IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 18.02.2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR Writ Petition No.44826 to 44832 of 2006 M. Sakthivel ..Petitioner in W.P.No.44826 of 2006 V. Pitchandi ..Petitioner in W.P.No.44827 of 2006 S. Perumal ..Petitioner in W.P.No.44828 of 2006 S. Subramanian ..Petitioner in W.P.No.44829 of 2006 S. Devadoss ..Petitioner in W.P.No.44830 of 2006 T. Arunachalam ..Petitioner in W.P.No.44831 of 2006 E. Ganesan ..Petitioner in W.P.No.44832 of 2006 Vs 1. The Director of School Education, Chennai – 6 2. The District Educational Officer, Tiruvannamalai ..Respondents (in all the W.Ps.) Prayer: Original Application Nos.7010, 7009, 7008, 6911, 6917, 6918 of 1999 on the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, on abolition, transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as W.P. Nos.44826 to of 2006, praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka. No.514/A1/99 dated 15.10.1999 and direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner on 11.06.1997, 02.07.1997, 30.05.1997, 30.05.1997, 30.05.1997, 30.05.1997 and 30.05.1997 respectively in the cadre of Record Clerk. For Petitioner/s : Mr. S. Ganesan for Mr. C. Selvaraju For Respondents : Mr. S. Shivashanmugam Government Advocate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ COMMON ORDER The petitions have been filed to set aside the order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka. No.514/A1/99 dated 15.10.1999 and direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner on 11.06.1997, 02.07.1997, 30.05.1997, 30.05.1997, 30.05.1997, 30.05.1997 and 30.05.1997 respectively in the cadre of Record Clerk. 2. The petitioners, non teaching staff, working as Office Assistant or night watchman in the panchayat union school. In the year 1981, the non teaching staff, which includes clerks, office assistant etc. were absorbed as Government Servants. The petitioners were given an option to state as to whether they should be treated as Government Servants or Panchayat union staff. The petitioners in each one of the cases opted for Government service and continued to hold the posts as such. On 4.6.97, they were promoted as record clerks. Thereafter, on 15.10.99, a show cause notice was issued by the District Educational Officer/ second respondent calling upon them to show cause within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice as to why, they should not be reverted as office assistant/ night watchman as the case may be. The second respondent strangely after having given 15 days time to reply to the show cause notice passed the impugned proceedings on the very same date i.e. on 15.10.99 reverting them as office assistant/ night watchman as the case may be and cancelled the order of regularisation as record clerks. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petitions have been filed. 3. The original applications were filed in the year 1999 and all the petitioners have the benefit of stay of impugned proceedings and continued in service. All the petitioners superannuated some where in the year 2005 and 2006. 4. The main grievance of the petitioners appears to be that there has been gross violation of Principles of Natural Justice, inasmuch as the order has been passed on the date of issuance of the show cause notice. 5. Reply affidavit has been filed stating that promotion has been given wrongly as Rules have not been framed. The short issue that to be considered and decided in the present cases is whether the impugned order has been passed on the date of issuance of show cause notice itself i.e. on 15.10.99, can be justified. The petitioners having been given 15 days time to reply to the show cause notices, were reverted and the order of regularisation was cancelled on the very same day. This only establishes the arbitrary nature of the proceedings of the second respondent and only for the reason that there has been gross violation of principles of natural justice and an opportunity to reply to the show cause notice has been denied, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and accordingly set https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ aside. These writ petitions are allowed. No costs. It is open to the respondents to proceed in the matter afresh if they so desire. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ra To 1. The Director of School Education, Chennai – 6 2. The District Educational Officer, Tiruvannamalai. + 1 c.c. to The Government Pleader. S.R.No.11221. W.P.Nos.44826 to 44832 of 2006 TRM (CO) GSK 09.03.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/