Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, five individuals appointed as part-time Veterinary Assistants in the Animal Husbandry Department of Tamil Nadu, filed writ petitions seeking a direction to the respondents not to fill the posts of Animal Husbandry Assistants without absorbing or regularising their services. They claimed to have worked continuously for over twelve years, with appointment dates ranging from July 1995 to July 2000. The writ petitions were initially allowed on 16.07.2021, but on appeal, the Division Bench set aside that order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The petitioners argued that they were appointed against sanctioned posts and performed duties of permanent employees, and that the competent authorities had recommended their regularisation under G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006. The respondents contended that the petitioners were only part-time workers not appointed against sanctioned posts and thus not entitled to regularisation. The court examined the documents and submissions, noting that the petitioners failed to establish that they were appointed against sanctioned posts or that they worked full-time. The court held that part-time workers have no right to regularisation and that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued without a legal right. Consequently, the court dismissed all the writ petitions, finding no merit in the petitioners' claims.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularisation - Part-Time Workers - G.O.Ms.No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 28.02.2006 - The petitioners, appointed as part-time Veterinary Assistants, sought regularisation claiming they worked against sanctioned posts for over ten years. The court held that part-time workers are not entitled to regularisation as a matter of right, especially when not appointed against sanctioned posts. The court found that the petitioners failed to establish that they were appointed against sanctioned posts or that they worked full-time. The writ petitions were dismissed. (Paras 1-10) B) Service Law - Writ of Mandamus - Regularisation - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to fill posts without regularising them. The court held that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel regularisation in the absence of a legal right. The petitioners did not demonstrate any statutory or contractual right to regularisation. (Paras 2-10) C) Service Law - Absorption - Part-Time Workers - The petitioners claimed that they were appointed as part-time workers but discharged full-time duties. The court observed that the documents produced did not conclusively prove that they worked against sanctioned posts or that their work was perennial. The court declined to grant relief. (Paras 3-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners, who were appointed as part-time Veterinary Assistants, are entitled to regularisation of their services and a direction to the respondents not to fill up the posts of Animal Husbandry Assistants without absorbing them.
Final Decision
The writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Law Points
- Part-time workers have no right to regularisation
- Regularisation requires appointment against sanctioned posts
- G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 28.02.2006 does not apply to part-time workers
- Writ of mandamus cannot be issued to direct regularisation without legal right
