T. Raja, J. - (1.)THE petitioners herein, who were engaged as the Non -Teaching Staff like Steno -Typist, Plumber, Electrician, Data Entry Operator, Skilled and Unskilled NMR Employees by the respondent -Manonmaniam Sundaranar University (in short 'University') on temporary daily wages basis, seek to quash Memo No. MSU/R/Estt./Admn/2014, dated 12.11.2014, issued by the University, in and by which, the service of the petitioners with the University was disengaged; and they further seek this Court to direct the University to regularize their services from the date of their appointment.
(2.)SINCE all these writ petitions are interconnected and require joint disposal, they have been heard together and decided by this Common Order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, in the year 2010, pursuant to the request made by the respondent -University, the Employment Exchange sponsored the names of the petitioners for engaging them as Non -Teaching Staff to serve in the University against the posts of Steno -Typist, Plumber, Electrician, Data Entry Operator, Skilled NMR and Unskilled NMR. According to her, even though it was specified by the Employment Exchange that the appointment was on daily -wage temporary basis, even at the time of sponsorship by the Employment Exchange, there were permanent vacancies in the University, however, the University, for the reasons best known to them, chose to appoint the petitioners only on daily -wage basis. By pointing out that the selection of the petitioners herein, subsequent to sponsoring of their names by the Employment Exchange, was based on their performance before the Selection Committee; that the appointment of the petitioners were made strictly following the 200 point communal roster in terms of G.O. Ms. Nos. 101 and 61 dated 30.05.2008 and 22.05.2009 respectively; and that the Syndicate/competent appointing authority itself, in its Meeting held on 03.01.2011, had approved the selection and appointment of the petitioners to different posts, learned counsel would submit that, even though it is the practice of the University to bring the temporary/daily -wage employees into the fold of 'consolidated -wages pattern' on completion of 3 years in terms of the Syndicate Resolutions and, in fact, such transformation was done in respect of the previous set of employees who were given such benefit within a short span of 1 1/2 years, unfortunately, even after completion of about 3 1/2 years of service, the petitioners alone were left to continue only as daily -wage employees despite their repeated representations including the one dated 14.05.2014, seeking regularization of their services. Almost all the petitioners, having crossed the age -limit for appointment to any other job to be sponsored by the Employment Exchange and therefore, not having any other source of livelihood except that of the present employment, if the impugned Memo is given effect to, the petitioners and their families would have no scope of survival at all, she further pointed out. In an endeavour to demonstrate that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the Judgment, dated 29.04.2014, rendered in W.A. MD. Nos. 351, 911 and 908 of 2012, learned counsel would specifically submit that the said appeals arose from W.P. MD Nos. 540 and 14015 of 2011 filed by similarly placed employees of the University and, on those writ petitions having been allowed, the matter was taken in appeal by the University and while allowing those appeals in part, a Division Bench of this Court had confirmed the order passed in the Writ Petitions in granting the benefit of absorption however with a modification that such absorption should be given effect to, from the date of the order passed in the writ petitions and not from the date of appointment as directed. Learned counsel, with all assertion, would further submit before this Court that the respondent -University is misapplying the provisions of the Statutes applicable to recruitment of non -teaching staff and, in this regard, would elaborate that, under the Statutes of the University, the Vice Chancellor has authority to engage temporary employees in emergency situations when regular recruitment would get delayed; or in other words, employing someone temporarily due to emergency is only an exception to the general rule that any recruitment should be by way of direct recruitment only. While so, by taking such rule of exception for granted, the respondent -University started engaging temporary employees of their own choice and granting regularisation to them while keeping the petitioners, who are already working, stagnant as temporary workers and endeavouring to somehow send them out. According to her, during the past 10 years, when there has been no recruitment relating to any Non -Teaching post as per the procedure under the Statutes, now, the University is engaging persons through back -door using the emergency provision and, after a period of time, absorbing those employees engaged through back -door into regular vacancies by passing resolutions in the Syndicate. To substantiate the veracity in such claim, she produced the resolutions passed by the Syndicate in respect of about 30 back -door entrants. In that scenario, when it is crystal -clear that the impugned memo has been issued only to oust the petitioners in order to facilitate the University to bring in back -door entrants, if proper direction is not issued by quashing the impugned memo, the survival of the petitioners, whose only source of livelihood is the present employment, would be truly jeopardised. So stating, she prayed for grant of the prayer sought for.

(3.)PER contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent -University, by denying the claim of the petitioners that their appointment was made against regular vacancies on the basis of the sponsorship of the Employment exchange, would submit that the petitioners, even at the time of their appointment, were well aware of the fact that their employment was a purely contractual & temporary one on daily wage basis. Further, the resolution of the Syndicate dated 03.01.2011 by which the petitioners were appointed also runs in specific terms that the petitioners were engaged on temporary daily wage basis. According to him, in the case of engaging the services of any person by contract, like the petitioners herein, the University need not apply its Statutes in strict sense. Among various decisions cited, by referring to a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty ( : 2011 (3) SCC 436), the ratio has been pointed out that any appointment made purely from the names sponsored by Employment Exchange without inviting applications from all eligible candidates is illegal and violative of Articles -14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. When admittedly the appointments of the petitioners was made without advertising the vacancies and calling for applications from eligible candidates in the open market, now, the petitioners cannot further build up their case for absorption when their appointment itself has no legal sanctity with reference to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He would argue further that the posts against which the petitioners were appointed have not been contemplated under Appendix II of the Statutes, therefore, the appointments made against posts not falling under Appendix -II are illegal and as a consequence, it follows that the petitioners cannot claim regularization. By relying upon a Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi and Others ( : 2006 4 SCC 1) and highlighting the ratio laid down therein to the effect that temporary employees have no right to post and to claim regularization, learned counsel would submit that even if a temporary appointee was allowed to continue for a long spell of time, if his or her appointment was not made as per the mandate of Articles -14 and 16, such appointee has no right to claim regularization or absorption. As regards the simile with reference to the Judgment, dated 29.04.2014, rendered in W.A. (MD) Nos. 351 of 2012, etc. arising from the orders, dated 23.11.2011. made in W.P. (MD) Nos. 540 of 2011, learned counsel would reply that the present petitioners cannot claim parity with the petitioners in W.P. No. 540 of 2011 for the reason that they were recommended by the Employment Exchange for the post of Junior Assistant and were fully qualified for being appointed to the said post, whereas, the petitioners were neither appointed as Junior Assistants nor any vacancy is available as on date against such post. Further, the allegation that favouritism is shown to the back -door entrants is denied by the learned counsel by stating that the said allegation is nothing but a misinterpretation made to the resolution of the Syndicate in resolving that the absorbed individual concerned, who had the graduation certificate awarded by the Indian Army, should obtain the formal degree from the regular University within three years. At any rate, according to him, the petitioners, who were never in continuous employment, are not eligible for the relief they seek for and hence, the writ petitions which are completely misdirected may have to be dismissed in threshold.