Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 540 (MAD)

K. Radha v. Government Of Tamil Nadu

2012-02-02

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment :- 1 The petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner, from the date of her initial appointment with all consequential benefits. 2 The petitioner was appointed as Steno Typist in the District Forest Officer, Gudalur Division, Nilgiris District. The appointment was made on temporary basis. In the year 1991, steps were taken to terminate the services of the temporary Typists, Steno Typists and Junior Assistants which resulted in filing of O.A.No.3002 of 1991 by the Association, for regularisation of their services. 3 The learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal passed an order dated 26.07.1992 directing that the temporary employees who had been continuing in service without break for four years prior to the notification for selection by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and even after the selection was made by the Commissioner in the year 1989, be regularised without competing for the selection by the Public Service Commission. 4 The order of the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is totally illegal, as the Tribunal or Courts do not have any such jurisdiction to direct regularisation of service against service rules. It is the legislative function which can be performed either by the legislature or by the Government by way of delegated legislation. The Courts can only interpret the law enacted by the legislature. 5 However, the Tamil Nadu Government did not chose to challenge the order passed by the learned Tribunal and implemented the order by seeking for relaxation of rules to accommodate the service candidates who were otherwise not eligible under the rules. 6 The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that while regularising her services in pursuance to the order of the learned Tribunal, service was regularised only with effect from the date of order, and not from the date of her initial appointment. This petition is filed seeking regularisation from the date of her initial appointment. 7 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of 14 persons, relaxation was granted to 6 persons, whereas no such relaxation is necessary for the petitioner, therefore, service of the petitioner should be regularised with effect from the date of her initial appointment. 8 This contention is misconceived, as the petitioner cannot seek regularisation in the absence of any rules/instructions having force of law. 8 This contention is misconceived, as the petitioner cannot seek regularisation in the absence of any rules/instructions having force of law. The petitioner has not placed on record any rules which entitles regularisation of service of the petitioner from the date of her initial appointment. As observed above, the order passed by the learned Tribunal was also not based on any rules or instructions. 9 Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.