TAMILNADU ARASU PANIYALAR SANGAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the first writ petition (W.P.No.13001 of 2008), the petitioner is a government employees association, by name Tamilnadu Arasu Paniyalar Sangam, represented by its President. The prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to respondents 1 to 7 to absorb the services of the outsourced employees in time scales of pay and other attendant benefits. 1.2. When the writ petition came up on 27.5.2008, this Court, after noting that in similar circumstances the Madurai Bench had given a direction to maintain status-quo and also in view of the fact that the members of the petitioner/association are liable to be terminated at any time, granted an order of status-quo. The writ petition was subsequently admitted on 15.7.2008. Pending the writ petition, interim injunction was granted until further orders and liberty was also given to the respondents to file a vacate stay petition. IN the petition for grant of interim injunction restraining the respondents from making any fresh appointment, only notice was ordered and subsequently, on a vacate stay petition being filed, this Court rejected the vacate stay petition and the petition to restrain the respondents from making fresh appointment was also rejected. It was thereafter respondents 8 to 17 got themselves impleaded by filing a petitions in M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009. On notice from this Court, the first respondent/ State has filed a counter affidavit dated 29.8.2008. 1.3. IN the meanwhile, the matter was tagged along with W.A.No.426 of 2008 before a Division Bench, but however the Division Bench, by order dated 30.3.2010, directed the matter to be delisted from being heard along with the writ appeal and directed the matter to be dealt with by a Single Judge.

(2.) 2.1. Even while the said writ petition was pending, the impleaded respondents, viz., L.Vivekanandan (11th respondent), G.Ravichandran (12th respondent), P.Sivaperuman (13th respondent), V.Sankar (14th respondent), V.Baskaran (15th respondent), R.Muthukumaran (16th respondent) and S.Muthuraman (17th respondent), filed W.P.Nos.3742 to 3748 of 2009. In that writ petitions, they have challenged the orders dated 9.3.2009 passed by the Deputy Director of Health Services, Nagapattinam, terminating the service of those petitioners. It was stated that though those petitioners were appointed on being sponsored through the employment exchange as Drivers under Rule 10(a)(i) of the General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services and posted to the office of the Deputy Director and were working in the station, their services were terminated with effect from 9.3.2009, for want of vacancies and due to administrative reasons. 2.2. When those writ petitions came up on 4.7.2011, it was directed to be posted along with W.P.No.13001 of 2008. The writ petitions were admitted subsequently on 17.3.2009 and interim stay was granted of the termination until further orders. This Court passed the following order:

(3.) 5.1. In the counter affidavit filled, it was contended that the Government through a policy decision decided to fill up 12 categories of vacancies coming under Grades C and D by outsourcing them through various agencies. The selections were made by the agencies only and the Government has no connection whatsoever. The agencies selected those candidates, whether or not they have registered their names in the employment exchange, and no criteria for communal rotation was followed. Some of the candidates recruited by the agencies for the post of Lab Technician Grade II were from unrecognized institutions and all temporary appointments and appointments which did not fall under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission have to be filled up only through employment exchange and therefore, the outsourced persons cannot be absorbed in the government service. 5.2. It is stated that at the time of entering into agreement with agencies, it has been specifically stated that the appointment will be made only by the agencies and the Directorate shall not be responsible. It is service provider who has to disburse the wages. The agreements between the Heads of Departments and the outsourcing agencies were not renewed after 2005 and one of the agencies by name Society for Education and Woman Development has absconded and their whereabouts are also not known. In that case, the Government permitted to disburse wages to the outsourced personnel from the Hospital Maintenance Fund and Patient Welfare Society. Payments to the outsourced personnel are still made only through agencies for all categories, including Driver. In respect of the outsourced personnel for whom the agencies are not available, the payments are made directly. 5.3. It is also stated that the members of the petitioner/association cannot claim perpetual right for their continuance. By G.O.Ms.No.59, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 15.2.2008, the Government decided to revoke the policy of outsourcing and fill up the post of paramedical staff on regular time scale of pay. The Government also rejected the request of absorption of outsourced personnel, as they were engaged through private agencies and not through employment exchange and while recruiting them, the rules of reservation were not followed. 5.4. It is stated that the service certificates, which were directed to be issued to them, nowhere guaranteed any employment opportunity and the Government has decided to recruit candidates only through employment exchange, granting due adherence to seniority and communal rotation. Merely because the outsourced persons have served for four years, that does not guarantee any right for their being absorbed to government service. The arrangement of employing personnel through outsourcing agencies is only an interim measure and those employees cannot seek absorption.