A.ABDUL AJIS Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER of the Court was made by It is seen from the documents placed before this Court that in W.P.Nos.8797 of 2001, etc. batch, this Court passed an order on 10.10.2002 in the appeal preferred by the State against the order of the Tribunal relating to regularisation of appointment of Librarians. In paragraph-3 of the order, this Court referred to the via media for accommodating all the persons who sought for regularisation of their appointment to the post of the Grade III Librarian.

(2.) IT is stated that the petitioners before this Court were sponsored through Employment Exchange and appointed as Village Librarian on consolidated pay as early as in the year 1996, and the petitioners were fully qualified to be appointed as Grade-III Librarian in the Department of Public Library and they had also the necessary working experience. In G.O.Ms.No.66 dated 30.01.1996, it was clarified that the vacancy of Grade III Librarian would be filled up from the qualified village Librarians like the petitioners herein. When the Government started appointing candidates from open market, the writ petitioners approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal which allowed the applications and directed the Government to fill up the vacancies for the post of Grade III Librarians by appointing petitioners and others who were appointed on consolidated pay to the post of Village Librarian. On appeal by the Government before this Court in W.P.Nos.8797 of 2001, etc. batch, this Court passed the order on 10.10.2002. In paragraph-3 of the order of this Court dated 10.10.2002, it was pointed out that a via media could be found out for accommodating the respondents in the writ petitions therein, who had served as Village Librarians on the consolidated pay and who had also the necessary experience of the work as Village Librarian. After recording the memo from the all the writ petitioners who expressed their consent to the memo filed by the State, this Court disposed of the writ petitions therein, making it clear that the order would apply to all the respondents in the batch of writ petitions filed.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioners herein is that even though they were working from 01.08.1997, the service of the petitioners was regularised only from 27.10.2006 and not from 01.08.1997. In the circumstances, the present writ petitions are filed.