Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.PADMA versus THE REGISTRAR GENERAL

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.Padma v. The Registrar General - Writ Petition (MD) No.1021 of 2007 [2007] RD-TN 1762 (5 June 2007)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Dated : 05/06/2007

Coram:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN

and

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR

Writ Petition (MD) No.1021 of 2007

P.Padma ... Petitioner

vs.

1.The Registrar General,

High Court,

Chennai-104.

2.The Principal District Judge,

District Court, Ramanathapuram. ... Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus by calling for the records in D.No.3320/2006 dated 24.07.2006 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and direct the 2nd respondent to reappoint the petitioner as a Steno-Typist in the services of District Munsif, Ramanathapuram. For Petitioner .. Mr.A.Thiyagarajan

For Respondents .. Mr.R.Janaki Ramulu, Spl.Govt.Pleader. :ORDER



(Order of the Court was made by P.R.SHIVAKUMAR,J) The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus challenging the order dated 24.07.2006 passed by the second respondent, made in his proceedings D.No.3320. By the impugned order dated 24.07.2006, the second respondent rejected the request of the writ petitioner for being appointed in any one of the posts of Reader/ Examiner/Copyist. The said request was made by the petitioner in the following circumstances:-

(i) Originally, the petitioner was appointed temporarily as a Steno- Typist in the Civil Unit of Ramanathapuram District Judiciary, as against a Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission vacancy in and by the proceedings of the second respondent dated 30.01.1996. Initially she was posted to act as Steno- Typist in the Court of District Munsif, Ramanathapuram. Thereafter she was transferred and posted as Steno-Typist in the Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram by order of the second respondent dated 22.11.2001. The petitioner acted promptly and joined duty in the Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram in accordance with the said proceedings and worked there till she was ousted from service on 18.06.2002 in accordance with the orders of the High Court made in R.O.C.No.5222-A/2001 C3 dated 06.06.2002. The said proceedings of the High Court was issued pursuant to the dismissal of a writ petition (W.P.No.10469/2000) filed by the Tamil Nadu Judicial Temporary Steno-Typist Association seeking regularisation of their services in the post of Steno-Typist or in the alternative, for their appointment to those posts which do not come under the purview of TNPSC, however, with a direction to consider the members of the said Association for temporary accommodation of them in the posts, in case any of them became available for such accommodation.

(ii) Thereafter on 20.03.2002 the Association submitted a representation praying that they might be appointed as Steno-Typist in the newly constituted Fast Track Courts. Accepting the said representation, the High Court decided to accommodate them in the vacancies available in the Fast Track Courts in various districts. Accordingly, a consolidated seniority list of temporary Steno-Typist belonging to the said Association was prepared for allotting them to particular units based on the availability of vacancies and orders were passed in R.O.C.No.5222-A/2001 C3 dated 06.06.2002. All the appointing authorities of the units wherein the Temporary Steno-Typist mentioned in the annexure thereto were working, were directed to oust them from service and the appointing authorities of the units to which they had been allotted as mentioned in the annexure to the above said proceeding were directed to appoint them afresh as Steno-Typist in their units after giving a gape of one clear day from the date of their ousting.

(iii) The petitioner was one of the members of the above said Association and she came to be ousted in accordance with the proceedings of the High Court in R.O.C.No.5222-A/2001 C3 dated 06.06.2002 by the learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram by his proceedings in A1/29/2002 dated 18.06.2002 informing the petitioner that she had been allotted to the civil unit of Coimbatore District. Pursuant to the said orders of the High Court as well as the learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram, the petitioner herein did not report before the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore for being posted as Steno-Typist in one of the Fast Track Courts functioning in Coimbatore District. (iv) Meanwhile, writ petitions 16321/2001, 17630/2001, 18409/2001, 10132/2005 and other connected writ petitions were disposed of directing the appointing authorities to give employment to the ousted or continuing temporary Steno-Typists, Typists or Junior Assistants in the post of Reader/Examiner/Copyist. As the said direction was then understood to be applicable to the Steno-Typist/Typist/Junior Assistant, who had filed the writ petitions in which the said directions had been issued, the temporary Steno- Typists, Typists and Junior Assistants of the Judicial department made a written representation to the High Court on 15.03.2006 for extending the said benefit to those persons, who had not filed any writ petition in this regard. The High Court passed an order by its proceedings in R.O.C.No.588-A/2006/C3 dated 29.03.2006 directing that the appointing authorities of the units, where the temporary Steno-Typists, Typists and Junior Assistants were already ousted, shall on their application if any, consider giving employment to them in the posts of Reader/Examiner/Copyist on regular basis as fresh entrants. (v) Pursuant to the said proceedings of the High Court, the petitioner submitted an application before the second respondent on 16.06.2006 seeking appointment as Examiner/Reader/Copyist in accordance with the above mentioned proceedings of the High Court dated 29.03.2006. Having declined the offer of appointment as Steno-Typist in the civil unit of Coimbatore District to be posted as a Steno-Typist in any one of the Fast Track Courts in Coimbatore District as per the proceedings of the High Court in R.O.C.No.5222-A/2001 C3 dated 06.06.2002 and the proceedings of the Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram, the second respondent herein in A1/29/2002 dated 18.06.2002 and having kept quiet for about four years, the petitioner ultimately approached the second respondent herein by way of a written request for being accommodated in any one of the posts of Reader/Examiner/Copyist. Since the petitioner had not been ousted for want of a vacancy, nor was she continuing in service as a temporary Steno-Typist as on the date of her request and since she had already declined the offer of employment as temporary Steno-Typist in the civil unit of Coimbatore District, the learned Principal District Judge, the second respondent herein turned down the request made by the petitioner for appointment to anyone of the posts of Reader/Examiner/Copyist in the civil unit of Ramanathapuram District. The correctness of the said order has been questioned in this writ petition.

2.This Court heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and also perused the records.

3.The normal procedure for appointment of Reader/Examiner/Copyist in the judicial department is by way of direct recruitment by drawing lists of candidates from the Employment Exchanges. The appointment to the post of Steno- Typist is to be made by way of selection through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The direction given by the High Court to the appointing authorities in and by its proceeding in R.O.C.No.588-A/2006/C3 dated 29.03.2006 is only an exception to the normal procedure of appointment to the posts of Reader/Examiner/Copyist in the judicial department. When an exemption is provided to the normal rule of appointment, the said exception should be strictly construed. In order to avail the benefit of the exception, the petitioner should have either continued in service as temporary Steno-Typist or ousted from service due to the appointment of a TNPSC candidates to the post. Only those temporary Steno-Typist who had been ousted from service and not offered any appointment pursuant to the orders of High Court shall be covered by the term "already ousted" found in Clause 1 of the directions issued in the proceedings of the High Court dated 29.03.2006. Giving a wider interpretation to the said term, so as to include those who had declined the offer for being posted as temporary Steno-Typist in the units to which they had been allotted as per the proceedings of the High Court in R.O.C.No.5222-A/2001 C3 dated 06.06.2002, will be against the sprit of the same.

4. The petitioner by her own conduct of not accepting the offer of employment as temporary Steno-Typist in the civil unit of Coimbatore District, as per the proceedings of the High Court dated 06.06.2002 and the proceedings of the Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram dated 18.06.2002, has made herself ineligible for the concession extended to the temporary Steno-Typist, ousted for want of vacancy pursuant to the appointment of candidates selected by TNPSC. After having declined the above said offer and having kept quiet for more than four years, the petitioner seems to have made the present request by giving an application directly to the second respondent, for being accommodated in any one of the posts of Reader/Examiner/Copyist in the civil unit of Ramanathapuram District. Such an application will not give her a right to be appointed in any one of the above said posts.

5. The second respondent, namely, the learned Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram has rightly held that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession extended to the ousted Steno-Typists as per the proceedings of the High Court dated 29.03.2006 and correctly rejected the request made by the petitioner. The said order of the second respondent is not infirm or discrepant and this Court finds no reason, whatsoever, to interfere with the same. Hence the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. However we make it clear that we are not giving any opinion as to the correctness or otherwise of the concession above referred to.

6.The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

To:

1.The Registrar General,

High Court,

Chennai-104.

2.The Principal District Judge,

District Court, Ramanathapuram.




Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.