P JEEVABAI Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition came to be numbered on transfer of O.A.No.130 of 2002 from the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, praying to set aside the order passed by the first respondent and consequently direct the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner as stated therein. The petitioner is seeking to call for the records relating to Government letter No,20443/Na.Pa.1/2001-7 dated 3.1.2002 issued by the first respondent herein, quash the same and direct the respondents herein to regularise the services of the petitioner herein as a Typist in the Office of the Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chennai with effect from the date of the first appointment with consequential fixation of time scale for the post with continuity of service and pay all the arrears within a date that may be fixed by this Court.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is as follows: THE petitioner has passed S.S.L.C. during the year 1986 and got her name registered in the District Employment Exchange, Chennai. Subsequently, she acquired Typewriting Higher in both English and Tamil and registered her name for appointment to the post of Typist. THE petitioner's name was sponsored by the District Employment Exchange on 6.2.1991 and she was appointed as a Typist under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Service Rules. THE petitioner joined the post on 8.2.1991 and has been continuously discharging her duties without any break whatsoever. To protect the interest of 10(a)(i) employees, the Government of Tamil Nadu brought out a scheme by which special qualifying examinations were conducted during 1996 for the purpose of regularisation. All the 10(a)(i) were directed to appear for the examination. THE petitioner has also participated in the examination but failed. Though she failed in the examination, she was not terminated from service on the ground that the petitioner was having enough experience in the department besides there were short of regular hands as against the sanctioned posts. Thus, the petitioner has been holding a regular vacancy right from 1991 till date for 18 long years. But till date, her service has not been regularised. Though there are Government orders directing regularisation of such temporary hands, the benefit has not been extended to the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that when the petitioner has been sponsored by the District Employment Exchange and working as a Typist since 8.2.1991, her services ought to have been regularised by the Government. The failure of the petitioner in the Special test could not be put against the petitioner. In a matter of this nature, employees who had failed in the special test have been regularised by the orders of the Government. Moreover, he submits that purpose of the scheme brought out by the Government also is to regularise employees under Rule 10(a)(i). In support of his case, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.Nos.3855 and 3856 of 1991, dated 1.7.1994, wherein two employees who also, failed in the Special Test, have been directed to be appointed and their services were to be regularised. He also relied on the judgment reported in Jacob Puthrambil Vs. Kera Water Authority (1991)1 SCC 280, wherein it was held as follows: