E. Renugambal37. N. Selvi38. M. Baskaran39. S. Yosuva40 .V. Nagarajan41. T. Arumuam42 v. Baskaran43. R. Jalal Batcha44. S. Suresh Kamal45. C. Kalpana46. C. Sridhar47. N

36. E. Renugambal37. N. Selvi38. M. Baskaran39. S. Yosuva40 .V. Nagarajan41. T. Arumuam42. V. Baskaran43. R. Jalal Batcha44. S. Suresh Kamal45. C. Kalpana46. C. Sridhar47. N. Naina Mohamed48. L. Bhuvana49. M.K. Srinivasan50. D.Sujatha51. B.Gopala Krishnan52. S.Sugumaran53. A.Saravana Kumar54. K.Bamavathi55. D.Santhi56. C.Santhamoorthi57. G.Arumugam58. L.Jansi Rani59. K.Jamunarani60. K.Chandaramma61. M.Munusamy62. S.B.Sivaraman63. S.Jaya Sekar64. K.Hari Prabu65. R.Vinayagam66. D.Santhosh Kumar67. V.Elumalai68. M.Ganapathi69. E.Sudhakaran70. S.Ragupathy71. P.Gopinathi72. R.Poovannan73. S.Thangadurai-Vs.-1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Panagal Building, No.1, Geen's Road, Saidapet, Chennai.3.The District Collector Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai... RespondentsPrayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for the writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for therecords of the 1st respondent pertaining to G.O.Ms.No.96 ruraldevelopment and Panchayat Raj [E3] Department dt. 6.6.08 and theconsequential proceedings having ref.No.D.O.Re.13983 / 2008 / EE dt.6.6.08 and ROC.No.9000/2008/PA2 dt. 09.06.2008 of the 2nd and 3rdrespondents respectively and quash the same and consequently directthe 1st respondent to extend the benefit of relaxation of Rule 2 ofthe Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Panchayat DevelopmentEngineering in Favour of the Technical Assistants recruited throughthe out sourcing method under the NREGS and absorb them as over seersunder the TN Panchayat Development Engineering Subordinate Servicein Exercise of the Power under rule 48 of General Rules of the TamilNadu State and subordinate Services contained in part-II in volume-1of the Tamil Nadu Services Manual 1977. WP. No.14407/081.A.Alageswaran,2.T.Sakila,3.S.Prabhu,4.L.Narmatha,5.P.Muthukrishnan,6.A.Anbazhagan,7.R.Jeya,8.A.Jeyanthi,9.P.T.Raja Marthandaboopathy,10.K.Renganayaki,11.M.Sundarapandi,12.K.Amuthavalli,13.A.Janaki,14.K.Sasikala,15.A.Amaravathi,16.F.Magdalin Jeyanthi,17.M.Menaka,18. M.Kathiravan19. M.Durairaju 20. S.A.Arun Prasad Jesuraja, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

21. P.Sivasakthi22. K.Thiagarajan23. J.Rajeswari24. P.Veerakumar25. B.Alagunachiyar26. A.Tamilselvi27. S.Vinothini28. S.Mahalakshmi29. P.Mohandoss30. P.Gokulakannan31. A.Mareeswaran32. P.Kamaraj33. S.Arul Hubert Kingsely34. K.Kokila35. K.Vennila36. K.Sivamani37. M.Lachumaraj38. K.P.Raja39. A.Bharathi40. K.Saraswathi41. B.Senthil Raj42. K.Saravana Samy43. I.Daisy Rani44. C.Balasubramanian45. M.Kamaraj,46. K.Dharmaraj.47.P.Annalakshmi48.B.Selvaraj49.M.Saravanan.50.M.Dhanapal51.S.Sharjas52.Mr.K.Dharmaraj53.P.M.Sangaralingam54.V.Sakthivel... Petitioners-vs-1. The State of TamilnaduRep.by its Secretary to Government,Rural Development and Panchayat RajFort St.George, Chennai - 600 0092.The Director of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj,Panagal Building,No.1, Geen's Road,Saidapet, Chennai https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The District Collector,Dindigul District,Dindigul... RespondentsPrayer in W.P.No.14407 of 2008:- Writ petition filed under Article226 of the Constitution of India praying for the writ ofcertiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondentpertaining to G.O.M.s.No.96 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E3)Department dt 6.6.2008 and the consequential proceedings havingRef.No.D.O. Re.13985/2008/EE dt 6.6.2008 passed by the 2nd respondentand quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent toextend the benefit of relaxation of rule 2 of the Special Rules forthe Tamil Nadu Panchayat Development Engineering in favour of theTechnical Assistants recruited through the outsourcing method underthe NREGS and absorb them as Overseers under the TN PanchayatDevelopment Engineering Subordinate Service in Exercise of the powerunder Rule 48 of General Rules of the Tamil Nadu State andSubordinate Services Contained in part-II in Volume-1 of the TamilNadu services Manual 1977.For petitionersin both WPs :Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, SCfor Mrs.C.UmaFor Respondentsin both WPs:Mr.P.S.Raman, Addl. Advocate General-IAssisted by Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, GACOMMON ORDERThough the miscellaneous petitions are listed today, by consentof both sides, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.2.Alleging that they have been discriminated in the matter ofpublic employment thereby violating Articles 14 and 16 of theConstitution of India, the petitioners who are diploma holders inCivil Engineering have come to this Court with these two writpetitions. The petitioners in W.P.No.14222 of 2008 belong toTiruvannamalai District and the petitioners in W.P.No.14407 of 2008belong to Dindigul District. 3.The Government of India with the avowed object of providingfor enhancement of livelihood security of the households in ruralareas of the country by providing atleast 100 days of guaranteed wageemployment in every financial year to every household whose adultmembers volunteer to do unskilled manual work, enacted the NationalRural Employment Guarantee Act of 2005 on 02.02.2006. As per Section4 of the said act, the Government of Tamil Nadu launched a scheme https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ known as "Tamil Nadu Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme" (NREGS) w.e.f02.02.2006 in six districts namely, Cuddalore, Villupuram, Dindigul,Thiruvannamalai, Nagapattinam and Sivaganga Districts in Tamil Nadu.The Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.153, Rural Developmentand Panchayat Raj (CGS I) Department, dated 20.10.2006 therebysanctioning 180 posts of Computer Assistants, 383 posts of TechnicalAssistants at the rate of one such Technical Assistant for every tenvillage panchayats in the above six districts. The Government Orderinter alia prescribed the procedure for appointing the TechnicalAssistants. The relevant portion of the said Government Order is asfollows:-"After careful examination of therecommendation of the Director of RuralDevelopment and Panchayat Raj, the Governmentsanction the following posts in the six districtsviz., Cuddalore, Villupuram, Tirucannamalai,Nagapattinam, Dindigul and Sivaganga, where theTamil Nadu Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme isunder implementation till the scheme is inexistence of the necessity of the post ceasedwhichever is earlier.(i)180 posts of Computer Assistants at therate of one of Technical Assistants (twoposts of Computer Assistant and two posts ofTechnical Assistant for each of the 90blocks in six districts)(ii)383 posts of Technical Assistants at therate of one for every ten village Panchayatsin six districts.(iii)For Computer Assistants (two per block),the Collectors shall recruit the eligiblepersons by calling for a list from theEmployment Exchange of through outstandingthem on contract basis by prescribing aqualification of "Degree in ComputerApplications or Computer Science". Theyshall be paid Rs.4,000/- per month onconsolidated pay.(iv)The selection of two Technical Assistantsper block and one for every ten villagePanchayats shall be made by calling for thelist from the Employment Exchange andconducting a simple test for them or byoutsourcing them locally on contract basisand place them on consolidated pay ofRs.4,000/- per month. The qualification forthe post of Technical Assistants shall be"Diploma/Degree in Civil Engineering". https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.As per the said Government Order, Technical Assistants couldbe appointed by means of selection by calling for the list ofeligible candidates from the respective local employment exchangesand conducting a simple test for them. This indicates that the modeof selection is on the basis of employment seniority and on the basisof merit. The Government Order also provides an alternative modenamely by outsourcing the Technical Assistants locally on contractbasis and place them on consolidated pay of Rs.4,000/- per month. Inthis method, there is no selection of the candidates by the DistrictCollector either on the basis of employment seniority or on the basisof comparative merits. The appointment is made by outsourcingagencies and the District Collectors have been empowered to negotiatewith the outsourcing agencies and engage such Technical Assistantswith required qualification namely Diploma or degree in CivilEngineering who are working with the said outsourcing agencies.5.Admittedly, in all the districts except ThiruvannamalaiDistrict and Dindigul District, the recruitment for TechnicalAssistants was made through the first method namely, throughemployment exchange by the respective District Collectors. There were120 posts of Technical Assistants created in the district ofThiruvannamalai and 59 posts of Technical Assistants in DindigulDistrict. But the District Collectors of Thiruvannamalai and DindigulDistricts did not choose to appoint Technical Assistants throughemployment exchange and instead, they adopted the second method ofengaging Technical Assistants through outsourcing agencies. Thepetitioners were appointed by an outsourcing agency known as "MasterConsultancy and Security Service" having its head office atThiruvannamalai. From the call letters filed along with the typed setof papers it could be seen that "Master Consultancy and SecurityService" conducted interview on various dates at the office of thesaid agency and appointed them. Thereafter, the petitioners inW.P.No.14222 of 2008 were engaged by the District Collector ofThiruvannamalai District as Technical Assistants. Similarly thepetitioners in W.P.No.14407 of 2008 were engaged by the DistrictCollector, Dindigul as Technical Assistants. It is to be rememberedthat the petitioners have got their names registered in therespective local employment exchanges. Since the District Collectorsof Thiruvannamalai and Dindigul did not go for the first methodthrough employment exchange, the petitioners allege that they couldnot be recruited through employment exchange under the first method.After such appointment, there was no difference between the TechnicalAssistants appointed through employment exchanges in other districtsand the Technical Assistants appointed through outsourcing agenciesin terms of qualification, tenure, salary, the nature of training andthe nature of the work. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6.While so, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.96Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E3) Department dated 06.06.2008thereby disbanding all the 961 posts of Technical Assistantssanctioned under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme inall the Districts including Thiruvannamalai and Dindigul Districts.The said Government Order was issued accepting the proposal of theDirector of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj. The Director ofRural Development and Panchayat Raj in his proposal had stated thatunlike the other governmental schemes that require the preparation ofbills to be done at the most once in a month, the work bills are tobe prepared under the National Rural Employment Guarantee scheme oncein a week in each village panchayat and hence it is highly requiredto fill up the Additional posts of Overseers in order to ensure thatthe measurement of National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme work isdone without delay in all panchayats in the state besides the propersupervision of the other Rural Development Schemes. Therefore, theDirector of Rural Development suggested that existing TechnicalAssistants can be disband and those who were appointed as TechnicalAssistants through employment exchange could be absorbed asOverseers. The Director has further stated that the TechnicalAssistants recruited through Employment Exchanges in variousdistricts may be accommodated as Overseers for the reasons givenbelow:"(i) The Technical Assistants employed inthe Districts in National Rural EmploymentGuarantee Scheme are having the same minimumtechnical qualification of Diploma in CivilEngineering as is stipulated for the posts ofOverseers and have also been recruited earlierthrough the Employment Exchanges itself.(ii) The Technical Assistants in NationalRural Employment Guarantee Scheme are senior tothe persons now proposed to be recruited throughemployment exchanges for the posts of Overseers.(iii) The present Technical Assistants arehaving a field working experience of 1-2 years inthe Districts which will be advantageous for thedistrict administration in effectiveimplementation of Rural Development Schemes,whereas the new recruits from employment exchangewill be raw hands."7.The said proposal was accepted and the Government in the saidGovernment Order directed to absorb 543 persons as Overseers in theEngineering wing of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Departmentwho were previously recruited under the scheme through employmentexchanges. To enable the said absorption, the Tamil Nadu Panchayat https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Development Engineering Subordinate Service Rules which governs theappointment and service conditions of Overseers were duly relaxed.8.According to the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Development EngineeringSubordinate Service Rules, the mode of recruitment of Overseers inthe Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj as per Rules 2and 4(a) are as follows:-"2.Appointment:Appointment to the categoryspecified in column (1) of the Table below shallbe made by the methods specified in thecorresponding entries in column (2) thereof THE TABLECategory(1)Methods of Appointments(2)Overseer(a) Director recruitment or(b) Promotion from thecategory 2Road InspectorDirector recruitment4.Qualification (a) Age: No person shall beeligible for appointment for the posts ofOverseer or Road Inspector by direct recruitment,if he has completed the age of 35 years on thefirst day of July of the year in which theselection for appointment to the posts are made.(b)Other Qualifications: No person shall be eligiblefor appointment to the category specified in column (1) ofthe Table below by the methods specified in thecorresponding entries in column (2) thereof, unless hepossesses the qualifications specified in the correspondingentries in column (3) thereof. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Category(1)Method of Appointment(2)Qualifications(3)OverseerDirect recruitment PromotionMust possess a Diploma inCivil Engineering(1)Must possess a Diplomain Civil Engineering and (2) Must have renderedservice as Road Inspectorfor a period of not lessthan 15 years:Provided person appointedby promotion, must havepassed the followingtests.(a) The Account Test forPWD Officers andsubordinates.(b)Paper IV of theDepartmental Test forOfficers of the PanchayatDevelopment Departmentviz. Tamil Nadu PanchayatsAct 1994 and the rules andorders issued there underThe ratio for appointmentto the category ofOverseer by promotion andby direct recruitmentshall be 1:3 and thefollowing rotation shallbe followed, while makingappointment to thevacancies arising in thatcategory:(1)Promotion(2)Direct recruitment(3)Direct recruitment(4)Direct recruitment https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Category(1)Method of Appointment(2)Qualifications(3)RoadInspector Direct recruitmentMust possess an I.T.ICertificate in CivilDraughtsmenship from aGovernment recognizedInstitute9.By means of G.O.No.96 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E3)Department dated 06.06.2008, the Government relaxed the Rules 2 and4, which reads as follows:-"8. The Government after detailedexamination have decided to accept the proposalof the Director of Rural Development andPanchayat Raj and hereby order as follows:(a) The eligible 543 persons indicated inthe Annexure I to this order recruited throughemployment exchange shall be absorbed as Overseasin the Engineering Wing of the Rural Developmentand Panchayat Raj Department.(b) The Rule 2 (relating to the modes ofappointment) of the special rules for the TamilNadu Panchayat Development EngineeringSubordinate Service shall be relaxed of the said543 persons as a special case.(c) The Rule 4 (a) of the special rules forthe Tamil Nadu Panchayat Development EngineeringSubordinate Service which prescribes that the agefor direct recruitment shall not exceed 40 yearsbe relaxed in favour of 98 persons out of 543persons who are aged above 40 years of age as on01.07.2008 as indicated in the Annexure II tothis order.(d) The Districts to which these newlyappointed Overseers have been allotted areindicated in Annexure I to this order. TheDistrict Collectors concerned will issue theappointment orders as Overseers after once againsatisfying themselves that the said persons wereoriginally appointed as Technical Assistants onlythrough the employment exchange; that they haveat least a Diploma in Civil Engineering; and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ about their community (in respect of SCs, STs,MBCs and DNCs and Bcs)(e) The Overseers now appointed shall bejunior to all those Overseers appointed by directrecruitment through employment exchange or bypromotion from the category of Road Inspectorsprior to the date of issuance of this governmentorder i.e.06.06.2008.(f) Their dates of joining as TechnicalAssistants in any District either under theNational Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme or theTsunami Rehabilitation Programmes – and wheretheir dates of joining are the same, then theirage – shall be the basis for the limited purposeof fixing the inter-se seniority among the blocof 543 Overseers now appointment. Accordingly,their inter-se seniority at the district level isindicated in Annexure I to this order. The aboveprinciples shall also form the basis fordetermining their inter-se seniority at the Statelevel, if required at any time in the future.Notwithstanding anything stated above, theirprevious service as Technical Assistants onconsolidated pay basis will not be counted forservice/pensionary benefits of any kind. Theyshall furnish an undertaking in triplicate to theDistrict Collector agreeing to these stipulationbefore the appointment orders are issued to them.(g) The balance 130 posts of Overseers asdetailed in the Annexure III to this order shallbe filled up through employment exchange.(h) All the 961 posts of TechnicalAssistants sanctioned in National RuralEmployment Guarantee Scheme Districts shall bedisbanded.(i) The 95 sanctioned posts of TechnicalAssistants in Tsunami District ImplementationUnits may be continued, but filled up onlythrough outsourcing from an engineering manpowerFirm in the future.9. In exercise of the powers conferred byrule 48 of General Rules of the Tamil Nadu Stateand Subordinate contained in part – II in volume https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ – I of the Tamil Nadu Services Manual 1977, theGovernor of Tamil Nadu hereby relaxes the Rule 2(relating to the modes of appointments) and Rule4(a) (relating to age) of the Special Rules forthe Tamil Nadu Panchayat Development EngineeringSubordinate Service in favour of the personsindicated in Annexure – I and II to this orderrespectively, so as to enable them to beappointed as Overseers in the Tamil NaduPanchayat Development Engineering SubordinateService, with effect from the date of theirjoining duty."10.The said relaxation is not applicable for the petitionerssince they do not come within the 543 persons in whose favour therules have been relaxed by the Government. So, the petitioners couldnot be absorbed as Overseers. In those circumstances, the petitionershave come forward with these two writ petitions challengingG.O.Ms.No.96 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E3) Departmentdated 06.06.2008 to the extent that the Government relaxes Rules 2and 4 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Development Engineering SubordinateService Rules only in favour of 543 persons who were appointedthrough employment exchanges thereby depriving such relaxation infavour of the petitioners though they claim that they are equals tothose 543 persons.11.The main contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearingfor the petitioners is that the impugned Government Orderdiscriminates between 543 persons recruited through employmentexchanges and the petitioners who were engaged through outsourcingagency and thus, it violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitutionof India.12.But the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for therespondents would refute the said argument by contending that thepetitioners and those 543 persons in whose favour relaxation has beenmade are not equals and so, there is no question of infraction ofArticles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He would furthersubmit that the petitioners are unequals to those 543 persons so theycannot claim any relaxation on par with those 543 persons. Thus,according to him, there is no infringement of fundamental rights andso, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 13.At the outset, it is worthwhile to refer to the judgment of aConstitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, Stateof Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) (2006 (4) SCC 1), wherein ithas been held thus. "The right to life protected by Article 21 ofthe Constitution of India would not include theright of employment. There is no fundamental right https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in those who have been employed on daily wages ortemporarily or on contractual basis, to claim thatthey have a right to be absorbed in service. Theycannot be said to be holders of a post, since, aregular appointment could be made only by makingappointments consistent with the requirements ofArticles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.The right to be treated equally with the otheremployees employed on daily wages, cannot beextended to a claim for equal treatment with thosewho were regularly employed. That would betreating unequals as equals. It cannot also berelied on to claim a right to be absorbed inservice even though they have never been selectedin terms of the relevant recruitment rules. Thearguments based on Articles 14 and 16 of theConstitution of India are therefore overruled."14.Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court inUmadevi’s case (cited supra) if the claim of the petitioners isapproached it is crystal clear that since they were not appointedthrough the regular scheme of appointment they do not have any rightto claim that they should be absorbed as Overseers. But, what allthat is contended is that when such relaxation has been given andsuch absorption has been made in the matter of other candidates whowere appointed through employment exchanges, the petitioners aloneare deprived of such benefit of relaxation which according to them isan infraction to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. But in myconsidered opinion, the said argument though attractive cannot beaccepted for the following reasons:-The law is well settled that unequals cannot be treated withother equals. In the case on hand, in so far as the candidatesappointed through employment exchanges numbering 543 persons areconcerned there cannot be any dispute that they are equals amongthemselves and they constitutes one class. But the question iswhether the petitioners could be treated as equals to them or not?For that, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would makethe following comparisons:-(a) They are equally qualified as all of them are not diplomaholders in Civil Engineering;(b) They were all appointed under a single scheme though byadopting two different methods.(c) Same training was imparted together to all the TechnicalAssistants irrespectively.(d) The nature of work and the duty discharged by them were alsoone and the same.(e) The tenure and salary are also same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

15.Let me now analyse as to whether the above comparisonsensures in favour of the petitioners. It is to be noticed that excepteducational qualification, in all other aspects, as rightly contendedby the learned Additional Advocate General they do not stand par withthe others. Firstly, the petitioners were not appointed by theGovernment namely, the District Collectors. A perusal ofG.O.M.s.No.153 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (CCS 1) Departmentdated 20.10.2006 would go to show that the District Collectors wereempowered to engage Technical Assistants with required qualificationthrough the outsourcing agencies. Interview letters produced alongwith the typed set of papers would indicate that these petitionerswere called for interview and appointed as Technical Assistants onlyby the outsourcing agency namely "Master Consultancy and SecurityService" at Thiruvannamalai. The method of selection by the Agency isnot known. In terms of G.O.M.s.No.153 Rural Development and PanchayatRaj (CCS 1) Department dated 20.10.2006, the appointment throughemployment exchange was not made only on the basis of the employmentseniority. The selection was made from among the candidates forwardedby the respective employment exchanges by conducting a small test toassess the merits. But no such merit was even tested in the matter ofthese petitioners when they were appointed by the outsourcing agencyor when they were engaged by respective District Collectors. Thus thepetitioners who were not appointed on the basis of merit as TechnicalAssistants cannot be treated par with those persons who were selectedon the basis of merit. 16.Above all, such appointments in the matter of the petitionerswere not made by the District Collectors at all. So, they cannot beconstrued to be either temporary or contractual employees of theGovernment. They are all employees of the outsourcing agency. Theproposal of the second respondent which is the foundation forissuance of G.O.M.s.No.96 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E3)Department dated 06.06.2008 is to create additional posts ofOverseers in order to ensure that the measurement of National RuralEmployment Guarantee Scheme works are done without delay every weekin all panchayats so hat the scheme could be implemented effectivelyto help the rural poor. If appointment is to be made for such postsof Overseers as per the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Development EngineeringSubordinate Service Rules in the regular course; it may consume muchtime and it would not be in the interest of the scheme. So, it wasthought of absorbing these Technical Assistants who were appointedthrough the employment exchanges. Since, the post of TechnicalAssistants were no more required to achieve the scheme, it wasproposed to disband the Technical Assistants. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

17.It is contended that by relaxing the rule in respect of thecandidates appointed through employment exchanges alone, the objectsought to be achieved could not be achieved and the object could havebeen achieved by absorbing these petitioners also. Thus, according tothe learned Senior Counsel, there is no nexus between the objectsought to be achieved and the relaxation given in the case of others.But in my considered opinion, there is no substance in the saidargument, for the simple reason that the object is to createadditional posts and to absorb the eligible persons to fill up thoseposts so that the scheme is implemented in the required place tobenefit the rural poor. The reasons for giving such relaxation havebeen elaborately stated in the proposal submitted by the Director andthe same have been properly analysed and accepted by the Government.I do not see any reason to hold that such reasons are irrational orarbitrary. 18.The persons who were not at all appointed by the Governmenteven as temporary employee or contract employee cannot have any rightfor absorption. It may be a different case if at the time of theiroriginal appointment, though the petitioners were sponsored by theoutsourcing agency if the District Collectors had conducted any testto assess their merits and to select. The Government Order inG.O.M.s.No.153 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (CCS 1) Departmentdated 20.10.2006 does not provide for any such tests to be conductedby the District Collectors in respect of the candidates who aresponsored by the outsourcing agency. Therefore, though it is truethat after such appointment, the training which they had under gone,the nature of work that they had discharged and salary drawn etc.,are equal at no stretch of imagination, they can be treated as equalswith those candidates who are appointed through employment exchangeby testing their merits by holding necessary examination. If onlythese petitioners are also absorbed by relaxing the relevant rules asOverseers, it may not achieve the object since unqualified personswould be there as Overseers and the result would be that theGovernment could not extract technical work from such persons. Inparagraph No.47 of Uma Devi’s case (cited supra), the Hon'bleSupreme Court has held as follows:-"47.When a person enters a temporaryemployment or gets engagement as a contractual orcasual worker and the engagement is not based on aproper selection as recognised by the relevantrules or procedure, he is aware of theconsequences of the appointment being temporary,casual or contractual in nature. Such a personcannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectationfor being confirmed in the Post when anappointment to the post could be made only by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ following a proper procedure for selection and incases concerned, in consultation with the PublicService Commission. Therefore, the theory orlegitimate expectation cannot be successfullyadvanced by temporary, contractual or casualemployees. It cannot also be held that the Statehas held out any promise while engaging thesepersons either to continue them where they are orto make them permanent. The State cannotconstitutionally make such a promise. It is alsoobvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seeka positive relief of being made permanent in thepost." 19.Applying the above law laid down by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt, I am of the view that in the case on hand, the petitioners whowere not even appointed either on temporary basis or on contractualbasis by the Government cannot claim absorption. As the petitionerswere appointed only by the outsourcing agency, if once the post ofTechnical Assistants are disbanded and they are discharges, theyhave to go back only with their employer namely the outsourcingagency and seek relief, if any, for which they are entitled. It isalso not the case of the petitioners that any order of appointmentwas issued either on temporary basis or on contractual basis by theDistrict Collectors. They were engaged only on negotiation betweenthe outsourcing agency and the Government. It was only theoutsourcing agency which issued appointment orders to them onconducting interview. From the date of appointment by the agency, thepetitioners continued to be the employees of the outsourcing agencyand at no stretch of imagination, it can be said that on engagementby the Government that they became the employees of the Government oncontractual basis. There is no privity of contract between thepetitioners and the Government at all. But the contract was betweenthe petitioners and the outsourcing agency. In term of the saidcontract between the Government and the outsourcing agency, they wereengaged by the Government. Since there is no privity of contractbetween the Government and the petitioners, they cannot have anylegitimate expectation from the Government that they would be madeeither permanent in the same post or they would be absorbed in someother post. As laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, even inrespect of cases where there is such a contract existing between theGovernment and employees, nevertheless, there cannot be anylegitimate expectation on the part of such employees that they wouldbe either made permanent or they would be absorbed in a differentpost. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it very clear that underthe scheme of contract, there cannot be any such guarantee or promisegiven by the Government that any employee would be either madepermanent or absorbed in a different capacity. Therefore, in myconsidered opinion, the petitioners cannot have any legitimateexpectation that on such termination of the contract between the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government and the outsourcing agency, the petitioners would be madeeither permanent in a Government post or they would be absorbed in adifferent post. The moment the contract between the Government andthe outsourcing agency breaks, the petitioners shall move to theiroriginal position to, go over to the outsourcing agency to continueto work in the said agency.20.The appointment of 543 persons as Technical Assistantsthrough employment exchange and by conducting test under the schemewas only for the implementation of the said scheme and the saidappointment was not regulated by any service rules. The saidappointment, therefore, cannot be construed to be a regularappointment made as per the service rules under the constitutionalscheme. Therefore, in the matter of absorption, those 543 personsalso cannot have any legitimate expectation for being absorbed asOverseers but for the relaxation given. The Government being theemployer, has got the discretion under the constitution to framenecessary rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of Indiaregulating the selection/appointment or absorption of candidates forvarious posts. In this case, in respect of the post of Overseersunder the Engineering wing of Rural Development Panchayat RajDepartment, the Government has issued Tamil Nadu PanchayatDevelopment Engineering Subordinate Service Rules under which theappointment of Overseers could be made either by direct recruitmentor by promotion from Road Inspectors. The Government’s authority,being the employer, to relax the said rule, in respect of a group ofpersons with an object cannot be termed to be unconstitutionalprovided, the object of amending the said rule is within the frame ofconstitution. In this case as I have already extracted, the object isto achieve the implementation of the scheme as expeditiously aspossible by engaging additional number of Overseers with necessaryqualification. Ofcourse, the Government could have gone for theregular method of appointment of Overseers under the rules withoutrelaxing the same. But in the case on hand, having regard to theobject of achieving early and effective implementation of the scheme,and considering the reasons stated in the proposal of the Director ofRural Development and Panchayat Raj, the Government has thought itfit to relax the rules in respect of those 543 persons alone. I amnot able to find any discrimination in the relaxation so given inrespect of those persons alone. Thus, there is nothing to suggestthat there is either irrationality or arbitrariness in relaxing therules. 21.As of now there are number of additional posts of Overseerscreated in Thiruvannamalai and Dindigul districts. So far there hasbeen no absorption made in these two districts as per the relaxationgiven in the rule. So, it is for the Government now to go in forregular appointment as per rule which says that posts of overseerscould be filled up either by means of direct recruitment or by meansof promotion from the post of Road Inspectors. It is the claim of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioners that they have got employment seniority in theirrespective local employment exchanges. The District Collectors ofThiruvannamalai and Dindigul are now left with an option to go in fordirect recruitment by calling for names from the respective localemployment exchanges and to follow the regular procedure forselection. If the petitioners have got such local employmentseniority and also merit, they can be rest assured that they would beselected and appointed on the basis of employment seniority andmerit. It is not the case as though those persons who were absorbedin other Districts are going to be absorbed as against the additionalposts created in Thiruvannalamai and Dindigul district. So thepetitioners need not have apprehension that their chances of beingappointed as Overseers as against additional posts in Thiruvannamalaiand Dindigul Districts would be deprived by the absorption of theothers in other districts. Thus, in my considered opinion, thepetitioners cannot have any grievance at all in respect of therelaxation given in G.O.Ms.No.96 Rural Development and Panchayat Raj(E3) Department dated 06.06.2008 and the consequential proceedings ofthe other respondents. 22.For all that I have discussed above, I am of the firm viewthat there is no infraction of any of the provisions of theConstitution of India as contended by the petitioners. I find nomerit in the writ petitions. Both the writ petitions fail andaccordingly the same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petitions are closed. sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarjbmTo1 THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT. RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ FORT ST. GEORGE CHENNAI 9.2 THE DIRECTOR OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ PANAYAL BUILDING NO.1, GREAMS ROAD,SAIDAPET, CHENNAI. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 THE DIST. COLLECTOR THIRUVANNAMALAI.4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DINDUGAL DISTRICT, DINDUGAL.+2 ccs To Mrs.C.Uma, Advocate, SR.35530, 355291 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.35940W.P.Nos.14222 and 14407 of 2008gv [co]gkg/10.7