S. SHAKILA Vs. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order of termination dtd. 10/2/2021. The staff members appointed as typists on temporary basis under Rule 16(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, were ousted from service for want of vacancy with effect from 15/2/2021.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the earlier litigation preferred by the petitioner, the case discussed by this Court threshold was for issuance of direction for consideration of the candidature of the petitioner for regularisation. It is in the light of the fact that a representation was given by the petitioner to seek regularisation of her service having completed more than seven years of service after temporary appointment. The Division Bench of this court had considered the nature of appointment and relevant other aspects before giving the direction for consideration of the representation for regularisation of service. But ignoring the aforesaid and to nullify the effect of the said judgment, the order of termination has been issued. It is ignoring the fact that the petitioner was otherwise required for the post of typist and her name was sponsored by the employment exchange, and thus her services could not have been terminated in the manner it has been done by the respondents. It is more so when the vacant post of the typist exists. The prayer is accordingly to set aside the order of termination with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service.

(3.) The writ petition has been opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the High Court. It is submitted that no vacant post of typist exists on which the petitioner can continue. It is looking into the fact that after the process of regular selection for the post in question, the candidates equivalent to the post were selected for appointment. They were given appointment and as a consequence of which, the petitioner was required to make a room for the regular selected candidates. It is more so when the petitioner did not even participate in the regular selection and thereby, if the prayer made in this writ petition is granted, it is nothing but endorsing a candidate who has not even participated in the regular selection and making the process of recruitment to be of no significance. The consequence of interference in the order of termination would be nothing but to even compromise the merit of other candidates at the cost of administration because the petitioner did not even participate in the regular selection. In view of the above, the prayer made is to dismiss the writ petition.