Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 485 (MAD)

A. Veerasundaram v. State of Tamil Nadu

2001-04-18

P.SATHASIVAM

body2001
Judgment : 1. Since the issue raised in all those writ petitions in one and the same, namely, regularization of services of the petitioners and conferment of permanent status in the services of Civil Supplies Corporation, they are being disposed of by the following common order. 2. In all the writ petitions, except W.P.Nos. 7530 of 1997 and 20493 of 1999, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus to regularize the services of the petitioner as Computer Assistants/Bill Clerks/Helpers/Watchmen/Packers and Typists in the Civil Supplies Corporation. In W.P.No. 4071/97, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus, directing the second and third respondents therein to implement the order of the Inspector of Labour dated 25.3.1995 bearing Ref.Na.Ka.No. 382/94 by conferring permanent status with effect from 4.12.1990. In W.P.No. 7530/97, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 7.5.1997 issued by the third respondent therein, consequently direct the third respondent to regularize his services as seasonal Helper. Likewise, in W.P.No. 20493 of 1999, the writ petitioner therein has prayed for quashing of the order dated 7.10.99 and issue direction to regularize him as Typist. 3. The brief facts which led the petitioners to approach this Court by way of the above writ petitions are stated hereunder : Some of the petitioners were engaged a Bill Clerks by the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”), on temporary basis through Employment Exchange. They are fully qualified for the post of Bill Clerk. From the date of their appointment, in violation of the principles of law, the Corporation has been giving one day’s artificial break in service for every 90 days period and re-appoint them. The Corporation is an establishment within the purview of Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947. By virtue of the same, the Corporation is an “Industrial Establishment” under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act as per Section 2 sub-section 3(e) of the said Act. The petitioner in W.P.No. 4071/97 made an application before the Inspector of Labour and the said Authority after satisfying himself in his proceedings dated 25.3.95, ordered the Corporation and their Regional Manager to confer permanent status on him and also directed the same to be implemented within 3 months from the date of the said order. 4. The petitioner in W.P.No. 4071/97 made an application before the Inspector of Labour and the said Authority after satisfying himself in his proceedings dated 25.3.95, ordered the Corporation and their Regional Manager to confer permanent status on him and also directed the same to be implemented within 3 months from the date of the said order. 4. Some of the petitioners were appointed as Helpers through the Employment Exchange in the Corporation in 1982 and 1984. They were being paid consolidated salary of Rs. 750/- per month. The respondents are continuing the illegal practice of giving one day break and are ousting the petitioner periodically. It is mandatory on the part of the Corporation to confer permanent status on the petitioners. 5. Some of the petitioners are also working as Seasonal Bill Clerks in the Corporation on various dates. They are all qualified for the post of Bill Clerk and because of their experience and eligibility they are entitled for regular appointment. The respondents have not taken any steps to regularize their services even after their prolonged services. 6. It is further stated that the erstwhile Thanjavur Region has now been divided into 3 regions, namely, Thanjavur Region, A.T. Panneeerselvam Region and Nagai Quaid-E-Milleth Region. The Direct Purchase Centres are located in various parts of the Cauvery Delta and the number would be 700. The direct purchase centres have Bill Clerks, Helpers and Watchmen. The Bill Clerks examine the paddy when the same is brought to assess whether the quality is worthy of purchase and only if the quality is found satisfactory by the Bill Clerk, the purchase will take place. Then the paddy is taken to the godowns and the Bill Clerk and the helper attend to the maintaining of accounts etc., while the watchman is incharge of the security of the paddy. The Bill Clerks employed are B.Sc. degree holders. For Helper, only the minimum general educational qualification is required but the Corporation has employed those who are graduated in Arts and Commerce. Though the procurement of paddy is done on a seasonal basis, the work more often than not occupies the whole of the year and the petitioners have thus been employed for over the last 10 years. For Helper, only the minimum general educational qualification is required but the Corporation has employed those who are graduated in Arts and Commerce. Though the procurement of paddy is done on a seasonal basis, the work more often than not occupies the whole of the year and the petitioners have thus been employed for over the last 10 years. Most of the petitioners have worked for more than 15 years and having worked more than 240 days in each year, it is only equitous that the respondent-Corporation an instrumentality of the State be a model employer and act fairly to absorb them as permanent employees. However, this has not been done notwithstanding the fact that the legislature has enacted that such practice of keeping workers temporarily for a number of years so as to deny them the privileges of permanent workmen to be an unfair labour practice. 7. In short, in W.P.No. 4071/97, the petitioner requests a direction to the 2nd and third respondents to implement the order of the Inspector of Labour dated 25.03.95 by conferring permanent status with effect from 4.12.90. In W.P.Nos. 7530/97 and 20493/99, both the petitioners want to quash the orders of ousting dated 7.5.97 and 7.10.99 respectively in which they were ousted from service, and issue appropriate direction for regularizing them in the Corporation. In all the writ petitions, the petitioners pray for appropriate direction to confer permanent status, regularize their services as Computer Assistant/Bill Clerks/Helpers/Watchmen and Packers. In the respective affidavits, they furnished the details regarding their educational qualification, initial appointment, subsequent ousting orders, giving break for one day after expiry of 90 days, their experience and service to the Corporation and the continuous work throughout the year in the respondent Corporation. 8. On the side of the respondents, the Chairman and the Managing Director of the Corporation has filed independent counter affidavit, highlighting their stand. In some cases, the respective Regional Manager has filed similar counter affidavit. I shall summarise the stand taken by the Corporation in all these cases. The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation is a statutory Corporation owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The main functions of the Corporation are procurement, storage and distribution of essential commodities. In some cases, the respective Regional Manager has filed similar counter affidavit. I shall summarise the stand taken by the Corporation in all these cases. The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation is a statutory Corporation owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The main functions of the Corporation are procurement, storage and distribution of essential commodities. The Corporation is entrusted with the procurement of paddy during the harvest season and after hulling the paddy, the resultant rice is stored in various godowns and the Corporation distributes the same to general public under subsidized rates fixed by the Government at various points of time. The Corporation opens Direct Purchase Centres during the harvest season i.e., Samba and Kuruvai to procure paddy from the ryotes in Cauvery Delta Region. The activities of the Direct Purchase Centres are governed by the Bill Clerks, Helpers and Watchmen. During these period, seasonal appointments are made on the above categories and they are ousted at the end of the season. The petitioners come under this category of seasonal appointment and pray for regularization before this Court. Most of the petitioners were appointed only during the period of harvest seasons and were ousted at the end of the season. Their request for regularization was not considered as the harvest season ends and the work will commence only on the next harvest season. 9. Regarding the settlement, it is stated that a settlement was reached under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation) on 19.09.1991. The parties to the settlement were the workmen and Leadman of the Direct Purchase Centres, the then Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent Corporation, the Joint Director and Senior Manager and the Workmen were represented by their respective State Presidents, Secretaries and Treasures Based on the settlement arrived whenever the regular vacancies arises in Class III and IV Services, after filling up the post with regular employees in the feeder categories, the seasonal employees of Direct Purchase Centre are appointed and posted. This is the procedure being followed and there is no deviation in this regard. The seasonal employees have no legal right to question the appointment of regular employees. The seasonal employees are not recruited according to the Rules and not against the sanctioned vacancy. This is the procedure being followed and there is no deviation in this regard. The seasonal employees have no legal right to question the appointment of regular employees. The seasonal employees are not recruited according to the Rules and not against the sanctioned vacancy. The mere fact that they have continued for a requisite length of service is not ipso facto entitled for regularization. The condition precedent for regularization is that the appointment should be on regular basis after selection according to rules. The seasonal employees are not recruited on regular basis according to rules after consideration of the claims on merits. 10. It is further stated that in view of the binding settlement reached under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, most of the petitioners are the members of the Union who negotiated and are party to the settlement and hence they are bound by then same. It is not the case of the petitioners that the respondent has violated the S.12(3) settlement reached by the union. It is further stated that petitioners being seasonable employees the conferment of permanent status Act is not applicable to them as per Section 12(3) of the said Act and the judgment rendered in Writ Appeal No. 512/57 is squarely applicable to the petitioners’ case. The appointment of seasonal employees are purely temporary in nature, since the respondent Corporation is purchasing paddy from the ryots during kuruvai and samba harvest seasons for public distribution system. There may be continuous service only from September to May of every year and there is no operation procurement after May to August. Moreover, the policy of procurement is decided and declared by the Government of Tamil Nadu depending on the various factors and their appointments are purely seasonal one, which can be terminated at any time as soon as the procurement work is over, hence the petitioners are not entitled to ask for continuous service. Even at the time of appointment, the seasonal employees have given undertaking that the appointment is purely seasonal in character and temporary and they will not claim permanency in the Corporation. The services are not permanently required by the respondent Corporation. Since there is no scope for employment during off-season. The appointment order itself will speak about the temporary nature of the work rendered by the writ petitioners. 11. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard Mr. The services are not permanently required by the respondent Corporation. Since there is no scope for employment during off-season. The appointment order itself will speak about the temporary nature of the work rendered by the writ petitioners. 11. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard Mr. K.P. Krishna Shetty, Mr. V. Dhanapalan, Mr. V. Sanjeevi, Mr. Perumbulavil Radhakrishnan, Mr. V. Prakash and Mr. A. Muthukumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Advocate for the Government, Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned senior counsel, Mr. V. Perumal and Mr. R. Balasubramaniam, learned counsel for the respondent-Civil Supplies Corporation. 12. Mr. K.P. Krishnan Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No. 4762/97, would contend that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed to one of the 5 sanctioned posts of Assistant Programmer on the strength of their qualification, experience and seniority. He would further state that the petitioners are also entitled to be appointed as such on the strength of Doctrine of legitimate expectations. Even on the basis of seniority and on priority basis without grouping him with others similarly engaged in the Corporation together with the fresher for the purpose of selection to the post the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as one of the five sanctioned posts as Assistant Programmer. The other learned counsel, namely, Mr.V. Dhanapalan, Mr. V. Sanjeevi, Mr. Perumbulavil Radhakrishnan, Mr. V. Prakash and Mr. A. Muthukumar would contend that most of the petitioners were joined in the Corporation during the years 1982, 1984 and all the petitioners were working as Helpers, Bill Clerks, Watchma n and other cadres. According to them, from the date of joining duty in the services of the Corporation, they are continuously under the respondent Corporation till date with unblemished record of service with intermittent break. They made several applications as well as representations requesting the respondents for regularization and for confirming them for permanent status with effect from their initial appointment. The petitioners’ services were being utilised by the respondent Corporation throughout the year in various centres and sections in the paddy procurements, modern rice mills, taluk godown, rail head etc. Since the paddy procurement is a system in mass team work and major portion of the team work are done by the Helpers and Bill Clerks, the petitioners’ services are utilized by the respondent Corporation for the whole year without any break by making them permanent. Since the paddy procurement is a system in mass team work and major portion of the team work are done by the Helpers and Bill Clerks, the petitioners’ services are utilized by the respondent Corporation for the whole year without any break by making them permanent. Inasmuch as the petitioners’ services are being utilized by the respondent Corporation throughout the year, they are fu lly eligible for regularization with all benefits. It is further stated that the Government have issued several Government Orders for regularization of the services of the employees in the respondent Corporation, who are appointed on a temporary basis. Since the procurement of paddy in Thanjavur District is done around the year, there in no question of seasonal employment. Three crops are raised in Thanjavur, Nagapattinam and Thiruvarur districts and they are called Kuruvai (short term), samba (long term) and the third crop is known as paddy. Therefore, the services of the petitioners are required by the Corporation throughout the year and the petitioners’ employment can be treated only as a temporary and not a seasonal one. The services of the temporary employees should be regularized and their employment cannot be protracted on the whims and fancies of the employment that too after a long period of employment. 13. On the other hand, on the side of the Corporation, it is contended that the Corporation which is an undertaking owned and controlled by the Government of Tamil Nadu charged with the responsibility of procurement, storage and distribution of essential commodities like rice, wheat, oil, rava and sugar etc., apart from being additionally entrusted the responsibility of procuring paddy during harvest season (Samba and Kuruvai season) in the Districts of Tanjore and Nagai and Tiruvarur, Cuddalore, Pudukottai and Trichy. The Corporation has opened 724 Direct Purchase Centres for procurement of paddy. The seasonal employees who were recruited on a consolidated monthly salary of Rs. 750/- belonged to a categories of Bill Clerks, Helpers and Watchman. The Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 is not at all applicable to the “Direct Purchase Centres” of the Corporation. The seasonal employees who were recruited on a consolidated monthly salary of Rs. 750/- belonged to a categories of Bill Clerks, Helpers and Watchman. The Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 is not at all applicable to the “Direct Purchase Centres” of the Corporation. Inasmuch as they are not an industrial establishment as defined in Section 2(3) of the said Act, the Division Bench of this Court in Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Workers’ Union v. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation , reported in 1997 (3) CTC 535 has held that the similar workman do not acquire any vested right for regularization since the appointment is a seasons one. The conclusion of the Division Bench has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Workers’ Union v. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. , reported in 2001 (2) CTC 92. According it is stated that the claim of regularization of the seasonal employees is devoid of merits and as contrary to the appointment order. There must exist a post and either administrative instructions or statutory rules must be in operation to appoint a person to the post. Claim for regularization cannot be invoked as routine. Any posting which is de hors the budgetary grant and on a non-existing vacancy would be outside the sanctioned scheme and would remain totally unauthorized. No right to the incumbent of such an imaginary or shadow vacancy. Hence the seasonal employees are not entitled for regularization. The Corporation is maintaining a seniority of seasonal employees i.e. , Bill Clerks, Watchman and Helpers. The Corporation undertakes to regularize the services of seasonal employees as and when vacancies arises from and out of the seniority list maintained in each cadres; accordingly prayed for dismissal of all the writ petitions. 14. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. 15. Before considering the merits of the rival contention, it is to be noted that the respondent Corporation is an undertaking wholly owned and controlled by the Government of Tamil Nadu charged with the responsibility of procurement, storage and distribution of essential commodities like rice, wheat, oil, rava and sugar, etc. Apart from being additionally entrusted the responsibility of procuring paddy during harvest season (Samba and Kuruvai season) in the Districts of Tanjore, Nagai, Tiruvarur, Cuddalo re, Pudukottai and Trichy. Apart from being additionally entrusted the responsibility of procuring paddy during harvest season (Samba and Kuruvai season) in the Districts of Tanjore, Nagai, Tiruvarur, Cuddalo re, Pudukottai and Trichy. The particulars furnished by the Corporation show that Samba harvest season begins at 16th September and ends on 30th April, lasting for a duration of 4 months in a year, whereas the Kuruvai season begins with effect from 15th September and ends on 5th December, lasting for a duration of 3 months in a year. The Corporation has opened 724 Direct Purchase Centres for procurement of paddy. The seasonal employees who were recruited on a consolidated monthly salary of Rs. 75 0/- belonged to categories of Bill Clerks, Helpers and Watchman. It is further seen from the records that each seasonal employee endorsed of the appointment order stating as follows : “I clearly understand that the post which I have selected is seasonal in character and purely temporary one an it is for a short period and that I am liable to be ousted from service any time prior to that date without any prior notice whichever is earlier. I shall abide by all the rules and regulations of the Corporation. I also understand that I do not have any right to claim any continued appointment in the Corporation.” It is the definite stand of the Corporation that Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 is not applicable to the “Direct Purchase Centres” of the respondent Corporation inasmuch as they are not an industrial establishment as defined in Section 2 (3) of the said Act. It is clear from the provisions that the said Act is not applicable to an establishment of a seasonal character or to any establishment in which work is performed only intermittedly. By ref erring sub-section (3) of Section 1, it is stated by the Corporation that the Direct Purchase Centres in which the afore-mentioned seasonal employees were employed being indisputably establishments of a seasonal character, did not thus attract the application of the provisions of the said Act. By ref erring sub-section (3) of Section 1, it is stated by the Corporation that the Direct Purchase Centres in which the afore-mentioned seasonal employees were employed being indisputably establishments of a seasonal character, did not thus attract the application of the provisions of the said Act. Section 1(3) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, is as follows : “Section 1(3) : It applies to every industrial establishment (not being an establishment of a seasonal character or in which work is performed only intermittedly) in which not less than fifty workmen were employed on any day of the receding twelve months. If any question arises whether an industrial establishment is of a seasonal character or whether work is performed therein only intermittedly the decision of the Government thereon shall be final. Section 2(3)(E) : An establishment as defined in clause (6) of Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947. Section 3 : Conferment of permanent status to workmen – (1) Not- withstanding anything contained in any law for the time being inforce every workman who is in continuous service for a period of four hundred and eighty days in a period of twenty-four calendar months in an industrial establishment shall be made permanent.” Though elaborate arguments were made by both sides, it is relevant to refer the Division Bench decision of this Court, namely, 1997 (3) CTC 535 (cited supra). The issue in controversy has been dealt with elaborately. Inasmuch as the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation very much relied on the discussion and conclusion arrived by the Division Bench, since an identical issue has been considered, I shall refer the discussion and ultimate conclusion in detail. Before the Division Bench, a writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge of this Court in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant workers Union for a mandamus forbearing the Corporation to oust any of the bill clerks, helpers and watchman working in the Direct Purchase Centres under the control of the Corporation who have rendered 480 days of service in the consecutive years or who have been granted permanent status by the Inspector of Labour, Thanjavur, Nagapattinam and A.T. Panneerselvam Districts. The workers Union have also filed a writ petition claiming that pursuant to the earlier judgment of this Court, they are entitled for grant of permanent status with effect from the date of completion of 480 days on the ground that the Inspector of Labour has granted permanent status to some of the employees. It is submitted before the Division Bench that even after grant of permanent status to workers, the Corporation is seeking to oust them from service on the ground of closure of season. It is also stated that the Corporation is planning to oust the employees working in Direct Purchase Centres who have rendered 480 days of service in two calendar years who have already been granted permanent status. In other writ petitions, before the Division Bench, the individual workman therein prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the Corporation to confer permanent status on them with effect from a particular date with all consequential monetary, service and other benefits. Some of the writ petitioners have prayed for regularization of their services. Against the ousting orders of the persons who were working in the Direct Purchase Centres, some of the writ petitions have been filed. On behalf of the respondent Corporation, Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned senior counsel advanced elaborate arguments before the Division Bench. In other words, identical questions have been raised before the Division Bench. After considering the elaborate arguments advanced by several counsel on the side of the petitioners and the Corporation and after considering various decisions of the Supreme Court, the Division Bench has concluded thus : ( Paras 18 & 29 ) “18. The Industrial Disputes Act in our view has no application for seasonal appointments. Likewise, the Conferment of Permanent Status Act also would not apply in which event the employees do not have a legal right. 19. This apart, the order of the State Government dated 2.4.91 is very clear that the Corporation is not a seasonal industry and the Government of Tamil Nadu has not declared the Corporation as an Industry by any notification in order to attract the provisions of the Act”. 16. After referring the Memorandum of Settlement reached under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Madras-6 on 19.9.91, the Division Bench has held thus : ( Para 20 ) “20. 16. After referring the Memorandum of Settlement reached under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Joint Commissioner of Labour (Conciliation), Madras-6 on 19.9.91, the Division Bench has held thus : ( Para 20 ) “20. We are of the opinion that the qualified seasonal employees can always invoke clause 3 to their advantage. As and when vacancy arises, the Corporation is obliged to consider the claim of the qualified seasonal employees pursuant to the settlement reached between them and the workmen under Section 12(3) of the Act. We also make it clear that if there are no vacancies, the employees claim need not be considered”. 17. With regard to the nature of appointment, various clauses in the appointment order and want of work, no sanctioned post etc., the Bench has concluded in the following manner : ( Paras 25 and 26 ) “25. A reading of the judgment cited by Mr. A.L. Somayaji and of the arguments advanced by him and adopted by Mr. R. Balasubramanian, would clearly show that in order to claim regularization, the post should be a regular appointment in accordance with the rules. The claim for regularization should also be based on some specific rules. In the present case, the Establishment namely the “Direct Purchase Centres”/ Procurement Centres itself is a seasonal establishment and that the post for which seasonal recruitment were made were not sanctioned post. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in 4243, 4244, etc., batch of 1997 by Mr. S. Natarajan, General Manager (Administration) of the respondent Corporation that a Seniority list of all the staff of the “Direct Purchase Centres” are maintained by the Corporation and they are given opportunities of employment, based on the seniority list during the harvest season and no other person is employed for the operational purpose. It is also stated that in case of any permanent vacancy arising in the Corporation, the temporarily appointed/ousted staff of the “Direct Purchase Centres” are given top priority in filling up the permanent vacancies as per Section 12(3) settlement dated 19.9.91. In fact, several temporarily appointed/ousted staff of the “Direct Purchase Centres” like that of the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Quality Inspector, Typist, etc., on the basis of their seniority. In fact, several temporarily appointed/ousted staff of the “Direct Purchase Centres” like that of the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Quality Inspector, Typist, etc., on the basis of their seniority. It is also stated that similar agreement has also been reached to that effect on 30.12.1996 with the unions and that therefore the temporarily appointed/ousted employees would be absorbed in the regular basis in accordance with their seniority list as and when regular vacancy arises in the respondent Corporation. 26. That being so, the present writ petition seeking for permanent status beyond the scope of Section 12(3) settlement which binds all the temporary appointed/ousted employees of the “Direct Purchase Centres” is liable to be dismissed. It is also mentioned in the affidavit that the Government have now revoked their monopoly procurement policy and consequently the Corporation has ordered for the closure of Direct Purchase Centres and pursuant to such directions, the Direct Purchase Centres are being closed. As a result the staff of the Revenue Department have been reverted back to their parent department and the corporation staff have been sent back to their respective post and the temporary seasonal, employees like the petitioners have been ousted from the service. The termination of the services of the seasonal employees are therefore bona fide , legal and in order and therefore do not call for any interference by this Court." I have already stated that except in one case the petitioners in other cases were initially appointed temporarily in Direct Purchase Centres. In such a circumstances, though the learned counsel for the petitioners sought to distinguish the aforesaid Division Bench judgment by showing facts and figures, after going through the said decision, facts therein, and the issues raised, I am satisfied that the said Division Bench decision governs the issue in question and the same is applicable to our cases. 18. The learned counsel appearing for the Corporation has also brought to my notice the appeal filed by Civil Supplies Corporation Workers’ Union against the Division Bench decision in 1997 (3) CTC 535 (cited supra), wherein the Supreme Court after hearing all the parties concerned and after considering the relevant provisions, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Division Bench decision. The decision of the Supreme Court is reported in The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Workers’ Union v. T.N. Civil Supplies Corporation , 2001 (2) CTC 92. The decision of the Supreme Court is reported in The Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Workers’ Union v. T.N. Civil Supplies Corporation , 2001 (2) CTC 92. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, particularly Mr. V. Dhanapalan and Mr. Perrmbulavil Radhakrishnan by drawing my attention to the observation made by the Supreme Court in 2001 (2) CTC 92 in para 4, would contend that since the question whether the Direct Purchase Centres were seasonal in nature and work performed therein was intermittent? was not decided, this Court can now independently consider the said question on the basis of the materials placed. No doubt, in para 4, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed thus : ( Para 4 ) 4. In this Judgment the question whether the various Direct Purchase Centres were seasonal in nature and/or whether the work performed in those Centres was intermittent was not decided or dealt with even though raised in the affidavits”. However, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation by relying on the ultimate conclusion arrived at by their Lordships in paragraphs 8 and 9 wherein Their Lordships dismissed the appeal of the Workers’ Union, would contend that the Division Bench decision is binding on this Court and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. In the light of the said contention, it is also relevant to refer paragraphs 8 and 9. “8. Mr. Sharma submitted that even though the Division Bench has held that the questions raised in the Appeal of the Union were the same as those pending in the Writ Petition filed by the 1st respondent, yet the Division Bench has gone on to give a finding that the Establishment is of a seasonal character and the work is not intermittent. Mr. Sharma submitted that these findings would now come in the way of the Union while defending the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent. He submitted that this Court should either set aside these findings or clarify that those Writ Petitioners would be decided without taking those findings into account. 9. We are unable to accept these submissions. Those findings were given because the individual employees, who had filed various other writ petitions, raised these contentions before the Division Bench. As those contentions were raised the Division Bench has answered these contentions. 9. We are unable to accept these submissions. Those findings were given because the individual employees, who had filed various other writ petitions, raised these contentions before the Division Bench. As those contentions were raised the Division Bench has answered these contentions. None of the workmen, in whose matters those findings are given, have come up in Appeal to this Court. They have accepted those findings. It is, therefore, not open for the Union to claim that those findings should be se t aside.” It is clear from the said paragraphs that the request of the counsel for the workers’ Union contending that the Division Bench has gone on to give finding that the establishment is of a seasonal character and the work is not intermittent and those findings may be set aside or clarified. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court rejected the said contention. In the light of the discussion and the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench of this Court in paragraphs 25 and 26 ( 1997 (3) CTC 535 ) (cited supra) and the conclusion of the Supreme Court in paragraphs 8 and 9 referred to above 2001 (2) CTC 92 , I am unable to accept the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and I am in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Corporation. In other words, the Division Bench order affirmed by the Supreme Court is an answer to the question raised in these writ petitions and hence the present writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the same line. As a matter of fact, paragraph 12 of the Division Bench decision speaks about the Direct Purchase Centres and Procurement Centres as follows : “12. There cannot be any dispute that the “Direct Purchase Centres”, “Procurement Centres” are all seasonal establishments in which work is performed only for a specified period namely during “Samba” or “Kuruvai” season. The procurement of paddy by the Corporation is also only of seasonal nature. Therefore, in order to procure paddy during the season, the Corporation engaged Bill Clerks, Helpers and Watchman and a consolidated monthly salary on a temporary basis from and out of the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The employees were paid with a consolidated pay of Rs. 750 p.m. consequent upon the opening of “Direct Purchase Centres” for “Samba 1997 Season” in Nagapattinam. The employees were paid with a consolidated pay of Rs. 750 p.m. consequent upon the opening of “Direct Purchase Centres” for “Samba 1997 Season” in Nagapattinam. At the time of appointment, the employees were informed that the appointment is of seasonal in character, purely a temporary one for a short period and they are liable to be ousted from the service at any time without any prior notice or assigning any reasons”. I have already referred to the ultimate conclusion arrived by the Division Bench as well as the order of the Supreme Court affirming the same. In such a circumstance, this Court cannot issue mandamus for regularization of seasonal employees. Mere completion of 240 days of service does not entitle for regularization contrary to the appointment order. When the nature of work is seasonal, the seasonal employees cannot claim for regularization, particularly in the absence of sanctioned post. There must exist a post and either administrative instructions or statutory rules must be in operation to appoint a person to the post. It is settled law that any posting which is de hors the budgetary grant and on a non-existing vacancy would be outside the sanctioned scheme and would remain totally unauthorized. Accordingly, I hold that as observed by the Division Bench and approved by the Supreme Court, the seasonal employees are not entitled for regularization. 19. It is seen from the counter affidavit of the Corporation that based on the earlier orders of this Court, they are maintaining a seniority list of seasonal employees i.e., Bill Clerks, Helpers and Watchman. The Corporation has also given an undertaking to regularize the services of the seasonal employees as and when vacancy arises from and out of the seniority list maintained in each cadre. It is also brought to my notice that in the Corporation’s proceedings No. E10/58493/97 dated 21.3.2001, 23 seasonal employees, who have filed writ petitions in this Court, have been regularized and appointed as Assistant Quality Inspectors as per the seniority list. It is also bro ught to my notice that in addition to the above persons, 99 seasonal employees were also regularized as per seniority and appointed as Assistant Quality Inspector vide headquarters proceedings E10/58493/97 dated 21.3.2001. The further particulars show that in 1993, 93 seasonal employees were regularized and appointed as Assistant Quality Inspectors, 33 as Typists, 4 as Telex Operators and 59 as Watchmen. The further particulars show that in 1993, 93 seasonal employees were regularized and appointed as Assistant Quality Inspectors, 33 as Typists, 4 as Telex Operators and 59 as Watchmen. The particulars also show that the Corporation has passed an order in E8/113551/2000 dated 5.12.2000 to fill up the vacancy arose in Class III and IV categories by giving 50 per cent seasonal employees and 50 per cent to the feeder categories other than seasonal Bill Clerks. All the particulars reveal the bona fide effort being taken by the Corporation in regularizing/absorbing the seasonal employees as and when vacancy arises and in a phased manner. In the light of the legal and factual particulars, it is unnecessary to consider the various decisions cited by counsel on both sides. I am satisfied that there is no merit in the claim made in all these writ petitions and they are liable to be dismissed. 20. Regarding the claim of the petitioner in W.P.No. 4762 of 1997, here again, at the time of appointment, he gave an undertaking that his selection is seasonal in character and purely temporary, it is for a short period and that he is liable to be ousted from service at any time without any prior notice and he should also abide by the Rules and Regulations of the Corporation. Though Mr. K.P. Krishnan Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner, highlighted the educational qualification, particularly in the computer field, appointment and continuance of service for several years without a break, in the counter affidavit filed by the Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation, it is stated that as per the Settlement reached under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, he cannot maintain the present writ petition. It is further stated that in the list of seniority, 145 casual employees are seniors to the petitioner. Further, the Corporation has imparted training to six of its regular staff working in Thanjavur Region in order to operate Computers. The petitioner is neither competent nor possess the requisite qualification for the posts of Systems Manager and Assistant Programmer as advertised in “Dinamalar” dated 9.3.97. It is further seen that the Government have revoked their Monopoly Procurement Policy. Accordingly, the Corporation has ordered for the closure of Direct Purchase Centres. Pursuant to such directions, the Direct Purchase Centres are being closed. It is further seen that the Government have revoked their Monopoly Procurement Policy. Accordingly, the Corporation has ordered for the closure of Direct Purchase Centres. Pursuant to such directions, the Direct Purchase Centres are being closed. As a result, the sta ff of the Revenue Department have been reverted back to their parent Department and the Corporation staff have been sent back to their respective post and the temporary seasonal employee like the petitioner has been ousted from service. It is further stated that though a Computer was installed in the Regional Officer, Thanjavur on 18.1.96, no post was sanctioned for the operation of the computer. The services of the petitioner were utilized temporarily to operate the computer, pending sanction of the post. The petitioner does not possess the minimum knowledge required viz. , “D Base 3 and Word Star”. As such, according to the Corporation, his services could not be utilized for the operation of the computer. It is further seen that the petitioner has not obtained Degree or Diploma from a recognized University. He has produced Diploma certificates obtained from A.R.R. Computer Centre, Kumbakonam, an un-recognized institution for appointment to the post of Assistant Programmer in the respondent Corporation. The petitioner has obtained the P.G.D.C.A., from the computer ce ntre at Kumbakonam, which is a private institution not recognized either by the Government or by the University and as such, he is not eligible for the post of Assistant Programmer. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner by citing several decisions would contend that on the ground of legitimate expectation, the respondent ought to have considered his claim, in the light of the particulars furnished as to his educational and service qualifications, I am of the view that it is unnecessary to refer those decisions. Even otherwise, as rightly contended, the theory of legitimate expectation is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Even though the petitioner was asked to look after computer oriented work, it is the definite case of the Corporation that they have never given promise to him to give appointment. Even otherwise, as rightly contended, the theory of legitimate expectation is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Even though the petitioner was asked to look after computer oriented work, it is the definite case of the Corporation that they have never given promise to him to give appointment. According to them, the petitioner’s seniority number in the cadre of seasonal Bill Clerk is 146 as on 31.8.94 and he is engaged continuously in view of the interim order of this C ourt, whereas his senior R. Rajendran, seasonal Bill Clerk (seniority No. 61) is being ousted from service for want of vacancy on completion of their season. As rightly contended, the petitioner cannot dictate the Corporation to appoint him as Computer Assistant without obtaining necessary qualification. Further, the petitioner can wait for his turn as per the seniority list of seasonal employees maintained by the Corporation for each cadre, namely, Bill Clerk, Helper and Watchman. 21. I have already referred to the fact that the respondent Corporation is maintaining seniority list of seasonal employees, namely, Bill Clerks, Helpers and Watchmen and they also undertook to regularize the services of the seasonal employees as and when vacancy arises from and out of the seniority list. Recording the above statement and for all the reasons referred to above, all the writ petitions are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. All the writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.