K MOHAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as Assistant Medical Officer (Ayurveda) on 07.08.1978 temporarily. Subsequently, when regular selections were made to the post of Assistant Medical Officer (Ayurveda) through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the case of the petitioner was rejected on two occasions on the ground that he was over-aged to enter into Government service. But however, on his persistence for grant of regularisation, the State Government, by granting appropriate regularisation of his maximum age from entering into service and after consulting the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, passed an order in G.O.Ms.No.1000, Health and Family Welfare (IM II) Department, dated 12.07.1993. THE Government found that the petitioner had already completed more than 10 years of service in the temporary post and also registered his name in the Tamil Nadu Board of Indian Medicine, Chennai and therefore on the recommendation made by the Director of Indian Medicine and Homeopathy, the Government decided to relax the upper age limit in his favour so as to make him eligible to be considered for the regular post, provided he is physically fit for holding the post. THErefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 48 of the General Rules, the Government relaxed the provisions of Rule 4 of the adhoc rules relating to the upper age limit in favour of the petitioner. By the said Government Order, the petitioner was indicated that the relaxation was given only from the date of the said order viz., on 12.07.1993.

(2.) THE petitioner accepted the said Government Order and was working in the post. But subsequently, the petitioner found that the State Government had granted relaxation in respect of similarly placed Doctors from the date of their entry into the adhoc employment and therefore, he sent representations dated 02.07.1998 and 11.10.1999. THE respondent - State Government by a communication dated 17.02.2000 rejected the request of the petitioner stating that he was not eligible to get relaxation from the initial date of employment viz., 07.08.1978 and there was no necessity to review the case of the petitioner as ordered by the Government on 21.04.1998. In that order, the State Government stated that the Tribunal's order in O.A.No.683/1989 directing the Government to consider the case of irregular appointments made till 05.02.1992 can be looked into. It is also informed that because of the directions issued by the Tribunal, the cases which are already disposed of need not be re-opened and hence, the petitioner was informed that his case was already been disposed of in the year 1993 and therefore, the question of his being granted the benefit on par with others may not arise.

(3.) EARLIER the petitioner moved this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.4055 of 2006 seeking for a direction to transfer his case to this Court in view of the fractured bench of the Tribunal. This Court by order dated 14.02.2006 directed the Tribunal to transfer the Original Application before this Court. Accordingly, the Tribunal despatched the records to this Court, which was renumbered as W.P.No.13287 of 2006.