Offence Under Section 302 IPC. Right of Private Defence Not Available Where Accused Was Aggressor and Attack Was...