W.A(MD)No.241 of 2023 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.06.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR W.A(MD)No.241 of 2023 1.The Secretary, Higher Education Department, The Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner, Technical Education Department, Chennai. ... Appellants / Respondents Vs. A.Malaichamy ... Respondent / Petitioner Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order passed in W.P(MD)No.15572 of 2017 dated 30.03.2022 and allow the Writ Appeal. 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No.241 of 2023 For Appellants : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar Special Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr.F.Deepak JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.) Heard the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. 2.The writ petitioner was working as helper in the office of the Technical Education Division, Madurai since 1995. The details of the service put in by him are captured in the following table: 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No.241 of 2023 9 ,th; gzpg[hpe;j ehl;fs; kw;Wk; tUlk; jpdf;Typ mog;gilapy; neuoahf gzpapy; mkh;j;jg;gl;l ehl;fs; kw;Wk; tUlk; Departmental NMR 01.01.1995 Kjy; 01.01.2006 tiu gzpg[hpe;j ehl;fspd; tptuq;fs; Xg;ge;jfhuh; K:yk; Outsourcing Kiwapy; gzpg[hpe;j ehl;fs; tUlk; ehl;fs; ehl;fs; khjk; / tUlk; ehl;fs; 1995 182 182 04/2017 150 1996 150 150 2018 132 1997 212 212 2019 128 1998 181 181 2020 132 1999 149 149 03/2021 45 2000 153 153 2001 202 202 2002 90 90 2003 gzpg[hpatpy;iy gzpg[hpatpy;iy 2004 gzpg[hpatpy;iy gzpg[hpatpy;iy 2005 gzpg[hpatpy;iy gzpg[hpatpy;iy 2006 gzpg[hpatpy;iy gzpg[hpatpy;iy 2007 gzpg[hpatpy;iy gzpg[hpatpy;iy 2008 60 2009 333 2010 320 2011 322 2012 310 2013 290 2014 282 2015 321 2016 322 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No.241 of 2023 3.It is beyond dispute that the writ petitioner was not serving in the department in any capacity from 2003 to 2007. In order to regularise the service of those employees who had put in 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006 in various Government departments, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O(Ms)No.22 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department dated 28.02.2006. The petitioner sought relief by invoking the said GO. His request was rejected by the Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Tamil Nadu vide Government Letter (D) No.83 dated 27.03.2017. Challenging the same, W.P(MD)No.15572 of 2017 came to be filed. The said Writ Petition came to be disposed of by the learned single Judge in the following terms: “5. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was appointed as Helper in the year 1995. The contention of the respondents is that the petitioner has completed only 8 years of service as on 01.01.2006 and the petitioner was initially appointed as temporary Helper on daily wages in the year 1995 and he was not in continuous service on daily wages but he was employed as per the need and nature of work required. The respondents also contended that there is no sanctioned post when the petitioner was appointed. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an announcement was made by the Hon'ble Chief Minister under Rule 110 to create new posts. Based on the announcement through G.O.Ms.No. 180 Higher Education (P1) Department dated 09.12.2020, 61 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No.241 of 2023 additional posts were created. The petitioner is working as High Tension Operator as on date and he is eligible for the said post. Therefore, the respondents are directed to regularize the petitioner in the light of G.O.Ms.No.180 dated 09.12.2020. 6. Since the operation of High Tension electrical post needs a special qualification, the respondents shall also consider the petitioner's candidature for regularization from the date of 01.01.2006.” Challenging the same, the State has filed this appeal. 4.The learned Additional Advocate General took us through the grounds of Appeal and also the materials enclosed in the typed set of papers and called upon this Court to set aside the impugned order and dismiss the Appeal. 5.Per contra, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed the learned single Judge is well reasoned and that it does not call for interference. 6.We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No.241 of 2023 7.The only issue before the learned single Judge was whether the writ petitioner who was working as a daily wage employee was entitled to regularisation. The only GO that the employee invoked was G.O(Ms)No.22 Personnel and Administrative Reforms (F) Department dated 28.02.2006. The Government rejected the writ petitioner's request by holding that as on 01.01.2006 which was the cut off date set out in the GO, he had rendered only 8 years service. The GO specifically contemplated that the employee must have completed 10 years of service as on 01.01.2006. Admittedly, the writ petitioner does not fulfill the said norm. Therefore, Government Letter (D) No.83 dated 27.03.2017 which was impugned in the Writ Petition ought to have been upheld as such. Instead what the learned single Judge did was to direct the appointment of the writ petitioner as a high tension operator. 8.The learned Additional Advocate General drew our attention to G.O(Ms)No.180 Higher Education (B1) Department dated 09.12.2020 whereby the post of high tension operator was created. It true that the writ petitioner possesses the C-certificate laid down in the said GO. But the appointing authority is said to be the Principal of the concerned institution. But then, a public employment cannot be arbitrarily filled up. The Principal will have to call for applications from all eligible candidates. In any event, when the writ 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No.241 of 2023 petitioner had served the department only as a helper and that too for 8 years as on 01.01.2006, he could not have been directed to be appointed as a high tension operator. We do notice that the writ petitioner has been serving in the institution from the year 2008 onwards. 9.The learned Additional Advocate General would state that from 2008 till 2016, the writ petitioner was serving as a daily wage employee and he appears to have left the service thereafter. We do not want to go into the said controversy. If the writ petitioner is employed on a daily wage basis, the dismissal of this writ petition will not lead to his disengagement. The order passed by the learned single Judge is set aside. 10.This Writ Appeal is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. [G.R.S., J.] [K.R.S., J.] 16.06.2025 NCC : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No MGA 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No.241 of 2023 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J and K.RAJASEKAR, J. MGA W.A(MD)No.241 of 2023 16.06.2025 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis