R THIRUPPATHY Vs. REGISTRAR HIGH COURT MADRAS 104

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is as follows:

(2.) THE petitioner was sponsored by Employment Exchange, Dindigul and was selected appointed as masalchi in the District Munsif's Court, Periakulam by the District Madurai North by an order dated 14.9.1984. THE petitioner joined duty as masalchi District Munsif's Court, Periakulam on 14.9.1984 and was working there till 8.4.1985 was ousted for want of vacancy on 9.4.1985. Forenoon and again he was reappointed masalchi at District Munsif's Court, Periakulam with effect from 5.7.1985. It seems service was regularised with effect from 5.7.1985 by the District Judge, Madurai Dindigul. He has also completed the period of one year of probation satisfactorily forenoon of 5.7.1986. However, by a notification issued by the Government on 13.9.1985 the District Munsifs Court, Periakulam came within the jurisdiction of the District Madurai and on and from 15.9.1985 the petitioner happened to be in Madurai Civil THErefore, the petitioner came under the Madurai Civil Unit. Subsequently on petitioner application dated 7.4.1986 he was absorbed as masalchi in Anna District Civil Unit District Judge, Dindigul by proceedings dated 8.8.1986. However in view of the High letter dated 22.5.1987 the Additional District Munsif's Court, Dindigul with its staff ordered to be disbanded. THE result was, the petitioner has been ousted for want of from 8.7.1987. At this point of time, the District Judge, Anna District at Dindigul by dated 3.7.1987 requested the District Judge, Madurai that the petitioner may be absorbed Madurai Civil unit if there is a vacancy. As there was a vacancy for the post of masalchi Sub-Court, Periakulam, the petitioner has been taken temporarily and was reappointed masalchi in the said vacancy in the District Munsif's Court, Periakulam, which is in Civil Unit of course, subject to the concurrence of the High Court of Madras. Under Rule of the Tamil Nadu Basic Service Rules when sanction was asked for on 22.7.1987 series of correspondence, by letter dated 10.1.1989 the High Court on the Administrative Side ordered that the service of the petitioner be terminated as the procedure adopted the District Judge, Anna District and Madurai with regard to the appointment petitioner to the Civil Unit of Madurai is irregular and therefore, the action cannot be In view of that the petitioner was terminated from service with effect from 23.1.1989 District Judge, Madurai. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal High Court and by the impugned order dated 11.11.1989 the appeal was rejected on the ground that this case irregularity in the appointment is made out and when irregularity in appointment is made out, no sympathetic consideration can prevail over the scrupulous adherence of rules and procedure. Against that order the petitioner has come before Court with this writ petition.

(3.) THE learned Additional Government Pleader appears for the respondents. Though counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents, the entire file has been produced before me by the Government Advocate.