?IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS %DATED: 25/04/2011 *CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR +WP.27815 of 2008 #G.Suseela $The District Collector !FOR PETITIONER : R.Thanjan ^FOR RESPONDENT : S.Shivashanmugam :ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR W.P.No.27815 of 2008 G.Suseela ... Petitioner Versus 1.The District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram. 2.The Block Development Officer, Mailam Panchayat Union, Kutteripattu, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District. 3.The District Employment Officer, Villupuram District, Villupuram. .... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief of issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondents 1 to 3, particularly the second respondent's letter dated 08.09.2008 vide Ref.No.Na.Ka.A4/1794/2008 and quash the same and consequently direct the first and second respondents to give employment by sponsoring the petitioner's name through the third respondent by considering the petitioner's lengthy service of 21 years under the respondent's 1 and 2 on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 05.03.2008 sent through the Taluk Legal Service Committee, Tindivanam. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thanjan For Respondents 1 and 3 : Mr.S.Shivashanmugam For Respondent- 2 : Mr.J.Rajakalifulla O R D E R This writ petition has been filed seeking for a Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the respondents 1 to 3, particularly the second respondent's letter dated 08.09.2008 vide Ref.No.Na.Ka.A4/1794/2008 and quash the same and consequently direct the first and second respondents to give employment by sponsoring the petitioner's name through the third respondent by considering the petitioner's lengthy service of 21 years under the respondent's 1 and 2 on the basis of the petitioner's representation dated 05.03.2008 sent through the Taluk Legal Service Committee, Tindivanam. 2.This writ petition seeking Certiorarified mandamus has been filed by the petitioner for the above stated relief, stating that the petitioner completed her SSLC in the year March 1977, and thereafter passed typewriting English and Tamil (Higher Grade). The petitioner was registered with the District Employment Officer, Villupuram District in the year 1977 and further registered under the category of technically qualified person in the year 1987 and has been renewing the same from time to time with the District Employment Officer. The petitioner joined services of the second respondent Mailam Panchayat Union in the year 1986 as a temporary typist in a vacant post. 3. According to the petitioner, she was appointed after being sponsored by the District Employment Officer and the petitioner continued to serve as typists under the second respondent for long number of years. It is also the plea of the petitioner that in the year 1993, the petitioner's father died and she was deserted by her husband. The petitioner while temporarily serving as typists under the second respondent was categorized as NMR (Nominal Muster Role) employee. Her employment was treated as a temporary. She put in more than 21 years of service, till the date of filing of the writ petition in the year 2008. She made several representation to the authority to regularise her employment and that was not considered. The petitioner also made a complaint to the District Legal Services Authority on 16.04.2008, based on which, the impugned proceedings dated 18.09.2008, came to be passed. 4.In the impugned proceedings the Block Development Officer, second respondent has stated that the petitioner was employed as NMR and was paid salary from various developmental schemes therefore, she cannot be treated as a daily wager for the purpose of granting the benefit of regularisation. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 5.A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent wherein in paragraph 6 & 7 it is stated as follows: "It is submitted that as the petitioner had made her representation, she was properly replied by this office. Her service was not a regular one. She was engaged in typing work whenever needed and was paid then and there. As her appointment was not a regular one her service could not be regularized. During her tenure of service, she fully knew that her service is purely on temporary basis and it could not be regularized at any time. Now the claim made by the petitioner is not legal. 7.It is submitted that the petitioner's service was not a regular one. It also not a continuous one. She was engaged in typing work whenever needed and was paid for that, as on outsourcing agency undertaking a specified work, then and there. She is not covered by any service rules and she is not a member of the regular establishment of this office. She did not have any specified office time schedule." 6.The impugned letter under challenge appears to be totally vague and it does not answer the point in issue. The petitioner claim for regularisation has to be considered in the light of various documents enclosed in the typed set of papers for which, the respondents have no proper reply in the counter affidavit. The documents filed are series of service certificates, issued by the second respondent from time to time beginning from 10.05.1987. On perusal of the typed set of papers it is seen that the service certificates have been issued by the second respondent for the year 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1992 and 1999. In all those certificates, it has been clearly stated that the petitioner is working as typists in the category of Nominal Muster Role (NMR). The certificates also reveals that the petitioner is working since 15.07.1987 it is nowhere stated that the petitioner is working part time. 7. It is therefore clear that the petitioner has been working as a typists but under NMR category. The authority could not have appointed her unless she was sponsored by the employment exchange, as the Rule prohibits, appointment of typists otherwise, than through employment exchange. Therefore, from the certificates issued from time to time, it is clear that the petitioner was employed only as a typist, even though her salary has been given as an NMR which obviously is a irregularity committed by the respondent in extracting the work of a typist from a destitute lady and paying her the lesser salary applicable to NMR. 8.The authorities should have taken into consideration the long period of service rendered and regularise her in terms of various Government orders applicable from time to time, which benefit has been denied to the petitioner for no good or justifiable reason. 9. It is a matter of pity that a destitute woman should come to this Court seeking the above stated relief. The various certificates issued by the second respondent for many number of years accepting her employment as typist to which post, she could not have been appointed without being sponsored by the Employment Exchange justify her claim. The stand taken by the respondent in the impugned proceedings and the counter affidavit are vague and not supported by law. The documents relating to service certificates are not rebutted by the counsel for the respondent. The new stand taken in the counter affidavit stating that employment is part time has no factual basis. 10. In view of the above, this court is constrained to accept the petitioners plea for appointment at typist on regular basis. The authorities are directed to appoint the petitioner in the post of typists taking into consideration the relevant Government Orders as may be applicable including the G.O.Ms.No.125 dated 27.05.1989 and G.O.Ms.No.21, dated 23.02.2006. The employment officer shall if required forward the name of the petitioner to enable the competent authority to complete the formality for appoint of the petitioner as typist and to regularise her services as per law. The date of regularisation shall be determined on the basis of the Government Orders applicable. 11.The writ petition is ordered as above. The respondents are directed to implement the order of this Court within a period of six weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 25.04.2011 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Smi To 1.The District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram. 2.The Block Development Officer, Mailam Panchayat Union, Kutteripattu, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District. 3.The District Employment Officer, Villupuram District, Villupuram. R.SUDHAKAR , J. Smi W.P.No.27815 of 2008 25.04.2011 