Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by twenty-one seasonal watchmen against the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation and its officers. The petitioners had been engaged for the paddy procurement season 2018-2019 after being selected through a public notification dated 23.11.2018 and appointment order dated 28.02.2019. They were relieved on 15.04.2019 at the end of the season. A settlement dated 30.01.1997 between the Corporation and trade union provided preference to qualified seasonal employees in subsequent seasons, leading petitioners to expect engagement for the 2019-2020 season. However, their services were not utilised, and by order dated 15.02.2021 the second respondent terminated their appointments, stating that the initial selection was made without following guidelines and due procedure. The Corporation proposed a fresh selection process. Petitioners contended that termination without notice and hearing violated natural justice, and that they had accrued a right to continue as seasonal employees. They also pointed out that departmental proceedings were initiated against selection officials, indicating the fault lay not with them. The respondents argued that the petitioners were temporary seasonal employees on consolidated pay, not permanent, and that their appointments were irregular because they participated through open market without employment exchange sponsorship. They also submitted that a batch of similar writ petitions had been disposed of by common order dated 22.12.2021 in W.P.(MD)No.21167 of 2021, permitting seasonal employees to participate in ongoing recruitment with age relaxation. The court, after considering the submissions, observed that the selection committee of 2018-2019 had made appointments without following guidelines, and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against erring officials. It noted that recruitment was for a particular season and petitioners were discharged by the impugned order. The court held that notwithstanding cancellation of the initial appointment, the petitioners have the right to participate in future recruitment process, and the termination order does not preclude them from applying for new positions. The judgment text ends mid-sentence, so final operative directions beyond this holding are not fully available.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of Temporary/Seasonal Employees - Principles of Natural Justice - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Petitioners, engaged as seasonal watchmen for paddy procurement during 2018-2019 by Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, challenged their termination on ground of absence of notice and hearing. The court noted that appointment was for a particular season and selection committee failed to follow guidelines, leading to disciplinary action against officials. Held that seasonal employees cannot claim continuation or reinstatement solely based on previous engagement; termination did not violate natural justice as it stemmed from irregular selection process (Paras 2, 4, 7). B) Service Law - Regularisation and Back Wages - Temporary Seasonal Employment - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Petitioners sought reinstatement with back wages and attendant benefits, claiming accrued right under settlement between Corporation and trade union. The court rejected the claim of vested right, observing that temporary seasonal employees appointed without following due procedure do not have a right to regularisation or back wages. Held that since recruitment was for a specific season and selection was irregular, petitioners were not entitled to reinstatement (Paras 4-5, 7-8). C) Administrative Law - Judicial Review of Recruitment Cancellation - Participation in Future Selection - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The court considered whether cancellation of appointment bars future employment. It referred to a common order in similar writ petitions directing that seasonal employees could participate in ongoing recruitment and be considered independently with age relaxation. Held that notwithstanding cancellation, petitioners have the right to participate in future recruitment process; termination order does not preclude them from applying for new positions (Paras 5, 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether termination of seasonal watchmen without notice and opportunity of hearing for irregular appointment violates principles of natural justice; whether petitioners are entitled to reinstatement with back wages; whether cancellation precludes future recruitment participation
Final Decision
The court held that notwithstanding cancellation of the initial appointment, the petitioners have the right to participate in future recruitment process; the termination order does not preclude them from applying for new positions. The judgment text ends mid-sentence, so final operative directions beyond this holding are not fully available.
Law Points
- Seasonal temporary employees do not acquire vested right to reinstatement or back wages when initial appointment was irregular
- cancellation does not bar future recruitment participation
- Article 226 jurisdiction exercised to permit age relaxation and independent consideration
