Skip to content


The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Omandurar Government estate, Vs. N. Vijeichandran and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberW.A(MD)Nos. 480, 481 & 482 of 2012, C.M.P.(MD) Nos. 8108 of 2016 & M.P.(MD) Nos. 3, 3 & 3 of 2012
Judge
AppellantThe Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Omandurar Government estate,
RespondentN. Vijeichandran and Others
Excerpt:
.....for final disposal and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. the facts leading to filing of the writ petitions are narrated in the common order dated 05.11.2009 in w.p.(md) nos. 4461, 4297, 4715, 4440, 5010, 5485 and 6021 of 2009 and therefore, it is unnecessary to state all the facts except to state the relevant facts for the disposal of the writ appeals. 3. the learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/ tamilnadu public service commission would submit that private respondents were given temporary employment on contractual basis by the government departments. thereafter, the government of tamilnadu took a policy decision to accommodate them in the respective departments in which they were working by conducting special competitive examinations/ group-iv through the.....
Judgment:

Common Judgment

M. Sathyanarayanan, J.

1. Today, W.A.(MD) No.480 of 2012 alone is listed along with vacate stay petition and it is represented by the respective learned counsel for the parties that similar issue is also involved in W.A(MD) Nos.481 and 482 of 2012. Therefore, by consent, all the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The facts leading to filing of the writ petitions are narrated in the common order dated 05.11.2009 in W.P.(MD) Nos. 4461, 4297, 4715, 4440, 5010, 5485 and 6021 of 2009 and therefore, it is unnecessary to state all the facts except to state the relevant facts for the disposal of the Writ Appeals.

3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/ Tamilnadu Public Service Commission would submit that private respondents were given temporary employment on contractual basis by the Government Departments. Thereafter, the Government of Tamilnadu took a policy decision to accommodate them in the respective Departments in which they were working by conducting special competitive Examinations/ Group-IV through the Tamilnadu Public Service Commission. While participating in the selection process, the private respondents had also intimated their preference to work in the very same Department.

4. However, the Registration Department, Highways Department have not given a list at the time of holding the Special Competitive Examination and the private respondents, who were working in the said Departments, have not been accommodated and were accommodated in some other Departments. Pursuant to their selection and challenging the legality of the same, the present writ petitions were filed and and the same were allowed by the common order dated 05.11.2009.

5. Tamilnadu Public Service Commissioner aggrieved by the order passed in W.P.(MD)Nos. 4461 of 2009 and 4927 of 2008 filed writ appeals in W.A.Nos.242 of 2010 and 387 of 2011 respectively. Both the appeals were allowed by this Court by judgment dated 27.07.2010 and 28.04.2011 respectively subject to certain directions.

6. Aggrieved by the orders passed in writ appeals, private respondents filed Special Leave Petitions. Pendency of the same, there was an oral direction directing the State to consider their claim for accommodation in the very same Department in which they were working. The said Special Leave Petitions came to be dismissed. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for Tamilnadu Public Service Commission would submit that since the challenge made in W.A.(MD) Nos.232 of 2010 and 387 of 2011 was successful, this Writ Appeals may be allowed and prayed for appropriate orders.

7. Per contra, Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing for the contesting private respondents would contend that similarly placed temporary employees were absorbed in the very same Department, where they earlier worked on the consolidated pay basis. But in the case of the present writ petitioners their parant department omitted to notify the vacancies to Tamilnadu Public Service commission and that is how the order impugned in the writ petitions came to be passed and therefore, prays for a direction directing the Registration Department and Highways Department to accommodate them in any one of the suitable posts at the earliest as they are nearing the age of superannuation.

8. This Court paid it's anxious consideration to the submissions made by the parties and perused the materials placed on record.

9. A perusal of typed set of judgment dated 27.07.2010 made in W.A.(MD)Nos.242 of 2010 and 387 of 2011 dated 27.07.2010 and 28.04.2011 respectively, it is seen that the challenge made by the appellant/Tamilnadu Public Service Commission as to the directions made in the Writ Petitions to accommodate the private respondents in the same Departments was set aside and the appeals were allowed and further challenge made to the said orders in the form of Special Leave Petition also came to be dismissed. In the light of the said fact, the common order dated 05.11.2009 in W.P.Nos. 4461, 4297, 4715, 4440, 5010, 5484 and 6021 of 2009 is set aside.

10. It is brought to notice of this Court, the Inspector General of Registration has sent a proposal in Lr.No.25408/K2/2010 dated 06.02.2014 with a positive recommendation to the Principal Secreatry to the Administrative Department to accommodate the respective private respondents as a special case in the very same Departments. Therefore, Administrative Department of the Government of Tamilnadu is directed to consider the said proposal on merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and communicate the decision taken to the respective private parties/respondents.

11. This Writ Appeals are allowed subject to the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //