K MURUGAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON ORDER By consent the Writ Petitions are taken up for disposal. The prayer in the W.P.No.25223/2008 is for issue of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No. (D), 333 Food and Consumer Protection dated 25.09.2008 and to direct the respondents to reappoint/regularise the petitioners as Junior Inspector of Cooperative Societies and extend all benefits and the prayer in W.P.No.11322/2009 is for issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.39 Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (CL.2) Department dated 06.04.2009 and to direct the respondents to reappoint/regularise the petitioners as Junior Inspector of Cooperative Societies and extend all benefits both service and monetary. Since the issue involved is identical in both the writ petitions, they are disposed of by a common order.

(2.) In these writ petitions, there are 21+7 (28) petitioners, who are stated have been appointed as Junior Inspectors of Cooperative Societies between 1976 & 85 on temporary basis by invoking Rule 10(a)(i), of the General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service it is stated that the petitioners have rendered minimum of five to maximum of 14 years of service and were allowed to take part in the Special qualifying examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for being regularised in service. In such exam conducted by the TNPSC 63 persons were not successful and out of those 63 persons, 21 unsuccessful candidates, who were working in the Cooperative Audit Department were allowed to continue in service and subsequently their services were also regularised by G.O.Ms.No.445 dated 20.12.2005. It is further stated that the petitioners approached the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.912/1996 for a direction to regularise their services and extend all benefits. This original application was transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.28269/2006 and the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 29.01.2007 by directing the first respondent to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of G.O.Ms.No.445 dated 20.12.2005. Subsequently, by G.O.Ms.No.158 dated 22.05.2007, one of the applicants in the original application by name Thiru.C.Thirupathy was regularised as Junior Inspector of Cooperative Societies. Similarly, one Thiru. S.Velu, who is also a similarly placed person as that of the petitioners filed W.P.No.10864/2006 before this Court and an order was passed by this Court on 19.04.2006 to consider his representation in the light of G.O.Ms.No.445 dated 20.12.2005 and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months. Since the order was not complied with the said Mr.S.Velu filed contempt petition No.101/06 and thereafter the said Mr.S.Velu was also regularised as Junior Inspector of Cooperative Societies by G.O.Ms.No.153 dated 13.08.2008. Subsequently, the first respondent by D.O. letter dated 29.05.2008 addressed the Secretary, TNPSC, stating about the various cases filed by the candidates and the Government orders of regularisation passed in favour of Mr.C.Thirupathi and Mr.S.Velu, requested the Secretary of TNPSC to move the Commission immediately and obtain its concurrence for regularisation of petitioners herein. While the petitioners were eagerly waiting for the Government orders, they were faced with the impugned orders rejecting the request for reappointment as Junior Inspector of Cooperative Societies. The correctness of this orders dated 29.05.2008 and 06.04.2009 are assailed in the present writ petitions.

(3.) Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the impugned order is a classical case of hostile discrimination, since similarly placed persons have been regularised as Junior Inspectors of Cooperative Societies and applying different yardstick to the petitioners alone is arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel would further submit that all the petitioners are similarly placed to that of the other two candidates, namely Mr.C.Thirupathi and Mr.S.Velu and therefore, they cannot be treated differently. By placing reliance on the D.O. letter dated 29.05.2008, the learned counsel would submit that the claim of the petitioners was favourably considered, but has now been arbitrarily rejected or untenable grounds. The reasons given in the impugned orders are that the petitioners were ousted from service and the other failed candidates, who were working as Cooperative Junior Auditors were continuing in service by virtue of Court orders and their case was considered and G.O.Ms.No.445 dated 20.12.2005 was passed regularising their service, and that since the writ petitioners were not in service, they cannot be equated. The learned counsel would therefore submit that the reasons assigned in the impugned orders are paternally illegal and on this ground also the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.