Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1633 (MAD)

M. Veeramalai v. Secretary to Government

2014-06-23

T.RAJA

body2014
Judgment 1. The present Writ Petition is filed by Mr. M.Veeramalai, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned order dated 15.10.2012 passed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chennai, the second respondent, in proceedings R.C. No.19750/2011/EM3 (1), by which, it was decided to regularise the services of the petitioner in the category of Junior Inspector of Co-operative Societies with effect from the date of his reappointment, on 25.06.2003. However, the benefit of continuity of service was given. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the petitioner was terminated from service on his failure to pass the Special Qualifying Examination, on 26.04.1991. Aggrieved by the said order of termination, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 1905 of 1991 before the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and obtained an order of stay, on 14.06.1991. By virtue of the stay order granted by the learned Tribunal, the petitioner was re-appointed on 01.07.1991. However, the said O.A was dismissed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal on 11.12.2002. In view of the dismissal of the O.A, the services of the petitioner was again terminated by order dated 19.03.2003. However, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. No.10682 of 2003 challenging the correctness of the order dated 11.12.2002 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.1905 of 1991. This Court allowed all the four writ petitions, including the petitioner's W.P.No.10682 of 2003, by order dated 09.01.2008, taking note of the subsequent common order dated 18.12.2003, passed by the learned Tribunal on similarly placed persons in a batch of cases, directing the respondents therein to regularise their appointment and on implementation of the same the respondents had issued G.O. Ms. No. 445 Finance Co-operative Audit Department dated 20.12.2005 and in view of that issued direction to the respondents to regularise their appointment by extending the same benefit of G.O. Ms. No. 445 Finance Co-operative Audit Department dated 20.12.2005 to this petitioner also. In the said G.O., the services of 21 Junior Cooperative Inspectors were regularised with effect from the next date of the conduct of the Special Qualifying Examination, namely, 16.10.1989. 3. No. 445 Finance Co-operative Audit Department dated 20.12.2005 to this petitioner also. In the said G.O., the services of 21 Junior Cooperative Inspectors were regularised with effect from the next date of the conduct of the Special Qualifying Examination, namely, 16.10.1989. 3. Therefore, the further claim of the petitioner, as pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that when the Hon'ble Division bench of this Court in batch of writ petitions, by its order dated 09.01.2008, has directed the respondent department not to make any discrimination between the petitioners and other similarly placed persons, since G.O. Ms. No. 445 Finance Cooperative Audit Department dated 20.12.2005 was already passed in respect of 21 Junior Cooperative Inspectors, regularising their services with effect from the next date of the conduct of the Special Qualifying Examination, namely, 16.10.1989, the respondents cannot take a different view as against the directions given by this Court therein. Concluding her argument, learned counsel further stated that nodoubt the respondents finally, by virtue of the order passed by this Court in the above mentioned writ petitions dated 09.01.2008, have come forward to regularise the services of the petitioner in the category of Junior Inspector of Co-operative Societies with effect from the date of second re-appointment instead of first re-appointment and if the regularisation is given from the date of first re-appointment, namely, 01.07.1991 instead of the second re-appointment date, as per G.O. Ms. No.445 dated 20.12.2005, the respondents would not face any prejudice, otherwise, the petitioner who had reached the age of superannuation on 31.05.2006 would not be in a position to reap any service benefits as the petitioner is only given 3 years of regularised service. Again, she has brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner is asking for regularisation only by working continuously from the date of first reappointment dated 01.07.1991 till the date of superannuation dated 31.05.2006 and further pleaded that the benefit of G.O. Ms. No.445 dated 20.12.2005 given to 21 other similarly placed persons may simply be extended to him. 4. Opposing the above prayer, Mr. No.445 dated 20.12.2005 given to 21 other similarly placed persons may simply be extended to him. 4. Opposing the above prayer, Mr. Bala Ramesh, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents prayed this Court to look into the peculiar facts and circumstances upon which the department has been dragged from one Court to another, only because the petitioner while serving as Junior Inspector of Co-operative Societies failed to pass through the Special Qualifying Examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, on 15.10.1989. Although many Junior Inspectors came out successful in the said examination, few other Junior Inspectors failed in the examination. Out of the said failed candidates, all the 39 candidates working in the Co-operative Department were ousted from service with effect from 10.10.1990, consequent on the assumption of charge of the elected boards in the Co-operative Societies, the 4 candidates including the petitioner working in the Co-operative Milk Audit Department were ousted from service on 26.04.1991 for want of vacancies, as per G.O. Ms. No. 271 Co-operation dated 10.11.1988. 5. Learned counsel further submitted that, as against the order of termination, the petitioner and 2 others filed O.A. No.1905 of 1991 and obtained an order of interim stay on 14.06.1991. By virtue of the interim order granted by learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner continued in service. However, the said Original Application was dismissed on 11.12.2002. Again the petitioner and 3 others, without any justification, again filed W.P. No.10682 of 2003 etc., and obtained an order of stay. By virtue of the interim order of stay granted by this Court on 16.06.2003, once again, they were allowed to continue in service. Finally, the writ petitions mentioned above came to be disposed of and by an order dated 09.01.2008 directed the respondents to extend the same benefit of G.O. Ms. No. 445 Finance Co-operative Audit Department dated 20.12.2005 to the petitioners also, on the only ground that the Government had issued the said G.O.No.445 directing regularisation of services of the similarly placed 21 Junior Cooperative Inspectors, with effect from the next date of the conduct of the Special Qualifying Examination, namely, 16.10.1989, which implied, means that the case of the petitioners should also be considered, if found otherwise fit. 6. The order passed by this Court, he pleaded, specifically mentions that because of the G.O. Ms. 6. The order passed by this Court, he pleaded, specifically mentions that because of the G.O. Ms. No. 445 passed in favour of 21 similarly placed persons, the petitioner's case also should be considered. The fact remains that the petitioner who joined service as Junior Inspectors, admittedly failed to successfully pass the Special Qualifying examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, which is a pre-condition for their continuance in the service. However, when they were unable to successfully pass the said examination, as per the rule, they have no say in the matter. Inspite of the above said legal position, they wrongly approached the Tribunal. Although in the beginning an interim order of stay was granted, learned Tribunal also dismissed the Original Application finding no merits in the case. Again they came to this Court and this Court has only taken note of the G.O. Ms. No. 445 and directed the respondents to consider the case. The respondents also, in obedience to the orders passed by this Court, has issued the impugned order dated 15.10.2012 regularising the services of the petitioner along with 3 other persons in the category of Junior Inspector of Co-operative Societies, with effect from the date of their second re-appointment, namely 25.06.2003 for the petitioner, therefore, again asking the benefit of regularisation from the date of his first re-appointment namely, 01.07.1991, will be not only unfair and unjustifiable but will also go against the rules, which the petitioner repeatedly failed to pass through by appearing in the Special Qualifying examination. 7. This Court finds full force and merits in these submissions, hence is unable to disagree with the arguments placed by learned Additional Government Pleader. It is true that the petitioner while serving as a Junior Inspector of Co-operative Societies, was directed to write the Special Qualifying examination conducted on 15.10.1989. That is a qualifying examination for their continuance in the service. Unfortunately, when several other similarly placed persons successfully came through, some of them failed. Out of the failed persons, 4 persons have approached the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, against the order of termination passed on 26.04.1991 for want of vacancies. In the beginning, learned Tribunal has granted an order of interim stay on 14.06.1991. Unfortunately, when several other similarly placed persons successfully came through, some of them failed. Out of the failed persons, 4 persons have approached the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, against the order of termination passed on 26.04.1991 for want of vacancies. In the beginning, learned Tribunal has granted an order of interim stay on 14.06.1991. By virtue of the interim order, the petitioner continued in service and later the Tribunal finding no justification or merits whatsoever, dismissed the Original Application by order dated 11.12.2002. Challenging the same, the aforementioned writ petitions were filed on a limited ground that 21 other similarly placed persons were given the benefit of regularisation in G.O. Ms. No. 445 Finance (Co-operative Audit) Department dated 20.12.2005. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, considering the said G.O., directed the respondents not to discriminate the case of the petitioners, when 21 other similarly placed Junior Co-operative Inspectors were given regularisation from the next day of conduct of Special Qualifying examination, namely, 16.10.1989. Accordingly, the present impugned order has been passed, regularising the services of the petitioner as Junior Inspector of Co-operative Societies, with effect from the second re-appointment date i.e. 25.06.2003. Therefore, the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the benefit of regularisation should be given to the petitioner from 16.10.1989 would be far from acceptance as that would go against the rules which hold the Special Qualifying examination to select more qualified and meritorious candidates. Indeed, the respondents, considering the order passed by this Court and by-striking balance between the petitioner's interest and the other similarly placed persons had passed the present impugned order of regularisation from the date of second re-appointment, hence no interference can be called for. 8. In that view of the matter, finding no fault in the order passed by the respondents, the petition fails and the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.