K.Surya v. The Collector, Dindigul District & Ors.

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.No.39131 of 2006 K.Surya ..Petitioner V.

1. The Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2. The Personal Assistant (General) to the Collector, Dindigul Anna District, Dindigul.

3. The Divisional Excise Officer, Palani, Dindigul District. ..Respondents Prayer: Writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, came to be numbered on transfer of O.A.No.4499 of 1999 from the file of the TamilNadu Administrative Tribunal for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the second respondent in his proceedings No.Na.Ka.No.88422/95 dated 24.11.1995 and also on the file of the first respondent in his proceedings No.O.Mu.27324/99 dated June 99 and quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned as arbitrary, ultravires, unreasonable, being violative of rules and principles of Natural Justice, thereby directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the respondent department. For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.Suresh For Respondents : Mr.S.Gopinathan Additional Govt. Pleader O R D E R The writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the second respondent in his proceedings No.Na.Ka.No.88422/95 dated 24.11.1995 and also on the file of the first respondent in his proceedings No.O.Mu.27324/99 dated June 99 and quash the same.

2.It is the case of the petitioner that her name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange. By order dated 08.07.1988 of the District Adult Educational Programme, Palani Dindigul Anna District, she was appointed as typist. She joined duty on 13.07.1988. Subsequently on 28.06.1990, when the Programme Officer, District Adult Education Scheme, Palani ousted the petitioner from service, she was informed that those who came up successful in the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Examination during 1989 for Group IV are to be provided with appointment and therefore, her service was required to be ousted. Subsequently, by the order of Personal Assistant (General) to the Collector, Dindigul Anna District dated 14.10.1993, she was transferred from the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer at Palani to the office of the Divisional Excise Officer, Palani. At that time, there was no typist in the Divisional Excise Office. Therefore, her posting was made to a vacant place. After five years of her continuous service, she was again ousted from service vide proceedings of the P.A to Collector (General) Dindigul Anna District, in order to accommodate T.N.P.S.C. candidates. Though she had appeared in the Special Test conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, she could not succeed in the examination. Having regard to her continuous service as typist in various departments, she submitted a representation dated 22.04.1996 to the Collector (then Dindigul Anna District) to provide her permanent appointment. Since her representation was not responded, she filed O.A.No.2194 of 1999 before the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal. By order dated 28.08.1998, the Tribunal directed the first respondent therein to consider the representation of the petitioner for appointment as typist and pass orders on merits.

3.It is the grievance of the petitioner without considering the orders passed by the Government in G.O.MS. No.377 dated 12.12.1995 issued in the matter of regularising the temporary services, the first respondent has merely rejected the petitioner’s representation.

4. Assailing the impugned order, Mr.A.R.Suresh learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the Government have issued G.O.MS. No.377 dated 12.12.1995 stating that those who were in service without break and in some cases, with short breaks from 1986 or early 1987 for over four years, prior to the notification of selection by the Commission and even after selection had been made, have to be regularised the respondent has failed to consider the same. He further submitted that having regard to the continuous service of the petitioner for over seven years with short breaks, her services ought to have been regularised, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner could not succeed in the special test conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. He further submitted that the impugned order is a non-speaking order warranting interference.

5.Reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, Mr.S.Gopinathan, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Typist, on temporary basis in the office of the Project Officer, District Adult Education Officer, Palani, as per Madurai District Adult Education Officer proceedings dated 08.07.1988. She joined duty on 13.07.1988 as typist. Subsequently, she was ousted on 27.06.1990, as her appointment was purely made on temporary basis. He further submitted that her name was sponsored by the employment Exchange for the post of typist in the District Revenue Unit and she was again appointed as typist on temporary basis in the Revenue Divisional Office, Palani, as per the proceedings of the Personal Assistant (General) Dindigul Quaid-e-Milleth District dated 24.12.1990. She joined duty as typist on 27.12.1990. Again, she was ousted from service on the afternoon of 30.11.1995 for want of vacancy.

6.He further submitted that the recruitment of typists in Government Offices comes under the purview of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and the Commission is the only authority to select candidates for the post of typists in Government Offices. The Collectors are empowered to appoint typists on temporary basis as per General Rule 10(a)(1) and such appointment was subsequently banned by the Government in Letter No.73553/PC/93-2, Personnel & Administrative Recorms (Placement Cell) Department dated 03.11.1993.

7.He therefore submitted that even if there is any vacancy in the District Revenue Unit, the Collector is not competent to select and appoint a person on permanent basis. Persons who succeed in the examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission alone are eligible to be appointed to vacant posts. In view of the above, he submitted that though the petitioner had worked for some years in the office of the District Revenue Officer, Palani and Divisional Excise Office, she is not entitled to be regularised and hence prayed for dismissal of the petition.

8.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed only on temporary basis under Rule 10(a)(1) of the General Rules of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services. Rule 10(a)(5) of the said rule reads as follows:- "(V) A person appointed under clause (i) (ii) or (iv) shall not be regarded as a probationer in such service, class or category or be entitled by reason only of such appointment to any preferential claim to future appointment to such service, class or category. The services of a person appointed under Clause (i) (ii) or (iv) shall be liable to be terminated by the Appointing Authority at any time without notice and without any reason, being assigned.”

10.The contention of the respondent that the post of typists falls under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission is admitted. It is the case of the petitioner that she could not qualify in the special test conducted by the T.N.P.S.C. for permanency. The impugned order reads that successful candidates selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission are to be accommodated in the vacant posts and therefore, appointment order was not issued to the petitioner. As the appointment of the petitioner was made purely on temporary basis, under Rule 10(a)(1) she cannot seek for appointment to the post of typist on permanent basis, as a matter of right. When there are selected candidates for the post of typist, naturally they have to be accommodated in the available vacancies in the District. In such circumstances, I do not find any illegality or error in rejecting the request of the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. /true copy/ Sd/ Asst.Registrar Sub Asst.Registrar To

1. The Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

2. The Personal Assistant (General) to the Collector, Dindigul Anna District, Dindigul.

3. The Divisional Excise Officer, Palani, Dindigul District. + 1 c.c. to Mr. S. Srinivasan, Advocate. S.R.No.27153. + 1 c.c. to The Government Pleader. S.R.No.27351. KG (CO) GSK 23.10.2009. W.P.No.39131 OF 2006