D.RANI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relief sought for in the present writ petition is for a direction to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner to regularize the service to the post of the SWEEPER in the 4th respondent school and to disburse the salary to the petitioner for her service rendered in the 4th respondent school.

(2.) The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the writ petitioner was appointed as a Sweeper by the Village Educational Committee. The writ petitioner, admittedly, was not appointed by the competent authority by following the selection process as contemplated in the recruitment rules in force. Thus, the initial appointment of the writ petitioner was irregular and not in consonance with the recruitment rules in force. However, the writ petitioner claims that the writ petitioner is entitled to be regularized in a sanctioned post on account of the fact that she was continuing in the Post of Sweeper for a considerable length of time. The petitioner was appointed with effect from 10.12.2010 and continuously working in the School in the Post of Sweeper. This apart, the salary due for several months are yet to be paid. Thus, the benefit of regularization is to be granted and as well as the respondents are to be directed to pay the salary, which all are due to the writ petitioner.

(3.) The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the cases of the similarly placed persons were considered by the Government and the benefit of regularization had already been extended. Thus, the same benefit is to be extended to the writ petitioner also.