R ELUMALAI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal dated 31.12.2003 wherein and by which the application filed by the petitioner / applicant in T.A. No. 31 of 1994 seeking for regularisation of his services from the date of initial appointment, was dismissed, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are as follows:- THE petitioner, who joined as Junior Assistant in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department [P.W.D.), Kancheepuram Division on 14.6.1975 and later on posted as Typist, and came out successful in the Special Qualifying Examination held on 27.12.1977 by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission [for short, 'TNPSC'], was allotted to the P.W.D. Unit for the post of Junior Assistant in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service that the Chief Engineer (General), P.W. D. vide his proceedings dated 29.8.1980 on which date he was holding the post of Typist temporarily, posted him as Junior Assistant that pursuant to G.O. Ms. No. 715 Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Placements) Department dated 06.7.1981 which provided for fixation of pay of the candidates like the petitioner, he submitted representation dated 30.12.1981 to the Chief Engineer (Irrigation), P.W.D. under whom he was working on that date, seeking permission to draw pay in the regular post of Junior Assistant as he was drawing earlier till 31.8.1980 that the same was rejected by the Government vide letter dated 19.4.1983 stating that the concession of pay last drawn was given only to those temporary Typists, Steno-Typists and Junior Assistants, who were allotted to the same category subsequent to the selection by the TNPSC that the Government issued instructions under G.O. Ms. No. 1074 Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Placements) Department dated 12.11.1982 to the effect that the services of Junior Assistants, Typists and Steno-Typists under the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service and who became successful in the Special Qualifying Examination 1977 and allotted to different Departments, should be regularised from 28.12.1977 if they were in temporary service in any Department on that date that vide letter dated 06.10.1983, the Government had not accepted the clarification sought for by the Chief Engineer (General) with regard to regularisation of the services of the petitioner from 28.12.1977 with protection for pay drawn earlier by virtue of G.O. Ms. No. 1074 that subsequently, the Government vide letter dated 05.10.1984, clarified to the Chief Engineer (Irrigation) that the services of the petitioner should be regularised from 01.9.1980 only in the post of Junior Assistant as he was holding a different post, viz., Typist, on the crucial date ie., 28.12.1977 and that his services as Typist cannot be taken into account for regularisation as Junior Assistant and that the Chief Engineer (Irrigation) vide proceedings dated 20.10.1984, regularised the services of the petitioner as Junior Assistant from 01.9.1980. THE further case of the petitioner is that similarly situated persons were given the benefits of retrospective regularisation from 28.12.1977 and fixation of pay after taking into account their temporary services prior to 27.12.1977 that for the representation submitted by him seeking for the same benefit, the Government by letter dated 20.7.1988 informed the Chief Engineer (General), P.W.D. that as he was holding different post, ie., Typist, on 28.12.1977 at the time of selection to the post of Junior Assistant by the TNPSC, his services in the category of Junior Assistant could not be regularised with effect from 28.12.1977 and that the pay last drawn in the post of Typist could not be taken into account for the fixation of pay in the post of Junior Assistant. As against the same, he filed W.P. No. 10719 of 1988, which stood transferred to the Tribunal consequent on its formation in December 1988 and re-numbered as T.A. No. 31 of 1994.

(3.) LEARNED Special Government Pleader representing the respondents, has filed a counter affidavit reiterating the proceedings issued by the Government rejecting the proposals made by the Chief Engineer on the basis of the representations submitted by the petitioner. She submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant under emergency provisions of the Rules and emergency services could not be regularised due to the reason that selection and allotment of the petitioner by the TNPSC was to the post of Junior Assistant, which is a different category and when the selection and allotment of the petitioner was notified by TNPSC, he was not officiating in the post of Junior Assistant and actually, he was working as Typist. According to her, Rule 10(a)(i) of the Rules does not confer any right for regular appointment. She submitted that the Tribunal taking into cognizance of the rule provisions pertaining to candidates recruited through Special Recruitment 1977, rightly dismissed the application and the same requires no interference from this Court.