SMT. S. SELVI JABAMALAI Vs. STATE, (MADRAS)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in W.P.No.17923 of 2010 would aver among other things that they are fully qualified to be appointed as Typists and they have also got their names registered with the District Employment Exchanges for suitable employment and were eagerly waiting for their turn and while so, the first respondent issued a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.72 dated 25.08.2006, wherein a scheme was framed for giving monthly stipend of Rs.150.00 to unemployed persons who have completed X standard, Rs.200.00 for those who have completed Higher Secondary Education and Rs.300.00 for those who have completed their Graduation and under the said scheme, totally 272 posts consisting of Typists, Steno-Typists and other posts were created permanently for appointment on regular basis. Subsequently, the second respondent had instructed all the Employment Exchanges to go for direct recruitment from qualified persons for filling up the vacancies of 81 posts of Typists which have been sanctioned under the above said Government order. Thereafter, vide G.O.Ms.No.185 dated 23.11.2006, correction was made in the earlier G.O.Ms. No.72 dated 25.8.2006 stating that the posts of Typists and Steno Typists sanctioned under G.O.Ms. No.72 shall be filled up temporarily with a consolidated pay of Rs.4000.00 per month till regular recruitment is made by the second respondent herein and as such, the petitioners were called for interview as per seniority list in the respective employment exchanges and they were appointed as Typists with the respondents 3 to 10 and their service particulars are as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_111_LAWS(MAD)4_2017_1.html</FRM>

(2.) The grievance expressed by the petitioners is that despite lapse of very many years, their services are yet to be regularized and they are continued to be paid with consolidate pay of Rs.4,000.00 per month and in this regard, they had also submitted a representation dated 22.01.2010 and since no response is forthcoming, came forward with this writ petition.

(3.) The petitioners in W.P.No.17924 of 2010 also made similar claim and it is relevant to extract their service particulars: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_111_LAWS(MAD)4_2017_2.html</FRM>