P SUBRAMANI Vs. DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY consent the Writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for issue of Writ of Certioarified Mandamus to quash the order passed by the third respondent dated 18.11.2008 and to direct the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner with effect from 01.11.1990 and to pay all monetary and other attendant benefits.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a part time sweeper on 01.11.1990 in the third respondent school on a consolidated pay of Rs.70/- per month, by an order passed by the third respondent dated 20.01.1983. THE work assigned to the petitioner was cleaning school and also maintaining toilets in the school, which had about 1500 students during the relevant time. According to the petitioner, he has to report from duty at 8.00 At the time, when the Writ petition was filed, the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs.3556/- per month. THE fourth respondent by proceedings dated 15.07.1992 requested the second respondent to regularise the petitioner-s service and it was specifically stated that there were 1500 students both boys and girls and 28 staff members. Subsequently, a new incumbent, who occupied the post of Headmaster of the School by proceedings dated 21.10.1994 requested the third respondent to regularise the petitioner-s service, which the followed by another request on 25.10.1995. THE third respondent by proceedings dated 10.03.1995 called for particulars regarding daily wages/part time employees in the school to be furnished in a particular format and this was complied with on 13.12.1994.

(3.) THUS, it is seen that this Court while disposing of the Writ Petition took note of the various orders on the subject as well as the contention raised in the counter affidavit and taking note of the fact that candidates, who have registered themselves in the Employment Exchange do not come forward to take up work of scavenging and other incidental works on consolidated pay of Rs.60 per month, the Government granted exemption of the provisions of the Employment Exchange Act and permitted aided schools to appoint such scavenger without reference to the Employment Exchange and taking into consideration the length of service of the petitioner and the necessity of the post of sweeper in the school having more than 1500 male and female students and 50 staff members directed the Government to consider the applicability of the G.O. No.22 dated 28.02.2006 to the petitioner and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. While passing orders, the Government was directed to take note of the need for appointment of sweeper in a School with such high student strength, the order of appointment issued by the third respondent dated 20.01.1983 and also G.O.Ms. No.2136, dated 31.12.1986, this Court observed that since there is no dispute in the strength of the School and the number of teaching and non-teaching staff, the School requires a sweeper. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the impugned order has been passed rejecting the request for regularising the petitioner-s services as sweeper. Two grounds have been stated in the impugned order dated 18.11.2008, that G.O.Ms. No.22 P & AR Department dated 28.02.2006 is not applicable to the petitioner, since the petitioner is a part time sweeper receiving consolidated monthly wage and he is not a daily rated employee and G.O.Ms. No.22 has been clarified in Government letter dated 26.04.2007 that employees, whose wages are paid from contingent funds, cannot be brought under regular time scale. The second reason assigned is that G.O.Ms. No.2136, Education Department dated 31.12.1986 has been passed exempting the Government Aided School from approaching the Employment Exchange for appointing part time employees and that that the petitioner has been directly appointed by the Headmaster on 01.11.1990 and the fourth respondent is a Government School and therefore G.O.Ms. No.2136 cannot be made applicable.