A ANANDAKUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in this appeal pertains to the claim of the appellants to be permanently absorbed as Assistant Pujaries, in Arulmigu Vanapathra Kaliamman Thirukovil, Thekkampatty, Mettupalayam Taluk, Coimbatore District, and regularisation of their services from the date of sanction of the posts.

(2.) The appellants filed W.P.Nos.35356 of 2012, 14236 of 2013 and 1463 of 2014, the first one for quashing the proceedings of the third respondent dated 27.11.2012 published in the newspaper on 07.12012 in so far as the post of Parisaragar is concerned and to consequently direct the respondents to absorb them in the post of Assistant Poojari / Parisaragar in the available vacancies with all consequential benefits, the second one for quashing the Notification / Advertisement dated 204.2013 issued by the third and fourth respondents for filling up of vacancies to the post of Assistant Poojari and to regularise the services of the appellants in the post of Assistant Poojari, and the third one for a Mandamus to forbear the respondents from interfering with the functioning of the appellants as Assistant Poojari in the fourth respondent temple and to regularise the services of the appellants in the post of Assistant Poojari.

(3.) The appellants in these appeals seek for regularisation of their services as Assistant Pujaries in Vanabadrakali Amman Temple. Their claim for regularisation is primarily based on three contentions. Firstly, the Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Department, vide proceedings dated 01.02.1996, granted permission for engaging their services as Assistant Pujaris. Secondly, the proposal submitted by the third respondent to the second respondent dated 10.01.2002 and the proposal forwarded by the second respondent to the first respondent dated 18.04.2002, recommended for sanction of three posts of Assistant Pujaries intended to accommodate the appellants and to absorb them in the regular service and to provide them scale of pay. When these proposals were considered and posts were sanctioned, the appellants alone should have been accommodated in the said posts without calling for applications from the open market to fill up those posts. Thirdly, the respondents failed to adhere to the directions issued by this Court in its order dated 10.08.2012 in W.P.No.625 of 2012, which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.107 of 2013 dated 18.01.201