R BHAGYALAKSHMI Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner in WP (C). No. 4192/2009 is the Appellant. She was provisionally appointed as a Stenographer on 19-4-1991 in second Respondent Company for a period of six months as advised by the Employment Exchange. On expiry of the term of appointment, her service was terminated. But, she continued as a casual Stenographer on daily wage basis. While so, after obtaining application from the Appellant, the then Managing Director appointed her as Personal Assistant in the scale of pay of Rs. 380 - 1262 by Ext.P1 order dated 16-4-1994 and she commenced her service with effect from 18-4-1994. Later, by Ext.P2 dated 6-3-1995 her service was confirmed with effect from 18-10-1994 in the scale of pay of Rs. 750 - 1997. While so, by Ext.P3 dated 29-3-1997, the Appellant was posted as Stenographer under the General Manager (Marketing). It appears that there were so many such appointees working in the second Respondent Company in various sections. The first Respondent having noticed the back-door employment, directed the 2nd Respondent to terminate the services of such employees who secured appointment through back-door methods. Consequently, Ext.P4 memo dated 10-7-1997 was served upon the Appellant and other employees to show cause for not terminating their services. Challenging Ext.P4, the Appellant and other affected 145 persons moved this Court by filing OP. No. 16404/1997. During the pendency of that proceedings the services of 145 persons affected by Ext.P4 order was regularized, it is submitted, on compassionate grounds. The Appellant and four others were not regularized. So, she filed a representation seeking regularization. Since, no orders were passed she moved this Court by filing WP(C). No. 5285/2008.

(2.) By Ext.P9 judgment this Court disposed that writ petition directing the first Respondent to consider her representation with notice to her. The first Respondent, accordingly, considered her representation and her service as Stenographer was regularized by Ext.P10 order dated 1-9-2008. Ext.P10 order is silent regarding the commencement of the service. Assailing Ext.P10, the Appellant preferred WP(C). No. 4192/2009 seeking declaration that she is entitled to have her service as Personal Assistant regularized with effect from 16.4.1994. The learned single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 28-5-2010 found that the Appellant is entitled to regularization from 18-4-1994, the date of commencement of her service by Ext.P1. Whereas, her request for regularization as Personal Assistant to the Chairman was declined. As against the judgment declining her prayer for regularization as Personal Assistant to the Chairman, this appeal was filed.

(3.) We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant as well as the Government Pleader and the Standing Counsel for the second Respondent. Irrespective of her entitlement to the claim for appointment as Personal Assistant, we find that she was, in fact, having no educational qualification to claim appointment to that post. The Respondents 1 and 2 in their counter-affidavit had specifically stated that the qualification for appointment as Personal Assistant are: