LAWS(MAD)-2018-2-585

J VENKATESAN Vs. VICE-CHANCELLOR, MADURAI KAMARAJ UNIVERSITY

Decided On February 16, 2018
J Venkatesan Appellant
V/S
Vice-Chancellor, Madurai Kamaraj University Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for a direction to direct the respondents to regularize the petitioner in the post of driver in the regular sanctioned post of driver within the time stipulated by this Court.

(2.) The writ petitioner claims that he was appointed as 'Driver' on consolidated pay in the respondent University with effect from 01.09.1997. The petitioner was appointed as temporary driver and was continuing in service. The consolidated salary of Rs.6,000/- per month was paid to the petitioner. Thus, the writ petitioner claims that he is entitled to be regularized on the ground that he is fully qualified to hold the post of Driver and he was continuously working in service.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents made a submission that the writ petitioner was not appointed in accordance with the rules in force. The application submitted by the writ petitioner was recommended and forwarded by the Professors to post him as CLR-cum-Driver and accordingly, Dr.C.Rajamanickam was permitted to engage one person as CLR-cum- Driver on a consolidated salary of Rs.1,500/- per month from the date of joining for the self finance course for one year. Thus, the engagement of the writ petitioner was made clear that Dr.C.Rajamanickam, Senior Professor and Head of the Department of Bio-Chemistry, Madurai Kamaraj University was permitted to engage one person as CLR-cum-Driver on a consolidated salary of Rs.1,500/- per month for a period of one year, more specifically in a self finance course. Thus, the writ petitioner was engaged for a specific period of one year and the Head of the Department was permitted to engage him. He was not appointed on regular basis and in accordance with the recruitment rules in force more specifically by the competent authority. In the absence of any valid appointment, the writ petitioner cannot claim regularisation or permanent absorption.