Skip to content


S. Vijayalakshmi and Others Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu rep. through Secretary of School, Education Department, Chennai and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberW.P.(MD)No. 10188 of 2012
Judge
AppellantS. Vijayalakshmi and Others
RespondentGovernment of Tamil Nadu rep. through Secretary of School, Education Department, Chennai and Others
Excerpt:
.....respondents to regularize the petitioners from the year 2002 with all attendant benefits.) 1. the writ petitioners were appointed as village librarian on consolidated pay. in g.o.ms.no.66, dated 30.01.1996, it was clarified that the vacancy of grade -iii librarian could be filled up from the qualified village librarian, like the petitioners herein. but contrary to the undertaking, the government attempted to fill up the post of grade - iii librarian from open market. this appointments were challenged before the tamil nadu administrative tribunal by various original applications. by judgments dated 07.06.2000, 23.06.2000 and 27.11.2000, have directed to fill up the vacancies of grade - iii librarian from among the petitioners. the government has challenged the same before this court in.....
Judgment:

(Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling the records relating to the Impugned Order of the 2nd Respondent made in Na.Ka.No.12535/A2/2011 dated 25.05.2012 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the Petitioners from the year 2002 with all attendant benefits.)

1. The writ petitioners were appointed as Village Librarian on consolidated pay. In G.O.Ms.No.66, dated 30.01.1996, it was clarified that the vacancy of Grade -III Librarian could be filled up from the qualified Village Librarian, like the petitioners herein. But contrary to the undertaking, the Government attempted to fill up the post of Grade - III Librarian from open market. This appointments were challenged before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by various original applications. By Judgments dated 07.06.2000, 23.06.2000 and 27.11.2000, have directed to fill up the vacancies of Grade - III Librarian from among the petitioners. The Government has challenged the same before this Court in W.P.No.8797 of 2001 and batch. When the matter was taken up for final hearing on 10.10.2002, the writ petitioners were given assurance by the Government that there are 1419 vacancies and the petitioners will be accommodated. Based on that, the writ petitions were closed as infructuous.

2. The Government in G.O.Ms.No.64, Educational Department, dated 12.05.2006, has granted permission to fill up the post of Librarian Grade-III from that of Village Librarian as one time measure. The petitioners were appointed in the year 2006 as Grade-III Librarian.

3. The writ petitioners have filed the writ petition in W.P(MD)No.5534 of 2012 claiming that the date of regularization of their service shall be counted from the year 2002, on which, the orders were passed by this Court on 10.10.2002, on the basis of the assurance given by the Government to regularize the service of Village Librarian. This Court, by its order, dated 25.04.2012, directed the respondents to pass orders on the request of the petitioners, within a period of 10 weeks. The second respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.12535/m2/2011, dated 25.06.2012, has rejected the request and ordered that regularization will take effect from the date on which the writ petitioners joined the service as Grade -III Librarian and not from earlier date.

4. It is well settled that the services will be counted from the date of joining and not from the earlier date. In an identical situation, this Court in W.P(MD)No.553 to 565 of 2012 dated 26.03.2013, when an occasion of dealing with the similar type of matter filed by other similarly placed persons, it is categorically stated that the writ petitioner cannot re-agitate the matter again and again as it is a settled issue. The claim no longer available to the petitioners to re-agitate the same in some other matters. The order of the Division Bench is finding on the petitioners also.

5. In view of the Judgment of this Court referred above, this writ petition deserves no consideration and accordingly, they are dismissed. No order as to costs.


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