N RAVICHANDRAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come up with the present writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 9.7.2009 passed in Seyalaga (Nilai) Order No. 118 by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Department, the first respondent herein, refusing to regularise/absorb the petitioner as Office Assistant and for a consequential direction to reinstate him in service with full backwages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:

(3.) IT is reiterated by the first respondent at more than one place in the counter affidavit that the petitioner cannot intervene in the discretionary powers of the appointing authority relating to appointing persons on regular basis. While the first respondent was willing to consider his representation, as ordered by this Court in W.P. No. 9194 of 2004, he again represented claiming service rights which does not exist. That apart, it is alleged that the petitioner instead of requesting for appointment stating his merits, he made several allegations against the first respondent questioning the discretionary powers. Even after the order of this Court in W.P. No. 9194 of 2004, there seems to be no change in the attitude of the petitioner to make application on his own. IT is also represented at more than one place in the counter affidavit that the petitioner resorted to giving interviews against the modesty of the first respondent and the Honourable Speaker relating to the appointments made in the first respondent institution. Hence, he was not considered even for the temporary appointment as he incurred disqualification under Rule 8(a) of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Secretariat Service Rules (Shortly "the Rules"). The regular appointment would be made under the Rules framed under Article 187(3) of the Constitution, but the petitioner is not the person regularly appointed under the aforesaid rule.