V KALIYAPERUMAL Vs. CHIEF EDUCATIONAL OFFICER AND CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been brought forth seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the first respondent dated 30.3.99 made in Roc.No.4/Ma.A.Ku/99 and to direct the first respondent to reinstate the petitioner with all monetary and service benefits including the time scale of pay applicable to the petitioner as granted to similar posts in the other Districts of Tamil Nadu.

(2.) THE affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner while advancing his argument would submit that the petitioner was appointed as a driver for Mobile Medical Inspection Van by order dated 31.8.1976 on a consolidated pay of Rs.180/- p.m. and he joined duty on 2.9.1976 at Cuddalore under the first respondent and subsequently he was paid Rs.425/- p.m. from 1.1.83 to 31.12.1989 and he was paid a consolidated day of Rs.1200/- p.m. from 1.1.90 to 31.1.96 and Rs.1500/- from 1.2.96 till the time of termination of his service; that by proceedings of the first respondent dated 30.3.99 which was to take effect from 1.4.99 (F.N.), the petitioner was terminated from service even without any notice or without giving any opportunity to him; that there was gross violation of principles of natural justice; that the petitioner has been working in the department for the past 23 years; that it was a permanent post; that the duty and responsibility of the first respondent is to provide annual medical check up to each and every students in the District in the High School and Higher Secondary schools for which the government spends substantial amount; that the School authorities are collecting fees amount from the school students every year; thus the nature of the duty and the need of service of the petitioner is a permanent one. Hence, the first respondent has no power or authority to terminate the service of the petitioner abruptly even without notice to him. Added further learned counsel that there were two permanent posts of drivers under the first respondent in the said Medical Inspection scheme and that the other van driver died about 4 years ago and the vacancy was not yet filled up by the respondent and that at the time of termination, the petitioner was the only driver working there and in order to accommodate some one else in the place of the petitioner even without a notice, the service of the petitioner was terminated which is arbitrary, high handed and illegal and hence, taking into consideration of the above facts, the order of the first respondent has got to be set aside and the first respondent should be directed to regularise the service of the petitioner in the post of driver.