R. ANGAYARKANI Vs. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As facts and law involved in both the writ petitions are similar, they are taken up together and disposed of, by a common order.

(2.) In Nov. 2008, pursuant to the selection process undertaken, the petitioners have been appointed as Lectures in Law, on contract basis. Initially, they were engaged on consolidated pay of Rs.10,000.00, which was subsequently, in the year 2011, enhanced to Rs.25,000.00. Later on, vide order, dated 19.05.2015, they were granted regular scale of pay. According to them, they have been discharging their duties and responsibilities, as per the norms of the University Grants Commission, in handling classes and working hours. When they made representations for absorption against regular vacancies, there was no response. Hence, they filed O.A. No.1246 of 2013, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, for a direction to the respondents to regularise their services as Lecturers in Law, from the date of their intitial appointment, with all consequential benefits.

(3.) Before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras, the petitioners have submitted that in similar circumstances, pursuant to the orders of the Tribunal/High Court, Government of Puducherry, have regularised the services of the lecturers, engaged on consolidated pay. They have also submitted that this Court in W.P. No.19528 of 2013, dated 14.08.2013, directed transfer of law colleges in Puducherry, from the Law Department to Education Department and further directed the Education Secretary, Puducherry, to fill up the vacancies of regular lecturers, on or before 31st Dec., 2013, petitioners have submitted that pursuant to the same, their services ought to have been regularised, against the vacancies in the law college.