W.P.(MD) Nos.20990 to 20997 of 2018 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved On : 08.08.2025 Pronounced On : 20.08.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE W.P. (MD) Nos.20990 to 20997 of 2018 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.18763 to 18770 of 2018 R.Murugan, S/o. Renganathan, D No.4-1,302, Nilavin Kudil Arasu Nagar, Palani Chettipatti, Theni District. ... Petitioner in WP(MD)No.20990/2018 P.Prakasam, S/o. Late M.Perumal, No. 184/E/33/2, Solaimalai Ayyanar Kovil Street, Arivu Thirukovil west side, Colonel John Pennycuick Nagar, TTheni Allinagaram, Theni District. ... Petitioner in WP(MD)No.20991/2018 G.Krishnamoorthy, S/o. Govindasamy, No. 22, Pankajam Press 2nd street, Bodinayaknur, Theni District. ... Petitioner in WP(MD)No.20992/2018 S. Saravanan, S/o. Sakthivel, No, 186/1, valaiyapatti Road, Keppuranganpatti, Bodi, Theni District. ... Petitioner in WP(MD)No.20993/2018 1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.20990 to 20997 of 2018 K.Nagarajan, S/o. Kalimuthumaniyam, No. 453 A, Thiyettar Back Side, Kadamalaikundu Theni District. ... Petitioner in WP(MD)No.20994/2018 P. Ravindran, S/o. Ponniah Thevar, No. 8-1-22/9, Subramania Siva Street, Palanichettipatti, Theni District. ... Petitioner in WP(MD)No.20995/2018 S.Muthu Kumaran, S/o.Sundararaj Pillai, No.26/1, Second Cross Street, Old GH Road, Theni District. ... Petitioner in WP(MD)No.20996/2018 V.Rajendran, S/o.V.Vellaichamy, No.3/4, South New Street, B.G.Patti, Theni District. ... Petitioner in WP(MD)No.20997/2018 Vs. 1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.(TASMAC), 4th Floor, C.M.D.A. Tower -II, Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road, Egmore, Chennai. 2. The Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.(TASMAC), Madurai. 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.20990 to 20997 of 2018 3. The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.(TASMAC), Theni District. 4. The General manager, Tamil Nadu Ex- Service Men’s Corporation Ltd,(TEXCO), No.2, West Moda street, Srinagar Colony, Saithabet, Chennai. ... Respondents in all Writ Petitions COMMON PRAYER in all WPs.: To issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other or direction in the nature of writ directing the respondents 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner as Junior Assistant on regular time, scale of pay against the existing vacancies by considering his long standing experience under TASMAC and may pass such other or other orders as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the interest justice. Prayer in all the WMP(MD): To stay all the proceedings of the notification issued by the 1st respondent vide Na.Ka.No.M1/13476/2016 dated 13.08.2018 pending disposal writ petition. APPEARANCE OF PARTIES: (In all Writ Petitions) For Petitioners : Mr.A.Balakrishnan, Advocate for Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar, Mr.Manoj Raguram, N.Karthikeyan, M.N.Rajapanth, and V.Karthigaipriya, Advocates For Respondents : Mr.D.Sivanesan Standing Counsel for TASMAC 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.20990 to 20997 of 2018 COMMON JUDGMENT Heard. 2. Since all the writ petitions seek substantially similar reliefs, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Admittedly, the names of all eight petitioners were sponsored by the Tamil Nadu Ex-Servicemen Corporation (TEXCO), which had entered into a contract with the respondent–TASMAC. The petitioners’ initial appointment orders specifically referred to their sponsorship by TEXCO and stated that their engagement was purely on a contractual basis. 3. One of the appointment orders dated 01.06.2017, filed in the typed set of papers in relation to the petitioner P. Ravindran, contains the following recital:— “As per the contract entered between the Tamil Nadu Ex-Servicemen Corporation (TEXCO) and the Client department/ Corporatin/Unit and as per the contractual agreement entered between the Ex-Serviceman (men) and TEXCO the undermentioned Ex-Serviceman (men) is/are hereby directed to report to you for performing the contractual duties stated in the agreement at the project places requested” 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.20990 to 20997 of 2018 4. In another appointment order dated 16.12.2005, issued to P. Prakasam and N. Saravanan, the second and fourth petitioners respectively, it is expressly stated as follows:— “They are informed that their appointment in TASMAC Ltd is purely temporary and on contract basis only. Their service will be terminated at any time without any prior notice due to administrative reasons.” 5. The petitioners have themselves produced a statement showing deductions towards Provident Fund made by TEXCO from their salaries, thereby indicating that TEXCO was the contracting agency responsible for such deductions. It was further stated that the Government, which owns the respondent–TASMAC, had granted permission to fill up 500 vacancies in the cadre of Junior Assistant by redeploying surplus shop personnel working in TASMAC retail vending shops, through the conduct of a special test, and by granting necessary relaxation in respect of educational and age qualifications wherever they were deficient. 6. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Government, the respondent–TASMAC issued proceedings dated 13.08.2018, inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant. The said proceedings read as follows:— 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.20990 to 20997 of 2018 “ghh;itapy; fhZk; murhizapd;gb jkpo;ehL thzpg fofj;jpy; njhFg;G+jpa Kiwapy; gzpGhpAk; rpy;yiw tpw;gid fil gzpahsh;fspy; rpwg;G Njh;T %yk; Njh;T nra;J 500 egh;fs; ,sepiy cjtpahsh;fshf gzp epakdk; nra;jpl tpz;zg;gq;fs; Nfhug;gl;Ls;sJ. khtl;l Nkyhsh;fs; jq;fsJ khtl;lq;fspy; fil gzpahsh;fspd; $l;lk; elj;jp tpz;zg;gj;Jld; mwptpf;fg;gl;l topKiwfis / mwpTiufis fil gzpahsh;fSf;F toq;fpAk; khtl;l Nkyhsh; mYtyf mwpf;if tpsk;gu gphptpy; tpsk;guk; nra;Jk;> mth;fSf;F tpsf;fpAk;> chpa tpz;zg;ggbtq;fis G+h;j;jp nra;Jk; ,izajsk; %yk; gjpNtw;wk; nra;jpl midj;J topKiwfisAk; tpz;zg;gj;jhuh;fSf;F toq;fp njhptpf;fg;gl;l fhynfLtpw;Fs; tpz;zg;gq;fis mDg;gp itj;jpl Nfl;Lf;nfhs;sg;gLfpwhh;fs;. ,jw;fhd tpz;zg;g gbtk; kw;Wk; mwpTiufs; lh];khf; ,izajsj;jpypUe;J gjtpwf;fk; (www.tasmac.co.in) nra;Jk; G+h;j;jp nra;ag;gl;l tpz;zg;gq;fis gjpNtw;wk; nra;jplTk; mwpTWj;jg;gLfpwJ.” 7. Upon publication of the above notification, the petitioners instituted the present batch of writ petitions, seeking a direction to the respondent–TASMAC to appoint them as Junior Assistants on a regular time scale of pay against the existing vacancies, by taking into account the long period of service they claim to have rendered as Junior Assistants. Pending disposal of the writ petitions, they also sought an order of interim stay of the TASMAC proceedings inviting applications from its own employees working in the retail vending shops. 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.20990 to 20997 of 2018 8. Upon receipt of notice from this Court, the first respondent filed identical counter affidavits in all the writ petitions, dated 24.03.2019. While questioning the locus standi of the petitioners to seek the relief prayed for, the counter affidavits also explained, in paragraph 10, the circumstances in which the impugned notification was issued. Paragraph 10 reads as follows:— “10. the writ petitioner is an ex servicemen, after his retirement from army, he was appointed to assist the clerical work in our corporation on consolidated pay deputed by Tamil Nadu Ex-Servicemen’s Corporation Limited (TEXCO) on contractual agreement. The agreement is between Tamil Nadu Ex-Servicemen’s Corporation Limited (TEXCO) and TASMAC. In this connection, this respondent has sent a proposal to Government stating that at present out of 969 Junior Assistant / Assistant posts sanctioned in TASMAC, 46 posts have been filled up with regular employees and 425 posts have been temporarily held by daily wages and ex- service personnel through Tamil Nadu Ex-Servicemen’s Corporation Limited. The District Managers of TASMAC have reported that in general the performance of the Ex- Servicemen and daily wages employees are not up to the mark. There is large number of complaints that the ex- servicemen who are deputed by TEXCO are irregular and on occasions abruptly stop coming to office and attending their official duty thereby causing serious hardship to the Corporation. Thus, this corporation finds it very difficult to run the TASMAC office work with the ex servicemen personnel deployed. Hence, the proposal sent by this respondent to redeploy the surplus shop personnel of retail vending shops to select as a Junior Assistant by conducting special test. The Government have approved the proposal and Order was accordingly passed. The present selection of Junior Assistant is on redeployment basis on conducting 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.20990 to 20997 of 2018 special test for the persons those who are working in TASMAC retail vending shops. There is no locus-standi for the ex-servicemen to appoint them as Junior Assistant in this redeployment process.” 9. The issue raised in the present writ petitions is no longer res integra. A Division Bench of this Court, in State of Tamil Nadu v. M. Jeyaraj, made in W.A.(MD) No. 569 of 2010 and other connected writ appeals, dated 30.11.2010, held as follows:— “Even though they were appointed in the Scale of Pay, it was only temporary and pursuant to outsourcing. Having regard to the nature of hours of duty, which the drivers are required to perform in Panchayat Raj Department, when Government has decided to go in for recruitment through Employment Exchange, the respondents, who have been appointed temporarily cannot claim right to continue in the post” 10. Again, a Division Bench of this Court in Kovai Mandala Ex- Service and Family Welfare Association and Another v. Union of India, reported in 2013 (8) MLJ 548, held as follows:— “22. In the light of the above discussion, the learned Single Judge was perfectly right in refusing to interfere with the decision taken by BSNL and furthermore, BSNL have not stated that they do not propose to retain/engage Ex- Servicemen as security staff, but they would do so on need basis to suit their requirement and the suitability and the requirement is wholly within the realm of BSNL and a writ Court cannot interdict in exercise of such powers as it is 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.20990 to 20997 of 2018 purely a matter of internal administration of BSNL. However, the decision rendered by the First Bench in TEXCO vs. BSNL (supra) and the direction issued therein is binding upon the BSNL.” 11. Likewise, under identical circumstances, seven persons filed similar writ petitions before this Court, seeking appointment in terms of G.O.(Ms) No. 44, Home, Prohibition and Excise (VI) Department, dated 12.07.2018, to consider them for regular appointment to the post of Junior Assistant, in W.P.(MD) No. 1048 of 2020 and connected cases. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 14.02.2020, dismissed the writ petitions. The matter was carried in appeal before a Division Bench in W.A.(MD) No. 365 of 2020 and batch cases, and the appeals were dismissed by a common order dated 09.03.2020. In that order, the Division Bench held as follows:— “6.The learned Single Judge, after considering the fact that the appellants are not employees of M/s.TASMAC, held that they cannot claim regularisation, as if they are direct employees of M/s.TASMAC. After following the principles of law reiterated in several judgments of Honourable Supreme Court, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ Petitions filed by the appellants. Having regard to the admitted facts and circumstances of the present case, we cannot show any indulgence to the appellants, who are not employees of the M/s.TASMAC. 7.The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants that appellants should be treated on par with other 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.20990 to 20997 of 2018 temporary employees of M/s.TASMAC in terms of G.O.Ms.No.44, cannot be accepted, as there is no question of discrimination and the writ petitioners were not engaged by M/s.TASMAC, but by TEXCO, pursuant to the agreement between M/s.TASMAC and TEXCO. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal. The learned Counsel for the appellants stated that they may be given liberty to approach the respondents for extending their service till they attaining the age of superannuation. It is open to them to approach the respondents for such relief.” 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, all the writ petitions stand dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Consequently, all connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. 20.08.2025 Index: Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order Neutral Citation : Yes / No LS 10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.20990 to 20997 of 2018 Copy to: 1.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.(TASMAC), 4th Floor, C.M.D.A. Tower -II, Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road, Egmore, Chennai. 2. The Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.(TASMAC), Madurai. 3. The District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd.(TASMAC), Theni District. 4. The General manager, Tamil Nadu Ex- Service Men’s Corporation Ltd,(TEXCO), No.2, West Moda street, Srinagar Colony, Saithabet, Chennai. 11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) Nos.20990 to 20997 of 2018 DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J. LS Pre-delivery Judgment made in W.P. (MD) Nos.20990 to 20997 of 2018 20.08.2025 12/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis