THIRU A BALAKRISHNAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We issued notice in the review petition as Mr Chidambaram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the view taken by us goes contrary to the ratio in the judgment of this court in State of T. N. v. E. Paripoornam.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr Chidambaram has reiterated his contention that in view of E. Paripoornam case the service rendered by the appellants prior to the date of regularisation cannot be counted towards seniority. According to him the period of service rendered after the actual date of regularisation can only be counted towards the fixation of seniority.

(3.) On the other hand Mr Raju Ramachandran, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has contended that the appointment of the appellants was never made in terms of Rule 10 (a) i read with Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu State and subordinate Services Rules, 1955 (the Rules). According to him the appellants were registered with the employment exchange and as such their appointment could only be made under Rule 10 (a) of the Rules. It is further stated by the learned counsel that on the date of their initial appointment on temporary basis the posts against which they were appointed were not within the purview of the public Service Commission. It is not necessary for us to deal with the contentions raised by Mr Raju Ramachandran. We are of the view that paripoornam case relied upon by Mr Chidambaram has no relevance to the facts of the present case. In the said case para 3 of the order by which the services of the respondents in the said case were regularised read as under: