P. SURESH Vs. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC LIBRARIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relief sought for in this writ petition is to call for the records in pursuant to the order of rejection passed by the second respondent vide proceedings, dated 06.11.2012 and to quash the same and direct the respondents to regularize the services of the writ petitioner.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner vehemently contended that the writ petitioner is entitled to be regularised by virtue of the ad-hoc Rule for the post of driver by School Education Department, Chennai, dated 27.04.2009. The petitioner was engaged as a driver on need basis. However, no order of appointment was issued to the writ petitioner. Admittedly without any order of appointment, the writ petitioner was engaged by the official of the respondents Department. Whenever the services of the driver is required, the writ petitioner had been paid daily wages. The daily wage calculated would be paid on monthly basis.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the writ petitioner is fully qualified for appointment to the post of driver. The G.O(MS) No. 60, dated 27.04.2006, Class-3 provided the category of driver. The mode of recruitment for the post of driver is stipulated as No. 1 by recruitment by transfer from any other service: "or" by direct recruitment, if no suitable candidate is available in method (I) above. Thus, the writ petitioner is of an opinion that no other suitable candidate was available and therefore, he should be appointed by way of direct recruitment to the post of driver.