Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1679 (MAD)

R. Mani v. Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways & Rural Works Department, Chennai

2012-04-02

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was working as Gangman under the respondent for 14 years continuously with 3 years on leave spells, i.e. altogether 17 years, i.e. from 1983 to 2000. 2. The petitioner was paid as contingent employee or on daily wage basis. The State Government abandoned the NMR / Gangman scheme, therefore, the petitioner was rendered jobless, as no alternative employment was given to him. 3. The petitioner made representation to the concerned authorities in the year 1999, to consider petitioner for appointment on regular basis, but no reply was received. 4. The case of petitioner is that the Government made an announcement to recruit 10,000 workers to work as Salai Paniyalargal in the State. It was also stated by the Hon'ble Chief Minister, that the Government will consider the fate of persons like the petitioner, who had worked as NMR / Gangman, in the respondent department. 5. The case of petitioner is, that the Government has started process to appoint Persons, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a direction to appoint him on regular basis. 6. The petitioner has not placed any scheme of regularization on record. Even otherwise, it is admitted case of petitioner, that he is no longer in employment. The petitioner has not also placed on record any application, which he may have submitted to the State Government for his appointment in pursuane to the advertisement for recruiting 10,000 Salai Paniyalargal. 7. In absence of any instruction, rule or application of petitioner, which may have been filed in response to the advertisement or process of selection, no direction, as prayed for, can be issued for appointment of a person to the post, as this Court can only direct the respondent to consider the claim of petitioner for appointment as and when posts are being filled. The order of regularization in given cases can be passed, if there are any enforceable rules or Government instructions and when the person is covered under those instructions. The petitioner has not placed any such rule / instructions on record. 8. No merits. Dismissed. No costs.