DIRECTORATE OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION Vs. S SEENI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent was employed as a Lecturer in government Arts College, Chidarnbram on contract basis during the academic year 1991-92. Under the terms of the contract the appointment was from the date of joining to the last working day of the College for the academic year 1991-92. From 2/12/1991 the respondent was on leave allegedly on medical grounds. According to the respondent he rejoined on 10/12/1991 and again went on medical leave from 11/12/1991. The appellant terminated the services of the respondent on 20/12/1991 on the ground of his absenting himself from duty without prior permission. The respondent filed an application before the Tamil Nadu State Administrative tribunal praying that the order of the Directorate of Collegiate of Education dated 20/12/1991 should be set aside and that the applicant should continue the respondent on contract basis till his regular absorption as in the case of other contract lecturers and for other reliefs.

(2.) The tribunal by its impugned order has declined to set aside the order of termination on the ground that in any event by the time the applicant asked for any relief before the tribunal the contract period had come to an end. The tribunal, however, directed that if contract lecturers are being considered for regularisation the respondent should also be considered ignoring the fact that his services have been terminated for being absent without prior permission. The tribunal has also directed relaxation of age. The tribunal has also directed that if no action has been taken to appoint lecturers regularly, the respondent should be considered in the next academic year 1993-94 for appointment on contract basis subject to the decision in the pending criminal case. This pending criminal case against the respondent is as a result of a complaint filed by his second wife and the charges framed against the respondent are under S. 420 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) These directions given by the tribunal are not warranted. On the question of regularisation, learned advocate for the respondent, has drawn our attention to GOMs issued by Education Department, government of Tamil Nadu dated 26/3/1993 under which Directorate of Collegiate Education has been directed to furnish the full list of contract lecturers working in government colleges to the Teachers' Recruitment Board for conducting interview and for those candidates who are not M. Phil, or Ph. D. degree lecturers, to conduct the written test and interview. The order also mentions that accordingly, the Teachers' Recruitment Board, after written test and interview, has submitted a list of candidates arranged in the descending order of merit for taking an appropriate decision regarding theirabsorption. The government has, therefore, passed an order that all the contract lecturers working in government colleges as on date be allowed to continue until further orders, and all the contract lecturers working as on date may be appointed on regular basis with effect from the date of issue of this order. Their ranking shall be made on the basis of the marks obtained by them during the interview held by the Teachers' Recruitment Board but also after adopting the Rules of Reservation.