V.THANGARASU Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The six petitioners have jointly come to this Court seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the entire records relating to the second respondent's impugned Dinathanthi Tamil Daily News Paper published on 17.12.2015 and to quash the same and render justice.

(2.) The first petitioner claims that he has been working as Office Assistant in the Regulatory Marketing Committee, Gingee for more than 17 years from 04.03.1999. The second petitioner claims that he has been working as Office Assistant in the Regulatory Marketing Committee, Gingee for more than 10 years from 29.06.2005. The third petitioner claims that she has been working as Office Assistant in the Regulatory Marketing Committee, Gingee for more than 17 years from 04.03.1999. The fourth petitioner claims that he has been working as Watchman in the Regulatory Marketing Committee, Villupuram for more than 17 years from 22.09.1999. The fifth petitioner claims that he has been working as Watchman in the Regulatory Marketing Committee, Ulundurpet for more than 10 years from 10.05.2004. The sixth petitioner claims that he has been working as Watchman in the Regulatory Marketing Committee, Gingee for more than 17 years from 04.03.1999.

(3.) The petitioners were initially appointed on consolidated remuneration and subsequently, allowed to work through a contractor under the control of the second respondent. Therefore, several representations were made to regularise their services. But the respondent failed to consider their representations. In the meanwhile, the first respondent passed G.O.Ms.No.116, Agriculture (AM1) Department, dated 08.07.2009 granting permission to the Commissioner of Agricultural Marketing and Agricultural Business to fill up 37 posts of Office Assistants, 134 posts of Watchman and 8 posts of Driver through Employment Exchange.