High Court · 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 09..01..2008CoramThe Honourable Mr.Justice P.K. MISRAandThe Honourable Mr.Justice K.CHANDRUW.P. Nos. 8285, 8286, 10681 and 10682 of 2003N. Sekar... Petitioner in W.P. No. 8285 of 2003V.K. Thiagarajan... Petitioner in W.P. No. 8286 of 2003V. Thulasiraman... Petitioner in W.P. No. 10681 of 2003M. Veeramalai... Petitioner in W.P. No. 10682 of 2003-vs-The Director of Audit for Milk Co-operativesAavin IllamMathavaram Milk ColonyChennai – 51.. R1 in W.P. Nos. 8285 & 8286 of 2003The Regional Deputy Director of Auditfor Milk and Co-operatives 110 Cherry Road, Kumarswamy PattiSalem..R2 in W.P. Nos. 8285 of 2003The Regional Deputy Director of Auditfor Milk and Co-operatives Madras Region,Madras..R2 in W.P. No. 8286 of 2003The Regional Deputy Director of Auditfor Milk and Co-operatives 212 R.K. Mutt RoadMylapore, Chennai.. R1 in W.P. No. 10681 of 2003The Director of Auditfor Milk and Co-operatives 212 R.K. Mutt RoadMylapore, Chennai.. R 2 in W.P. No. 10681 of 2003 R1 in WP 10682 of 2003 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The Registrar of Co-op. SocietiesKilpaukChennai.. R3 in all W.Ps. The Joint Registrar of Co-op. SocietiesSalem Region, Salem.. R4 in W.P. No. 10682 of 2003 The RegistrarTamil Nadu Administrative TribunalChennai ... 4th Respondents in WP 8285/06 and 8286/06 and 10681/03.... 5th Respondents in WP 10682/03. The Regional Deputy Director Audit for Milk Co-operatives, Salem Region, 8-A, Ramakrishna Road, Salem – 636 007.... R2 in WP 10682 of 2003.Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying toissue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relatingto the order of the fourth respondent made in O.A. Nos. 2131, 1620, 2131and 1905 of 1991 respectively dated 11.12.2002, to quash the same and todirect the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners.For Petitioners : Mr. S.M. SubramaniamFor Respondents : Mr. M. Dhandapani, Spl. GPCOMMON ORDER(Order of the Court was made by K.CHANDRU, J.)Heard the arguments of Mr. S.M. Subramaniam, learned counselappearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Dhandapani, learned SpecialGovernment Pleader representing the official respondents and haveperused the records.2.The petitioners along with 41 persons were appointedtemporarily as Junior Inspectors under the Audit Board for Milk Co-operative Societies. The Board was established to audit the accountsof all Milk Co-operative Societies and they were attached to senior Co-operative Auditors. The appointment was made in the year 1985. On01.10.1987, the Audit Board was renamed as Director of Audit for MilkCo-operatives. The designation given to the petitioners was alsochanged as Junior Co-operative Auditors for Milk Co-operatives. TheState Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 271 Co-operation dated 10.11.1989calling for applications form the temporarily appointed JuniorInspectors for the purpose of regularisation and for this purpose, aspecial qualifying examination was held. Subsequent to the specialqualifying examination, the persons who passed in the examination got https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ their services regularised whereas the petitioners' services were soughtto be terminated by an order dated 26.4.1991. This was on the groundthat the petitioners were not qualified for the said post. As againstthe order of termination, the petitioners along with other similarlyplaced persons filed several Original Applications before the Tamil NaduAdministrative Tribunal and challenged the order of termination. 3.The Tribunal held that ousting the petitioners from servicewas in accordance with the terms and conditions of the temporaryappointment and since regularly selected persons were to join in thesaid post, necessarily, the petitioners will have to be vacated fromtheir posts. The Tribunal also held that even though the terminationtook place in the year 1991 in respect of the petitioners, in view ofthe interim orders granted, they were restored to service. But sincethe petitioners have not qualified in the special examination, there isno question of their continuing in service contrary to the terms ofappointment. Immediately after the order dated 11.12.2002, onceagain, the petitioners' services were terminated on 28.02.2003. Thepetitioners thereafter approached this Court with the above writpetitions and pending the writ petitions, interim orders were alsopassed in favour of the petitioners. 4.On behalf of the third respondent, a counter affidavit hasbeen filed justifying the termination of the petitioners. It wasstated that candidates for the post of Junior Inspectors of Co-operativeSocieties were recruited by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commissionthrough competitive examination and inspite of the special qualifyingexamination held in favour of the petitioners, they were not successfuland because they had failed, the question of their continuance inservice does not arise. 5.In normal circumstances, we would not have found anythingwrong with the action initiated by the respondents in terminating theservices of the petitioners. However, Mr. S.M. Subramaniam, learnedcounsel appearing for the petitioners brought to the notice of thisCourt that the very same Tribunal in respect of similarly placed personsin a batch of cases, by a common order dated 18.12.2003, passed thefollowing order:"These applicants have continuously employed from 1984 andtherefore in view of the orders passed in the earlierOriginal Applications and in view of the fact that theyhave not been ousted and they have been allowed tocontinue in service for 15 years, the respondents aredirected to regularise their appointment. But, theyare not entitled to for any arrears. All theseapplications are allowed and ordered in these terms."6.The State Government did not challenge the said order. But,on the contrary, passed G.O. Ms. No. 445 Finance (Co-operative Audit) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Department dated 20.12.2005 directing regularisation in respect of 21Junior Co-operative Inspectors with effect from the next date of theconduct of the special qualifying examination, ie., 16.10.1999. Thelearned Special Government Pleader is not able to controvert thisargument and also could not justify the discrimination between the twosets of employees, who are similarly placed. Since the Government hasgiven effect to the order of the Tribunal dated 18.12.2003, which cameto be passed after the order was impugned in these writ petitions andhas also given the consequential regularisation order, we do not thinkthat the petitioners herein should be discriminated especially whentheir service conditions are identical and the nature of grievanceprojected are also similar. 7.Therefore, without going into the merits of the contentionsraised by the parties, we feel that in the interest of justice, theGovernment cannot make any discrimination between these petitioners andthe persons, who are governed by G.O. Ms. No. 445 Finance Co-operativeAudit dated 20.12.2005. Under these circumstances, all these writpetitions will stand allowed and the respondents are directed to grantthe petitioners the same benefit as per G.O. Ms. No. 445 Co-operativeAudit Department dated 20.12.2005 and regularise the services of thepetitioners. However, there will be no order as to costs.Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrargriTo1.The Director of Audit for Milk Co-operativesAavin IllamMathavaram Milk ColonyChennai – 512.The Regional Deputy Director of Auditfor Milk and Co-operatives 110 Cherry RoadKumarswamy PattiSalem3.The Regional Deputy Director of Auditfor Milk and Co-operatives Madras Region,Madras https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The Regional Deputy Director of Auditfor Milk and Co-operatives 212 R.K. Mutt RoadMylapore, Chennai5.The Director of Audit for Milk and Co-operatives 212 R.K. Mutt RoadMylapore, Chennai6.The Registrar of Co-op. SocietiesKilpaukChennai7.The Joint Registrar of Co-op. SocietiesSalem Region, Salem.8. The Section Officer Writ Section, High Court.9. The Regional Deputy Director, Audit for Milk Co-operatives, Salem Region, 8A Ramakrishna Road, Salem – 636 007.+1 cc to M/s. S.M.subramaniam, Advocate, SR.No.1175.1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.1230.Akr (Co)krd / 12.03.08W.P. Nos. 8285, 8286, 10681 and 10682 of 2003