K KARUNAKARAN Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order impugned in this Writ Petition, dated 1.3.2010 states that there is no records available in the Electricity Board to establish that the Writ Petitioner was working as Contract Labour in the Board.

(2.) The list of Contract Labourers were identified by the Board for the purpose of providing absorption to those direct labourers. Even during the identification, the name of the Petitioner was not found. Thus the claim regarding the permanent absorption for the Petitioner was negatived by the respondents.

(3.) The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Writ Petitioner had sent number of representations to the respondents to consider his name for permanent absorption. However, in the absence of any records, the respondents during the relevant point of time had not regularised or permanently absorbed the Writ Petitioner. Now, this Court is of the opinion that there cannot be any appointment contrary to the recruitment rules in force. This Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot issue any direction to regularize the service of the Petitioner. All appointments are to be made only by following the recruitment rules in force and in accordance with the procedures contemplated. The contention of the Writ Petitioner is that he was engaged as a Contract Labourer from the year 1998 onwards. However, now after a lapse of many years and in view of the judgement of the Constitution Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court of India, this Court is not inclined to give any direction either to regularise the service of the Writ Petitioner or for permanent absorption. The Constitution Bench has settled the legal principles in this regard as in the case of the Secretary, State of Karnataka and others .vs. Umadevi(3) and others, (2006) 4 SCC 1, wherein, at Paragraph 5,10,13,20 and 43 to 50, it is held as follows: