STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. P GNANAPRAGASAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The official respondents in the writ petition are the appellants and aggrieved by the impugned order dated 03.012.2012, passed in WP(MD)No.10915 of 2007, in allowing the writ petition, came forward to file this Writ Appeal.

(2.) Mrs.S.Srimathy, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants would submit that admittedly the first respondent / writ petitioner was a contingent staff and in the light of catena of decisions rendered by the Hon-ble Supreme Court, he is not entitled to make any claim for regularisation as a matter of right and would further add G.O.Ms.No.577, School Education Department, dated 01.04.1981 has no application to the case on hand, for the reason that it pertains to regular School and not to the Teacher Training Institutes. It is also brought to the knowledge of this Court by the learned Special Government Pleader that the reliance placed upon the Government Orders of the first appellant dated 12.11.1997 and 08.02.2000 in G.O.Ms.No.156, School Education Department and G.O(1D) No.46, School Education Department respectively, pertain to individual claim of the concerned writ petitioners and it cannot be cited as a precedent and further pointed out that the first respondent retired from service in the year 2006 itself and as such, the claim of the first respondent / writ petitioner is also hit by delay and laches and prays for setting aside the impugned order allowing the writ petition and for allowing of this writ appeal.

(3.) Per contra Mr.Ragatheesh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent / writ petitioner would submit that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulations Act, did not distinguish all the non teaching staff employed in aided school or aided Teacher Training Institutes and also drawing the attention of this Court to the materials placed before this Court in the typed set of documents, would submit that the concerned official respondent has called for particulars for regularisation of the first respondent / writ petitioner and necessary proposal was also sent by the management of the school / second respondent herein and sometimes thereafter, no progress took place and therefore, the first respondent / writ petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing the writ petition, immediately after his retirement and as such, it cannot be stated that his claim is hit by delay and laches.