IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Date:- 28.01.2010 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice M. CHOCKALINGAM and The Honourable Mr. Justice T. RAJA W.P. Nos.1490 to 1494 of 2010 and M.P. Nos.1 of 2010 (5 Nos.) A. Vijayalakshmi ... Petitioner in W.P. No.1490/2010 V. Kavitha ... Petitioner in W.P. No.1491/2010 G. Arivu Selvi ... Petitioner in W.P. No.1492/2010 R. Visalachi ... Petitioner in W.P. No.1493/2010 K. Chitra ... Petitioner in W.P. No.1494/2010 ..Vs.. 1. State of Tamilnadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government (Home), Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Tamilnadu Public Service Commission, rep. by its Secretary, Chennai. 3. The Registrar General, High Court, Chennai 600 104. 4. The Principal District Judge, District Court Complex, Villupuram. ... Respondents in all W.Ps. Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in the post of Junior Assistants or any other suitable post as may be directed by this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioners : Mr. T. Saikrishnan for M/s. Sai Bharath Ilan For Respondents: Mr. P. Muthukumar, Govt. Advocate for R1 and R2 Mr. R. Tholkappian, Govt. Advocate for R3 and R4 COMMON ORDER (Order of the Court was made by M. CHOCKALINGAM, J.) All these writ petitions seek a direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in the post of Junior Assistant or any other post in the same cadre. 2. The gist of the case in all these writ petitions is that the petitioners got necessary educational qualification and registered the same with the District Employment Exchange, Villupuram. In the year 2008, they were sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the post of Junior Assistant in the Courts of Villupuram district. On being sponsored by the Employment Exchange, they received the call letters on different dates in the month of April, 2008. They actually attended the interview for the post Junior Assistant on temporary basis in different Courts of Villupuram in the time scale of pay of Rs.3200-85-4900. Pursuant to the same, they received the orders of appointment on temporary basis on 25.4.2008 and they have been working so. 3. It has been the practice that pursuant to the concurrence from the High Court, the appointment of the persons, who were appointed on temporary basis, were to be confirmed. Though a direction is given in the writ petitions filed by the Judicial Temporary Employees Welfare Association in W.P. Nos.9710 and 10189 of 2009, no examination has been conducted. 4. Under such circumstances, the representations have been given to the High Court, but the concurrence has not been given and they have not been confirmed. Hence, the practice followed all along for making the persons employed on temporary basis as permanent pursuant to the concurrence given by the High Court should be followed, which requires a direction in the hands of this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners reiterated the averments made in the affidavits by way of submissions before this Court. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents brought to the notice of the Court that there was an occasion for the Bench of this Court to consider such a case made by the Judicial Temporary Employees Welfare Association, whereby an elaborate order has been given. 6. The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made by either side and also looked into the materials available on record. 7. It is not in controversy that the petitioners herein have registered themselves with the Employment Exchange and they were called for the interview and they have also attended the interview. Pursuant to the same, they got the appointment order on temporary basis and they have been working as Junior Assistants on temporary basis as on today. The Judicial Temporary Employees Welfare Association on behalf of such employees made writ petitions as referred to above before this Court and put forth their grievance. 8. The Court, after considering the contentions put forth by either side and looking into the materials available on record, took the view that it is a fit case where the State Government should be directed to conduct a special examination through T.N.P.S.C. as directed in G.O.Ms. No.61 as expeditiously as possible. No reason is felt by the Court to make any deviation from the said order, since it was on the same facts and circumstances of the instant case. It is more apt and appropriate to reproduce the paragraph 21 of the order dated 10.06.2009 passed in W.P. Nos.9710 and 10189 of 2009 as follows:- " 21. Having regard to all these aspects, we feel interest of justice would be served by disposing of the writ petition with the following observations :- (1) The candidates who have been selected by the TNPSC and allotted to different districts for being appointed in the judicial ministerial service shall be appointed against the vacancies available as per their merit list in accordance with law. (2) If, after permitting such persons to join, vacancies would be still available, the temporarily appointed persons under Rule 16(i) (a) can be retained obviously keeping in view their respective inter se seniority in the concerned district. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (3) After completing such exercise, if such temporarily appointed ministerial employees are found to be surplus, efforts should be made by the concerned Principal District Judge to accommodate such persons in various other posts such as Reader, Examiner and Copyist as contemplated in the judgment dated 7.3.2006 in W.P.Nos.16321, 17630 and 18409 of 2001. (4) Even after making adjustment as indicated above, if some temporary employees are found to be surplus, their names may be forwarded to other offices such as Revenue, Excise, etc., in the same district so that question of adjusting them in any available vacancy can be considered by the appropriate Head of the Department in the concerned district. That is obviously a matter which has to be considered by such Head of the Department. (5) While holding the special examination, upper age limit of any candidate, who was temporarily appointed and continuing as such on the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.61, shall be relaxed if necessary. (6) All the employees who have been appointed on temporary basis by invoking Rule 16(i)(a) and continuing as such on the date of G.O.Ms.No.61 shall be eligible to appear notwithstanding the fact that they have been terminated hitherto or likely to be terminated in order to accommodate the regularly selected candidates. (7) The question as to whether Junior Assistants would be eligible to appear at such special examination is a matter which should be decided by the State Government as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the present order. (8) The State Government should make all efforts to hold the special examination through TNPSC as directed in G.O.Ms.No.61 as expeditiously as possible." 9. At this juncture, it is brought to the notice of this Court that a direction to the State Government was given by this Court on 10.06.2009 to conduct a special examination though TNPSC https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ as expeditiously as possible. It will be safe to reiterate the said direction to the Government to conduct a special examination through TNPSC as per G.O. Ms. No.61, in which the petitioners have to appear since they have been taken in service on temporary basis and also they have been working at present, within a period of three months here from. It is also made clear that insofar as the petitioners, who are in service on temporary basis at present are concerned, their services need not be disturbed till such time. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. Consequently, the connected M.Ps. are closed. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. ssa. To 1. The Secretary to Government (Home), The State of Tamil Nadu, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Secretary Tamilnadu Public Service Commission, Chennai. 3. The Registrar General, High Court, Chennai 600 104. 4. The Principal District Judge, District Court Complex, Villupuram. 5 cs to M/s. Sai Bharat Ilan, Advocate, SR. 4864 1 cc to Government Pleader, SR. 5000 W.P. Nos.1490 to 1494 of 2010 and connected M.Ps. RSY (CO) kk 10/2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/