Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 832 (MAD)

G. Kannammal v. District Collector

2012-02-16

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to challenge the order of respondent in terminating the service of the petitioner as null and void, arbitrary, unconstitutional with consequential relief of reinstatement with all consequential benefits. 2. However, the petitioner has not laid any foundation to challenge the order of termination. Nor the impugned order is placed on record, in pursuance to the liberty given to the petitioner to amend the prayer clause, but the petitioner, while amending the prayer, did not amend the pleadings to challenge the order of termination. 3. It is pleaded that the petitioner was appointed as Noon Meal Assistant at Noon Meal Centre on daily wage basis on 20.10.1999. The case of the petitioner is that he continued in working at the post and on the apprehension that the District Collector, was taking steps to fill up post of Assistant by appointing surplus employees from other schemes. The petitioner, therefore, is entitled to regularization of her service for having worked for four years. 4. The writ petition is opposed on the ground that the petitioner is no longer in service, as her services were terminated in terms of her appointment letter on 30.04.2003. 5. At the time of admission of this writ petition, learned Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal had directed to consider the case of the petitioner against available vacancies. In pursuance to the interim order passed, the petitioner failed to make any representation to the respondents. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is not in employment as on date. The right of regularization is not dependent on the service rendered, but is governed by instructions or rules, governing regularization of service by fulfilling the condition laid down. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that no employee has right to be regularized in service to defeat the right of other eligible persons. 8. In the case in hand, the petitioner has not placed any rule or instructions on record, under which she could claim regularization of service besides the fact that the petitioner is no longer in service to claim regularization. 9. 8. In the case in hand, the petitioner has not placed any rule or instructions on record, under which she could claim regularization of service besides the fact that the petitioner is no longer in service to claim regularization. 9. Similarly the petitioner's challenge to termination is misconceived, as in the pleadings, the petitioner has submitted that she is still in service, and furthermore, nothing has been placed on record to show whether termination of service was in terms of letter of appointment, nor there is any pleading or ground raised as to how the order of termination was bad. In absence of pleadings, no relief can be granted. 10. No merits. Dismissed. No costs.