STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. R C VIJAYALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 5.9.2001 passed by the Tribunal in the Review Application in R.A.No.9 of 2000 in O.A.No.1892 of 2000, directing the second respondent, the Director of Collegiate Education, to give an order of posting to R.C.Vijayalakshmi, the first respondent herein, posting her as Junior Assistant-cum-Typist in the vacancy available anywhere in Tamil Nadu, is sought to be quashed in this writ petition seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari.

(2.) This case has got a chequered history. (a) R.C.Vijayalakshmi, the first respondent herein was temporarily appointed as Junior Assistant-cum-Typist under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules, on 15.10.1990 in the Office of the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Coimbatore, the third respondent herein. The post of Junior Assistant-cumTypist in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Services Rules comes under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC). (b) For making regular appointment of the Junior Assistants working in various Departments, TNPSC conducted special test in May 1995. The first respondent herein appeared for the special test. However, she could not come out successful. Consequently, she was not selected for the post. Having known the result, the first respondent herein filed O.A.No.3093 of 1996 before the Tribunal, seeking for a direction to the Director of Collegiate Education to regularise her service. Pending O.A.No.3093 of 1996, the Tribunal, by the interim order dated 21.6.1996 directed that the first respondent shall not be ousted from the service till the regular candidates selected by TNPSC are appointed. (c) Thereafter, another examination was held by TNPSC in March 1997 for recruitment of Junior Assistant-cum-Typist and the first respondent appeared in that examination. This time also, she did not pass the test and so, she was not selected. In the meantime, the first respondent withdrew the main application in O.A.No.3093 of 1996 and got the same dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal on 6.1.1998. (d) Consequent to the dismissal of O.A.No.3093 of 1996, proceedings dated 5.2.1998 were issued by the Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Coimbatore ousting the first respondent from service. Once again, the first respondent filed an application in O.A.No.956 of 1998 before the Tribunal for the same relief, namely to regularise her service as Junior Assistant-cum-Typist. The Tribunal entertained this application and passed an interim order on 5.2.1998, directing the petitioners not to terminate the service of the first respondent till the appointment of the regular candidates selected by TNPSC. In pursuance of this interim order, the first respondent was permitted to join duty and accordingly, she joined duty. (e) On 20.1.1999, TNPSC appointed one K.Sivakumar as Junior Assistant-cum-Typist in the place of the first respondent herein. Consequently, the first respondent was terminated with effect from 15.2.1999. This time, the first respondent chose to approach this Court instead of approaching the Tribunal. Accordingly, she filed a writ petition in W.P.No.7797 of 1999, challenging the order of termination of the first respondent. This writ petition was subsequently transferred to the Tribunal and re-numbered as T.A.No.143 of 1999. Meanwhile, she sent a representation to the petitioners for her reinstatement on 22.3.1 999. When the matter came up on 11.10.1999 before the Tribunal, the first respondent, withdrew T.A.No.143 of 1999 and accordingly, the same was dismissed. (f) Even though the order of termination dated 15.2.1999 was challenged in the earlier writ petition, which was subsequently withdrawn from the Tribunal on 11.10.1999, the first respondent again filed a separate application in O.A.Diary No.5401 of 1999, challenging the order of termination dated 15.2.1999. In this application, the Tribunal, by the order dated 8.6.1999, directed the Director of Collegiate Education to dispose of the representation made by the first respondent. (g) In the light of the direction issued by the Tribunal, the second petitioner considered the representation and rejected the same, by his order dated 3.9.1999. Challenging the same, the first respondent filed O.A.No.1892 of 2000 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal took up both O.A.No.956 of 1998 and O.A.No.1892 of 2000 and passed a common order on 24.4.2000, holding that the first respondent cannot claim regularisation or reinstatement as a matter of right, since she was appointed under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules and however, the petitioners may consider the case of the first respondent for appointment as Junior Assistant-cum-Typist in and around Erode, if any such vacancy is available. (h) The second petitioner accordingly considered the case of the first respondent and rejected her request for appointment as there are no vacancies for the post of Junior Assistant-cum-Typist in and around Erode. In that context, the first respondent filed Review Application in R.A.No.9 of 2000 in O.A.No.1892 of 2000, seeking review of the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 24.4.2000, asking the Tribunal to give a direction to the second petitioner to give posting to the first respondent as Junior Assistant-cum-Typist in the vacancy available anywhere in the State of Tamil Nadu. (i) The Tribunal, by the order dated 5.9.2001, "graciously" granted the relief sought for by the first respondent and directed the second petitioner to give an order of posting to the first respondent if any vacancy is available anywhere in Tamil Nadu, within a period of eight weeks from that date. This order of the Tribunal is under challenge before this Court in this writ petition.

(3.) We have heard Mr.S.T.S.Moorthy, learned Special Government Pleader for the petitioners and Mr.C.Selvaraju for the first respondent.