A. RAJA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the petitioners is that they were appointed as NMRs in the Madurai Corporation, during the year 1992 to 1994. The petitioners had been dealing with the works relating to the maintenance of street lights. During the year 1995, the Electrical Section of the Corporation of Madurai was taken over by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Subsequently, in the year 1998, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board handed over the powers, relating to the maintenance of street lights and electrical wiring to the second respondent herein. When the matter stood thus, the first respondent issued G.O.Ms. No. 151, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, dated 10.06.1997, thereby creating various posts, viz., Line Inspector, Electrician, Wiremen, Helper and Daily Wagers, to deal with the maintenance of street lights. Even though the petitioners had been working both under the second respondent as well as the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board for maintaining street lights, continuously from the year 1992, their services were not regularized. The petitioners, therefore, filed W.P. No. 10337 of 1997.

(2.) UPON hearing both the parties, this Court, by order, dated 29.11.2002, directed the first respondent to consider the resolution passed by the second respondent, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four months. As the said order passed by this Court, dated 29.11.2002, was not complied with by the respondents, the petitioners were constrained to file Contempt Petition No. 423 of 2004, which was, by order, dated 21.04.2006, disposed of, directing the second respondent to send a proposal within a period eight weeks, and thereafter, the said proposal was directed to be considered by the first respondent within a period of eight weeks.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that there is no qualification prescribed in the Rules applicable to the second respondent corporation, and hence, the appointment of the petitioners as Unskilled Labourers, by the impugned proceedings, on the ground that they did not possess required educational qualification for being appointed as Helper cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioners were discharging the functions of the Wiremen and Helpers, ever since the date of their original appointments and the works done by the petitioners were one and the same to that of Wiremen and Helpers. Hence, the learned counsel contended that the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained in the eye of law.