P SIVAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner has come forward with the aforesaid prayer to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3rd Respondent in Proceedings Na.Ka. No. 4891/Ni6/2008 dated 21.09.2012 and quash the same so far as the petitioner is concerned and consequently direct the respondents to absorb the petitioner in regular time scale either as Lab Attendant or any other equivalent cadre in Basic Service as per the orders issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 151, Social Welfare and Noon Meal Scheme Department dated 16.10.2008 with all attendant and monetary benefits.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner and some other persons were employed through outsourcing in various hospitals all over the Tamil Nadu to look after the hospital services. The petitioner herein was appointed as a Lab Attendant by way of a proceedings dated, 02.11.2005 and he was posted in the Asaripallam Government Medical College Hospital, Kanyakumari District. Subsequently, the Government took a policy decision to ban the contractual appointment through outsourcing. Thereafter also, the persons like the petitioner were permitted to work. Subsequently, they approached this Court by way of filing writ petitions in W.P.(MD).Nos.11780 to 11784 of 2011 seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to regularize their services. During the pendency of the writ petitions, without issuing any show-cause notice, their services were terminated. They brought the said fact to the attention of this Court and this Court passed an order on 26.04.2013, directing the third respondent to consider the representation of the petitioners therein and submit appropriate proposal on the petitioners' claim to the second respondent for examining the matter on merits and in accordance with law and for passing appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible. It was also observed by this Court that even though this Court directed the representation of the petitioners to be considered, it does not mean that it would give some preference to them and their case would purely be considered on merits.

(3.) It is the further case of the petitioner that thereafter, similarly placed persons have approached this Court and this Court, vide order dated 02.07.2014, passed an order in W.P.(MD).Nos.15229 to 15531 of 2012, which was based on the earlier orders of this Court, dated 23.10.2009, passed in W.P.(MD).Nos.30105 to 30111 of 2008 and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for employment and allow them to discharge their regular duties as Hospital workers (Outsourcing Staff).