M.AYYAPPAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of rejection, dated 18.04.2015, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for regularization and permanent absorption in the post of Night Watchman, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) The writ petitioner was employed as Night Watchman as well as Godown Watchman on 01.01.1990, on daily wage basis. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the petitioner was allowed to continue as daily wage employee for the considerable length of time. The Government has also passed orders granting the benefit of regularization in respect of the temporary employees, who served more than ten years. Based on the said G.O.Ms.No.22, P&AR Department, dated 28.02.2006, the writ petitioner submitted an application and the said application was not considered and earlier he filed W.P.(MD)No.4819 of 2011, and this Court passed an order dated 24.02.2015, directing the respondents to consider his application, based on the directions issued by this Court. The impugned order of rejection order passed in proceeding, dated 18.04.2015. The reasons stated in the impugned order as on 01.01.2006, is that the writ petitioner has not completed ten years. Thus, he is not entitled to get the benefit of the Government order. This apart, the Government order issued in G.O.Ms.No.22, had already been withdrawn and modified the Government issued in G.O.Ms.No.74. Beyond the Government orders, the benefit of regularization and permanent absorption cannot be granted in violation of the recruitment rules in force. In this regard, it is relevant to cite the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others reported in (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 1, at Paragraphs 5,10,12,13,14,20 and 43 to 50, which reads as under:

(3.) This Court has also on occasions issued directions which could not be said to be consistent with the Constitutional scheme of public employment. Such directions are issued presumably on the basis of equitable considerations or individualization of justice. The question arises, equity to whom? Equity for the handful of people who have approached the Court with a claim, or equity for the teeming millions of this country seeking employment and seeking a fair opportunity for competing for employment? When one side of the coin is considered, the other side of the coin, has also to be considered and the way open to any court of law or justice, is to adhere to the law as laid down by the Constitution and not to make directions, which at times,even if do not run counter to the Constitutional scheme, certainly tend to water down the Constitutional requirements. It is this conflict that is reflected in these cases referred to the Constitution Bench.