Case Note & Summary
The State of Tamil Nadu, through its Education Department and other officials, filed a writ appeal challenging the order of the single judge dated 27.07.2021 in W.P.No.33454 of 2015. The respondents, five individuals working at Thanthai Periyar Government Institute of Technology, Vellore, had approached the writ court seeking to quash a notification dated 02.09.2015 issued to fill various posts, and for a direction to regularise their services. The writ court, relying on the Supreme Court decisions in Sheo Narain Nagar & Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) 13 SCC 432 and Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others (2006) 4 SCC 1, held that the appointments of the respondents could be either regular or irregular but not illegal, and that the Umadevi decision could not be used solely to deny regularisation benefits. The court extended the benefits of G.O.(Ms.)No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006, and directed the State to regularise the services of the respondents from the date of their initial appointments. The State contended in appeal that only the first respondent was sponsored through the Employment Exchange, while respondents 2 to 5 were not, implying that their appointments were back door entries and thus not entitled to regularisation from the initial date. The matter was reserved on 31.01.2025 and judgment pronounced on 24.03.2025.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Regularisation of Temporary Employees - Distinction between Irregular and Illegal Appointments - G.O.(Ms.)No.22, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department, dated 28.02.2006 - The writ court directed regularisation of respondents' services from initial appointment, holding that appointments were either regular or irregular but not illegal, and that the State cannot deny regularisation benefits relying solely on Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1. The State appealed contending that only one respondent was sponsored through Employment Exchange and the others were not, raising concerns of back door appointments (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ court properly directed regularisation of the respondents' services from the date of initial appointment, given that respondents 2-5 were not sponsored through Employment Exchange, and whether such appointments were back door or irregular
Law Points
- Regularisation of temporary employees
- distinction between irregular and illegal appointments
- back door appointments prohibition
- Umadevi principles cannot be used only to deny regularisation benefits
- employment exchange sponsorship relevance
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (03) 49
W.A.No.2569 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.20290 of 2022
Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth, Mr. Justice G. Arul Murugan
Mr.D.Ravichander, Special Government Pleader for Appellants; Ms.R.T.Sundari for Respondents
1.The Secretary to Government, Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 9. 2.The Commissioner / Director, Director of Technical Education, Chennai - 25. 3.The Principal, Thanthai Periyar Government Institute of Technology, Vellore - 632 002. 4.The District Employment Officer, District Employment Office, Vellore District, Vellore.
1.M.Kamalanathan 2.K.Ramesh Kumar 3.S.Ashok Kumar 4.K.Elumalai 5.M.Pichandi
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ appeal against order directing regularisation of temporary employees from initial appointment date.
Remedy Sought
Appellants (State) seek to set aside the writ court order dated 27.07.2021 and deny regularisation.
Filing Reason
The writ court directed regularisation from initial appointment, which the State contends is unsustainable as only one respondent was sponsored through Employment Exchange, making the others' appointments back door.
Previous Decisions
Writ court allowed W.P.No.33454 of 2015, directing regularisation from initial appointment, relying on Supreme Court decisions.
Issues
Whether the writ court properly directed regularisation from the date of initial appointment despite respondents 2-5 not being sponsored through Employment Exchange.
Whether the appointments of respondents 2-5 were back door and thus ineligible for regularisation from initial date.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants contended that only the first respondent was sponsored through Employment Exchange and respondents 2-5 were not, implying their appointments were back door and not entitled to regularisation from initial appointment.
Judgment Excerpts
The writ court ... held that the appointment of the respondents could either be regular or irregular, but no means it could be illegal.
The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others ... cannot be used only to deny the benefits of regularisation.
Procedural History
The respondents filed W.P.No.33454 of 2015 before the Madras High Court challenging notification dated 02.09.2015 and seeking regularisation. The writ court by order dated 27.07.2021 allowed the petition and directed regularisation from initial appointment. The State filed W.A.No.2569 of 2022 under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against said order.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
