S ARUL ANTONY Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU REP BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, FORT ST GEORGE, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The entire claim of the writ petitioners in this writ petition is to draw up an inter-se seniority list for the post of Associate Professors regularized vide G.O.Ms.No.81, Higher Education (F2) Department, dated 13.03.1998

(2.) All the writ petitioners were initially recruited as Lecturers on contract / temporary basis, from the year 1986. Considering the length of their services in the post of contract lecturership, the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.81, Higher Education (F2) Department, dated 13.03.1998, to regularize their services from the date mentioned in the said G.O.Ms.No.81, Higher Education (F2) Department, dated 13.03.1998. Accordingly, the services of the writ petitioners were regularized with effect from the date mentioned in the G.O.Ms.No.81, Higher Education (F2) Department, dated 13.03.1998 and consequently, they were brought under the regular establishment in the regular time scale of pay. All the writ petitioners are continuing their service and their respective seniority was also fixed, taking into account the date of regularization accorded as per G.O.Ms.No.81, Higher Education (F2) Department, dated 13.03.1998. Therefore, the right of regularization and the seniority of all the writ petitioners are fixed by the Department based on the order passed in G.O.Ms.No.81, Higher Education (F2) Department, dated 13.03.1998.

(3.) This Court is of the view that any grievances left out for the petitioners from the said Government Order dated 13.03.1998, ought to have been adjudicated in time, by filing the writ petitions if necessary. Contrarily, the writ petitioners waited for more than 19 years and now filed the writ petitions on the ground that they are entitled for regularization from the year 1986, during which period they worked as contract/temporary lecturers. The services rendered by the writ petitioners on contract/temporary basis cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority. The regular services rendered by the writ petitioners alone can be counted for the purpose of seniority. At the most, the period rendered on contract/temporary basis may be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits, that too, 50% of the service alone under Rule 11 of the Tamilnadu Pension Rules. But the services certainly cannot be taken into account for the purpose of seniority in the cadre of lecturers. Therefore this Court is of the view that the very basis of the claim is to be ascertained when there is no right what so ever to count the period rendered by the writ petitioners on contract/temporary basis. The claim for fixation of seniority is to be rejected on threshold.