IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.6.2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.No.39944 of 2006 P. Tamilselvi ... Petitioner vs 1.The Superintending Engineer, Highways & Rural Works Department, Tirunelveli Circle, Tirunelveli. 2.The Divisional Engineer, Highways & Rural Works Department, Sivagangai. 3.The Chief Engineer, Highways & Rural Works Department, Chennai-5. ... Respondents This petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No.585 of 1999 on the file of the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to absorb the petitioner in the post of 'Salai Paniyalar' sanctioned in G.O.Ms.No.184, Highways (HM2) Department, dated 29.5.1997. For Petitioner ... Mr.R.Muthukannu For Respondents ... Mr.A.Arumugam, Additional Govt. Pleader O R D E R The petitioner has sought for a direction to absorb her in the newly constituted post of 'Salai Paniyalar' sanctioned in G.O.Ms.No.184, Highways (HM2) Department, dated 29.5.1997 and regularise her service. 2. Short facts leading to the Writ Petition are as follows: The petitioner has joined in Highways & Rural Works Department as N.M.R. and her service was utilised from August' 1988 to 1998. In the year 1997, the Government have issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.184 Highways (HM2) Department, dated 29.5.1997, creating 9,813 posts of Road Workers. Instead of absorbing the road workers, who have put in considerable service as daily wages, the respondents took steps to fill up the newly sanctioned posts by direct recruitment. In this regard, the petitioner has made a representation, dated 04.03.1998 to the second respondent, with a request to absorb her in the newly sanctioned posts of Road worker. Since no orders were passed on the said representation, the petitioner has left with no other option, has preferred Original Application before the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, which has been subsequently transferred to this Court and renumbered as present Writ Petition. 3. The second respondent in his counter affidavit has submitted that the petitioner was engaged for watering and maintaining the avenues on road sides in Sivaganga and Devakottai Sections on daily wages and that she was not issued with any appointment order. The second respondent has denied the contention that the petitioner was engaged continuously for 10 years. According to him, for the post of Salai Paniyalar, the educational qualifications prescribed, are Vth to Xth standard pass and the maximum age prescribed is 35 years. The department, subject to the eligibility criteria, received applications for appointment to the post of Salai Paniyalar and the petitioner did not submit any application within the prescribed date and failed to attend the interview conducted at Sivaganga on 21.08.1997. The petitioner possessed the higher qualification than the qualification prescribed by the Government and therefore, she could not be considered for selection and appointment as 'Salai Paniyalar'. For the above said reasons, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 4. Excepting the representation, dated 23.01.1998 addressed to the Divisional Engineer, Highways and Rural Works Department, Sivagangai, no materials have been placed before this court by the petitioner to prove that she was continuously engaged as NMR for a period of ten years to get the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.95 dated 4.2.1988. The Supreme Court in....................... reported in.................. held that it is for the applicant to prove her continuous engagement in work by producing relevant records. Though the Government have sanctioned posts as per Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.184 Highways (HM2) Department, dated 29.5.1997, the petitioner has not chosen to submit her application within the time prescribed for the post. It is evident from the counter affidavit that the petitioner has crossed the maximum age prescribed for appointment at that point of time. The nature of work of the petitioner was only watering and maintaining the avenues in the road sides in Sivaganga and Devakottai Sections on daily wages. Reading of the counter affidavit also makes it clear that there is no need for continuous engagement of the petitioner. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts, no mandamus can be issued to regularise the service of the petitioner. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 18.6.2008 skm To 1.The Superintending Engineer, Highways & Rural Works Department, Tirunelveli Circle, Tirunelveli. 2.The Divisional Engineer, Highways & Rural Works Department, Sivagangai. 3.The Chief Engineer, Highways & Rural Works Department, Chennai-5. S. MANIKUMAR, J. skm W.P.No.39944 of 2006 18.6.2008