V KALIDASS Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W .P.Nos. 8531/2005, 8812/2005 and 20021/2005 are filed seeking a common relief.

(2.) (i) Mr. S. Gowrishankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the writ petitioners were recruited to the third respondent society in the year 1995. As they had registered their names in the District Employment Exchange with S.S.L.C. failed qualification after their initial appointment as casual employees they completed 480 days in a block period of two years. Therefore, the second respondent recommended to the first respondent-the Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department to regularize the services of 46 technical persons and 64 casual labourers. The names of the petitioners were also found in the abovesaid recommendation. The first respondent after careful examination of the proposal submitted by the second respondent, issued G.O.Ms. No. 75, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (M.P.II) Department, dated 21.04.1998 in which the first respondent issued a direction regularizing the services of the persons listed in A Annexure I and II to the abovesaid order. The learned counsel also pleaded that while passing the abovesaid order, the first respondent was fully conscious of the fact that all the petitioners possessed the prescribed qualification the the requisite age limit for the reason that they were appointed through the Employ- men Exchange. Their names were also found in Annexure II to the G.O., as casual labourers. But the respondents 2 and 3 did not take any efforts to implement the G.O.Ms.No. 75, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (M.P.II) Department, dated 21.04.1998. As a result, the petitioners submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent seeking regularization of their services, but the 2nd respondent has not taken any steps to regularize their services. Therefore, the petitioners filed W.P.No. 18063/2004 for issuance of a writ of mandamus to dispose of their representation on the basis of G.O.Ms. No. 75, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (M.P.II) Department, dated 21.04.1998. This court, while considering the case of the petitioners by order dated 14.07.2004 directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' representation and dispose of the same on or before 31.08.2004. Subsequently, when the order was not complied with, Contempt Petition No. 1031/2004 was filed. Only thereafter, the respondents 2 and 3 by the impugned order rejected the request of the petitioners for regularization, wrongly placing reliance in para 19 of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 24.10.2002 made in W.A.Nos. 2501/2001 and 2502 of 2001 and batch. (ii) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also submitted that in spite of the direction given by this Court to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of G.O.Ms. No. 75, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (M.P.II) Department, dated 21.04.1998, the respondents 2 and 3 instead of considering the case of the petitioners in terms of para 18 of the said judgment which is applicable to them, wrongly applied para 19. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the judgment relied on by the respondents would not apply to them.

(3.) (i) This Court is not able to subscribe the contentions made by Mr.S.V.Duraisolaimalai, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. The reason being, admittedly, the petitioners having joined in the year 1995 sponsored through District Employment Exchange, their services were fully utilized from the date of their entry into service. Hence, it must also be mentioned herein that as could be seen in the G.O.(2D)No. 137, Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (MP. II) Department, dated 28.09.2007, all these petitioners have completed their 480 days of continuous employment within a period of 24 calendar months. Besides, the first respondent, while passing G.O.(2D)No. 137, Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (MP.II) Department, dated 28.09.2007 was also satisfied with the age and educational qualifications possessed by all the petitioners. The G.O.(2D) No. 137, dated 28.09.2007 further states that they are entitled to have the relaxation from the application of the rule of reservation as provided in rule 149(3) of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules 1988 since they have been in employment from 1995. The petitioners and their serial numbers shown in Annexure-I to G.O.(2D) No. 137, Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (M.P.II) Department, dated 28.09.2007 are as follows: <IMG>JUDGEMENT_431_LLJ3_2013.jpg</IMG>