Uncategorized

this Court is of the considered view that such temporary appointments cannot be allowed to continue for an indefinite period, which may give rise to expectations for regularisation. Therefore, the Judicial Department is expected to initiate proactive action to ensure

by Sekar Reporter · July 23, 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.07.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
W.P.NOS.16428 OF 2025, 25868 OF 2024, 25869 OF 2024,
25870 OF 2024, 25872 OF 2024, 25874 OF 2024, 25876 OF 2024,
25878 OF 2024, 25880 OF 2024, 25882 OF 2024, 25884 OF 2024,
26041 OF 2024, 34798 OF 2024, 35181 OF 2024, 7510 OF 2025,
7514 OF 2025, 7516 OF 2025, 7518 OF 2025, 21260 OF 2025,
7788 OF 2025, 7822 OF 2025, 7831 OF 2025, 7847 OF 2025,
7851 OF 2025, 7855 OF 2025, 8036 OF 2025, 8042 OF 2025,
8050 OF 2025, 7839 OF 2025, 8113 OF 2025, 8176 OF 2025,
8189 OF 2025, 8120 OF 2025, 8224 OF 2025, 8243 OF 2025,
9047 OF 2025, 9239 OF 2025, 9374 OF 2025, 9352 OF 2025,
9362 OF 2025, 9363 OF 2025, 9364 OF 2025, 9370 OF 2025,
9462 OF 2025, 9471 OF 2025, 9467 OF 2025, 9666 OF 2025,
9672 OF 2025, 10098 OF 2025, 21319 OF 2025, 24981 OF 2025,
25224 OF 2025, 25226 OF 2025, 25229 OF 2025, 25251 OF 2025,
25253 OF 2025, 25255 OF 2025 AND 25259 OF 2025
AND
CONNECTED MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS
W.P.NO.16428 OF 2025
1. R.Bharathi
2. P.Savitha
3. S.Kannan … Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Courts) Department
Fort Saint George,
High Court of Judicature at Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Principal District Judge The Principal District Courts Vellore District.
4.The Principal District Judge
The Principal District Courts
Krishnagiri. … Respondents
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records which culminated in the order dated 28.02.2025 bearing
Dis.No.2014/2015/A passed by the third respondent and all actions taken pursuant thereto and quash the same and consequently pass an order directing re-instatement and regularization of the petitioners along with backwages payable to them or appoint the petitioners in any other suitable post including those that are in any other department which is not required to be filled up through the TNPSC.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondent – 1 : No appearance
For Respondents 2 – 4 : Mr.M.Palanimuthu

W.P.NO.25868 OF 2024
P.Govindasamy … Petitioner
Vs.

1.State Represented by its
2.The Registrar General High Court Madras
3.The Principal District Judge Vellore District.
4.The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
Rep. by the Secretary
V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003. … Respondents
(R4 – Suo motu impleaded as per order dated 13.03.2025 in
W.P.No.25868 of 2024)
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records relating to Order in Dis.No.10885/2023/A, dated 13.10.2023 on the file of the 3rd respondent quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to regularise the petitioner service from the date of initial appointment.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ezhilarasan
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents – 2&3 : Mr.V.Balamurugan
For Respondent – 4 :

W.P.NO.25869 OF 2024 No appearance
M.G.Venkatesan … Petitioner
Vs.

1.State Represented by its

4.The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
Rep. by the Secretary
V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003. … Respondents
(R4 – Suo motu impleaded as per order dated 13.03.2025 in
W.P.No.25869 of 2024)
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records relating to Order in Dis.No.10885/2023/A, dated 13.10.2023 on the file of the 3rd respondent quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to regularise the petitioner service from the date of initial appointment.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ezhilarasan
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents – 2&3 : Mr.V.Balamurugan
For Respondent – 4 :
W.P.NO.25870 OF 2024 No appearance
R.Manjula … Petitioner
Vs.

1.State Represented by its
2.The Registrar General High Court Madras
3.The Principal District Judge Vellore District.
4.The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
Rep. by the Secretary
V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003. … Respondents
(R4 – Suo motu impleaded as per order dated 13.03.2025 in
W.P.No.25870 of 2024)
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records relating to Order in Dis.No.10885/2023/A, dated 13.10.2023 on the file of the 3rd respondent quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to regularise the petitioner service from the date of initial appointment.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ezhilarasan
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents – 2&3 : Mr.V.Balamurugan
For Respondent – 4 :
W.P.NO.25872 OF 2024 No appearance
S.Sarala … Petitioner
Vs.

1.State Represented by its

4.The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
Rep. by the Secretary
V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003. … Respondents
(R4 – Suo motu impleaded as per order dated 13.03.2025 in
W.P.No.25874 of 2024)
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records relating to Order in Dis.No.10885/2023/A, dated 13.10.2023 on the file of the 3rd respondent quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to regularise the petitioner service from the date of initial appointment.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ezhilarasan
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents – 2&3 : Mr.V.Balamurugan
For Respondent – 4 :
W.P.NO.25876 OF 2024 No appearance
S.Sarasu … Petitioner
Vs.

1.State Represented by its
4.The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
Rep. by the Secretary
V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003. … Respondents
(R4 – Suo motu impleaded as per order dated 13.03.2025 in
W.P.No.25876 of 2024)
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records relating to Order in Dis.No.10885/2023/A, dated 13.10.2023 on the file of the 3rd respondent quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to regularise the petitioner service from the date of initial appointment.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ezhilarasan
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents – 2&3 : Mr.V.Balamurugan
For Respondent – 4 :
W.P.NO.25878 OF 2024 No appearance
K.Samundeeswari … Petitioner
Vs.
1.State Represented by its
Home Department
Secretariat,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
4.The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
Rep. by the Secretary
V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003. … Respondents
(R4 – Suo motu impleaded as per order dated 13.03.2025 in
W.P.No.25878 of 2024)
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records relating to Order in Dis.No.10885/2023/A, dated 13.10.2023 on the file of the 3rd respondent quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to regularise the petitioner service from the date of initial appointment.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ezhilarasan
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents – 2&3 : Mr.V.Balamurugan
For Respondent – 4 :
W.P.NO.25880 OF 2024 No appearance
R.Anandhi … Petitioner
Vs.
1.State Represented by its

4.The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
Rep. by the Secretary
V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003. … Respondents
(R4 – Suo motu impleaded as per order dated 13.03.2025 in
W.P.No.25880 of 2024)
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records relating to Order in Dis.No.10885/2023/A, dated 13.10.2023 on the file of the 3rd respondent quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to regularise the petitioner service from the date of initial appointment.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ezhilarasan
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents – 2&3 : Mr.V.Balamurugan
For Respondent – 4 :
W.P.NO.25882 OF 2024 No appearance
Santha Kumari … Petitioner
Vs.

3.The Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court Thiruvallur.
4.The Judicial Magistrate Ambattur.
5.The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
Rep. by the Secretary
V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003. … Respondents
(R5 – Suo motu impleaded as per order dated 13.03.2025 in
W.P.No.26041 of 2024)
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records relating to the impugned Proceedings of the Principal District & Sessions Judge in D.No.7929/A/2023 dated 16.10.2023 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to regularise the service of the petitioner based on the service records of the petitioner on the file of the 1st and 4th respondents.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arokiamaniraj
For Respondents 1-4 : Mr.S.Giridharan
Standing Counsel
For Respondent – 5
W.P.NO.34798 OF 2024 : No appearance
S.Ramya … Petitioner
Vs.
1.State Represented by its
4.The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
Rep. by the Secretary
V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town,
Chennai – 600 003. … Respondents
(R4 – Suo motu impleaded as per order dated 13.03.2025 in
W.P.No.34798 of 2024)
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records relating to Order in Dis.No.10885/2023/A, dated 13.10.2023 on the file of the 3rd respondent quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to regularise the petitioner service from the date of initial appointment.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ezhilarasan
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents – 2&3 : Ms.N.K.Kanthimathi
For Respondent – 4 :
W.P.NO.35181 OF 2024 No appearance
T.Valarmathi … Petitioner
Vs.
1.State Represented by its
Home Department
Secretariat,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General High Court Madras
3.The Principal District Judge
Vellore District. … Respondents

P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records which culminated in the order dated 29.11.2024 bearing ROC No.20375/2023/C3 passed by the 2nd respondent and all actions taken pursuant thereto and quash the same and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner employed in the post of Typist with the 3rd respondent along with backwages payable to them or appoint the petitioner in any other suitable post including those that are in any other department which is not required to be filled up through the TNPSC.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents 2 & 3 :
W.P.NO.7514 OF 2025 Ms.B.Poongkhulali Standing Counsel
K.Bharathi
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Courts) Department
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General
High Court of Judicature at Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Hon’ble Principal District Judge … Petitioner
Namakkal. … Respondents
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records which culminated in the order dated 29.11.2024 bearing ROC No.20375/2023/C3 passed by the 2nd respondent and all actions taken pursuant thereto and quash the same and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner employed in the post of Typist with the 3rd respondent along with backwages payable to them or appoint the petitioner in any other suitable post including those that are in any other department which is not required to be filled up through the TNPSC.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents 2 & 3 :
W.P.NO.7516 OF 2025 Ms.B.Poongkhulali Standing Counsel
G.Subhashinidevi
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Courts) Department
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General
High Court of Judicature at Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Hon’ble Principal District Judge … Petitioner
Salem District. … Respondents
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records which culminated in the order dated 29.11.2024 bearing ROC No.20375/2023/C3 passed by the 2nd respondent and all actions taken pursuant thereto and quash the same and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner employed in the post of Junior Assistant with the 3rd respondent along with backwages payable to them or appoint the petitioner in any other suitable post including those that are in any other department which is not required to be filled up through the TNPSC.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents 2 & 3 :
W.P.NO.7518 OF 2025 Ms.B.Poongkhulali Standing Counsel
A.Soundappan … Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Courts) Department
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General
High Court of Judicature at Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Hon’ble Principal District Judge
Namakkal. … Respondents
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records which culminated in the order dated 29.11.2024 bearing ROC No.20375/2023/C3 passed by the 2nd respondent and all actions taken pursuant thereto and quash the same and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner employed in the post of Typist with the 3rd respondent along with backwages payable to them or appoint the petitioner in any other suitable post including those that are in any other department which is not required to be filled up through the TNPSC.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents 2 & 3 :
W.P.NO.21260 OF 2025 Ms.B.Poongkhulali Standing Counsel
J.Thenmozhi
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Courts) Department
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General
High Court of Judicature at Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Hon’ble Principal District Judge … Petitioner
Chengalpattu District. … Respondents
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records which culminated in the order dated 29.11.2024 bearing ROC No.20375/2023/C3 passed by the 2nd respondent and all actions taken pursuant thereto and quash the same and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner employed in the post of Typist with the 3rd respondent along with backwages payable to them or appoint the petitioner in any other suitable post including those that are in any other department which is not required to be filled up through the TNPSC.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Ms.B.Poongkhulali
Standing Counsel

W.P.NO.7788 OF 2025
M.Parvathammal
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Courts) Department
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General
High Court of Judicature at Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Hon’ble Principal District Judge
Krishnagiri District. … Respondents
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records which culminated in the order dated 29.11.2024 bearing ROC No.20375/2023/C3 passed by the 2nd respondent and all actions taken pursuant thereto and quash the same and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner employed in the post of Typist with the 3rd respondent along with backwages payable to them or appoint the petitioner in any other suitable post including those that are in any other department which is not required to be filled up through the TNPSC.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr.J.Chandra Sundar Sushikumar Standing Counsel
W.P.NO.7822 OF 2025 Amudha G.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Courts) Department
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General
High Court of Judicature at Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Hon’ble Principal District Judge
Chengalpattu District. … Respondents
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records which culminated in the order dated 29.11.2024 bearing ROC No.20375/2023/C3 passed by the 2nd respondent and all actions taken pursuant thereto and quash the same and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner employed in the post of Typist with the 3rd respondent along with backwages payable to them or appoint the petitioner in any other suitable post including those that are in any other department which is not required to be filled up through the TNPSC.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr.J.Chandra Sundar Sushikumar Standing Counsel
W.P.NO.7831 OF 2025
D.Thilak
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Courts) Department
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General
High Court of Judicature at Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Hon’ble Principal District Judge
Krishnagiri District. … Respondents
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records which culminated in the order dated 29.11.2024 bearing ROC No.20375/2023/C3 passed by the 2nd respondent and all actions taken pursuant thereto and quash the same and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner employed in the post of Steno–Typist Grade III with the 3rd respondent along with backwages payable to them or appoint the petitioner in any other suitable post including those that are in any other department which is not required to be filled up through the TNPSC.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr.J.Chandra Sundar Sushi Kumar Standing Counsel
W.P.NO.7847 OF 2025
T.Kokila
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Courts) Department
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General
High Court of Judicature at Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Hon’ble Principal District Judge
Chengalpattu District. … Respondents
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records which culminated in the order dated 29.11.2024 bearing ROC No.20375/2023/C3 passed by the 2nd respondent and all actions taken pursuant thereto and quash the same and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner employed in the post of Steno–Typist with the 3rd respondent along with backwages payable to them or appoint the petitioner in any other suitable post including those that are in any other department which is not required to be filled up through the TNPSC.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr.J.Chandra Sundar Sushi Kumar Standing Counsel
W.P.NO.7851 OF 2025
S.Gomathi
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Courts) Department
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General
High Court of Judicature at Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Hon’ble Principal District Judge
Chengalpattu District. … Respondents
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records which culminated in the order dated 29.11.2024 bearing ROC No.20375/2023/C3 passed by the 2nd respondent and all actions taken pursuant thereto and quash the same and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner employed in the post of Typist with the 3rd respondent along with backwages payable to them or appoint the petitioner in any other suitable post including those that are in any other department which is not required to be filled up through the TNPSC.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr.J.Chandra Sundar Sushi Kumar Standing Counsel
W.P.NO.7855 OF 2025
M.Arul Prasath
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Courts) Department
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General
High Court of Judicature at Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Hon’ble Principal District Judge
Krishnagiri District. … Respondents
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records which culminated in the order dated 29.11.2024 bearing ROC No.20375/2023/C3 passed by the 2nd respondent and all actions taken pursuant thereto and quash the same and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner employed in the post of Junior Assistant with the 3rd respondent along with backwages payable to them or appoint the petitioner in any other suitable post including those that are in any other department which is not required to be filled up through the TNPSC.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr.J.Chandra Sundar Sushi Kumar Standing Counsel
W.P.NO.8036 OF 2025
S.Lakshmi
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Courts) Department
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General
High Court of Judicature at Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Hon’ble Principal District Judge
Krishnagiri District. … Respondents
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records which culminated in the order dated 29.11.2024 bearing ROC No.20375/2023/C3 passed by the 2nd respondent and all actions taken pursuant thereto and quash the same and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner employed in the post of Junior Assistant with the 3rd respondent along with backwages payable to them or appoint the petitioner in any other suitable post including those that are in any other department which is not required to be filled up through the TNPSC.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr.P.Kannan Kumar
Standing Counsel
W.P.NO.8042 OF 2025 Amaravathy, S.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Courts) Department
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General
High Court of Judicature at Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Hon’ble Principal District Judge
Chengalpattu District. … Respondents
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records which culminated in the order dated 29.11.2024 bearing ROC No.20375/2023/C3 passed by the 2nd respondent and all actions taken pursuant thereto and quash the same and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner employed in the post of Typist with the 3rd respondent along with backwages payable to them or appoint the petitioner in any other suitable post including those that are in any other department which is not required to be filled up through the TNPSC.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr.P.Kannan Kumar
Standing Counsel
W.P.NO.8050 OF 2025
P.Parvathy
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Courts) Department
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General
High Court of Judicature at Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Hon’ble Principal District Judge
Chengalpattu District. … Respondents
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records which culminated in the order dated 29.11.2024 bearing ROC No.20375/2023/C3 passed by the 2nd respondent and all actions taken pursuant thereto and quash the same and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner employed in the post of Typist with the 3rd respondent along with backwages payable to them or appoint the petitioner in any other suitable post including those that are in any other department which is not required to be filled up through the TNPSC.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr.P.Kannan Kumar
Standing Counsel
W.P.NO.7839 OF 2025
Kokila, V.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Courts) Department
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General
High Court of Judicature at Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Hon’ble Principal District Judge
Chengalpattu District. … Respondents
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records which culminated in the order dated 29.11.2024 bearing ROC No.20375/2023/C3 passed by the 2nd respondent and all actions taken pursuant thereto and quash the same and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner employed in the post of Typist with the 3rd respondent along with backwages payable to them or appoint the petitioner in any other suitable post including those that are in any other department which is not required to be filled up through the TNPSC.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr.P.Kannan Kumar
Standing Counsel
W.P.NO.8113 OF 2025
K.Kannaki
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Courts) Department
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General
High Court of Judicature at Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Hon’ble Principal District Judge
Thiruvarur. … Respondents
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records which culminated in the order dated 29.11.2024 bearing ROC No.20375/2023/C3 passed by the 2nd respondent and all actions taken pursuant thereto and quash the same and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner employed in the post of Typist with the 3rd respondent along with backwages payable to them or appoint the petitioner in any other suitable post including those that are in any other department which is not required to be filled up through the TNPSC.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Ms.B.Poongkhulali
Standing Counsel
W.P.NO.8176 OF 2025
K.Ranchini
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Courts) Department
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General
High Court of Judicature at Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Principal District Judge
Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris. … Respondents
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records which culminated in the order dated 29.11.2024 bearing ROC No.20375/2023/C3 passed by the 2nd respondent and all actions taken pursuant thereto and quash the same and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner employed in the post of Typist with the 3rd respondent along with backwages payable to them or appoint the petitioner in any other suitable post including those that are in any other department which is not required to be filled up through the TNPSC.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr.M.Fakkir Mohideen
Standing Counsel
W.P.NO.8189 OF 2025
M.Vennila
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Courts) Department
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General
High Court of Judicature at Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Principal District Judge
Salem District. … Respondents
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records which culminated in the order dated 29.11.2024 bearing ROC No.20375/2023/C3 passed by the 2nd respondent and all actions taken pursuant thereto and quash the same and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner employed in the post of Typist with the 3rd respondent along with backwages payable to them or appoint the petitioner in any other suitable post including those that are in any other department which is not required to be filled up through the TNPSC.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr.M.Fakkir Mohideen
Standing Counsel
W.P.NO.8120 OF 2025
I.Ayisha
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Courts) Department
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General
High Court of Judicature at Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Principal District Judge
Salem District. … Respondents
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records which culminated in the order dated 29.11.2024 bearing ROC No.20375/2023/C3 passed by the 2nd respondent and all actions taken pursuant thereto and quash the same and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner employed in the post of Typist with the 3rd respondent along with backwages payable to them or appoint the petitioner in any other suitable post including those that are in any other department which is not required to be filled up through the TNPSC.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr.M.Fakkir Mohideen
Standing Counsel
W.P.NO.8224 OF 2025
S.Rajesh Kumar
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Courts) Department
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General
High Court of Judicature at Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Principal District Judge
Krishnagiri District. … Respondents
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records which culminated in the order dated 29.11.2024 bearing ROC No.20375/2023/C3 passed by the 2nd respondent and all actions taken pursuant thereto and quash the same and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner employed in the post of Junior Assistant with the 3rd respondent along with backwages payable to them or appoint the petitioner in any other suitable post including those that are in any other department which is not required to be filled up through the TNPSC.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr.M.Fakkir Mohideen
Standing Counsel
W.P.NO.8243 OF 2025
C.Girija
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Courts) Department
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General
High Court of Judicature at Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Principal District Judge
Salem District. … Respondents
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records which culminated in the order dated 29.11.2024 bearing ROC No.20375/2023/C3 passed by the 2nd respondent and all actions taken pursuant thereto and quash the same and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner employed in the post of Typist with the 3rd respondent along with backwages payable to them or appoint the petitioner in any other suitable post including those that are in any other department which is not required to be filled up through the TNPSC.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr.M.Fakkir Mohideen
Standing Counsel
W.P.NO.9047 OF 2025
A.Pavithra
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Courts) Department
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General
High Court of Judicature at Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Principal District Judge
Krishnagiri District. … Respondents
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records which culminated in the order dated 29.11.2024 bearing ROC No.20375/2023/C3 passed by the 2nd respondent and all actions taken pursuant thereto and quash the same and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner employed in the post of Junior Assistant with the 3rd respondent along with backwages payable to them or appoint the petitioner in any other suitable post including those that are in any other department which is not required to be filled up through the TNPSC.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Ms.B.Poongkhulali
Standing Counsel

W.P.NO.9239 OF 2025
M.Rabitha … Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Courts) Department
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General
High Court of Judicature at Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Principal District Judge
Krishnagiri District. … Respondents
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records which culminated in the order dated 29.11.2024 bearing ROC No.20375/2023/C3 passed by the 2nd respondent and all actions taken pursuant thereto and quash the same and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner employed in the post of Typist with the 3rd respondent along with backwages payable to them or appoint the petitioner in any other suitable post including those that are in any other department which is not required to be filled up through the TNPSC.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Ms.B.Poongkhulali
Standing Counsel
W.P.NO.9374 OF 2025
G.Rajalakshmi
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Courts) Department
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General
High Court of Judicature at Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Principal District Judge
Krishnagiri District. … Respondents
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records which culminated in the order dated 29.11.2024 bearing ROC No.20375/2023/C3 passed by the 2nd respondent and all actions taken pursuant thereto and quash the same and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner employed in the post of Junior Assistant with the 3rd respondent along with backwages payable to them or appoint the petitioner in any other suitable post including those that are in any other department which is not required to be filled up through the TNPSC.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Ms.B.Poongkhulali
Standing Counsel
W.P.NO.9352 OF 2025
S.Arockia Jothi
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Courts) Department
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General
High Court of Judicature at Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Principal District Judge
Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris. … Respondents
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records which culminated in the order dated 29.11.2024 bearing ROC No.20375/2023/C3 passed by the 2nd respondent and all actions taken pursuant thereto and quash the same and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner employed in the post of Typist with the 3rd respondent along with backwages payable to them or appoint the petitioner in any other suitable post including those that are in any other department which is not required to be filled up through the TNPSC.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Ms.B.Poongkhulali

W.P.NO.9362 OF 2025
V.Rajeswari
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Courts) Department
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General
High Court of Judicature at Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Principal District Judge
Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris. … Respondents
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records which culminated in the order dated 29.11.2024 bearing ROC No.20375/2023/C3 passed by the 2nd respondent and all actions taken pursuant thereto and quash the same and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner employed in the post of Typist with the 3rd respondent along with backwages payable to them or appoint the petitioner in any other suitable post including those that are in any other department which is not required to be filled up through the TNPSC.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Ms.B.Poongkhulali
W.P.NO.9363 OF 2025
E.Pushpalatha
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Courts) Department
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General
High Court of Judicature at Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Principal District Judge
Salem District. … Respondents
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records which culminated in the order dated 29.11.2024 bearing ROC No.20375/2023/C3 passed by the 2nd respondent and all actions taken pursuant thereto and quash the same and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner employed in the post of Typist with the 3rd respondent along with backwages payable to them or appoint the petitioner in any other suitable post including those that are in any other department which is not required to be filled up through the TNPSC.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Ms.B.Poongkhulali
W.P.NO.9364 OF 2025
K.Kanageswary
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Courts) Department
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General
High Court of Judicature at Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Principal District Judge
Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris. … Respondents
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records which culminated in the order dated 29.11.2024 bearing ROC No.20375/2023/C3 passed by the 2nd respondent and all actions taken pursuant thereto and quash the same and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner employed in the post of Typist with the 3rd respondent along with backwages payable to them or appoint the petitioner in any other suitable post including those that are in any other department which is not required to be filled up through the TNPSC.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Ms.B.Poongkhulali

W.P.NO.9370 OF 2025
R.Kanmani
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Courts) Department
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General
High Court of Judicature at Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Principal District Judge
Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris. … Respondents
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records which culminated in the order dated 29.11.2024 bearing ROC No.20375/2023/C3 passed by the 2nd respondent and all actions taken pursuant thereto and quash the same and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner employed in the post of Typist with the 3rd respondent along with backwages payable to them or appoint the petitioner in any other suitable post including those that are in any other department which is not required to be filled up through the TNPSC.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Ms.B.Poongkhulali
W.P.NO.9462 OF 2025
R.Nirmala
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Courts) Department
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General
High Court of Judicature at Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Principal District Judge
Krishnagiri District. … Respondents
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records which culminated in the order dated 29.11.2024 bearing ROC No.20375/2023/C3 passed by the 2nd respondent and all actions taken pursuant thereto and quash the same and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner employed in the post of Junior Assistant with the 3rd respondent along with backwages payable to them or appoint the petitioner in any other suitable post including those that are in any other department which is not required to be filled up through the TNPSC.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Ms.B.Poongkhulali
W.P.NO.9471 OF 2025
M.Santhini
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Courts) Department
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General
High Court of Judicature at Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Principal District Judge
Krishnagiri District. … Respondents
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records which culminated in the order dated 29.11.2024 bearing ROC No.20375/2023/C3 passed by the 2nd respondent and all actions taken pursuant thereto and quash the same and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner employed in the post of Junior Assistant with the 3rd respondent along with backwages payable to them or appoint the petitioner in any other suitable post including those that are in any other department which is not required to be filled up through the TNPSC.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Ms.B.Poongkhulali
W.P.NO.9467 OF 2025
K.Anitha
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Courts) Department
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General
High Court of Judicature at Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Principal District Judge
Krishnagiri District. … Respondents
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records which culminated in the order dated 29.11.2024 bearing ROC No.20375/2023/C3 passed by the 2nd respondent and all actions taken pursuant thereto and quash the same and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner employed in the post of Junior Assistant with the 3rd respondent along with backwages payable to them or appoint the petitioner in any other suitable post including those that are in any other department which is not required to be filled up through the TNPSC.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Ms.B.Poongkhulali

W.P.NO.9666 OF 2025
S.Renukadevi
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Courts) Department
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General
High Court of Judicature at Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Principal District Judge
Krishnagiri District. … Respondents
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records which culminated in the order dated 29.11.2024 bearing ROC No.20375/2023/C3 passed by the 2nd respondent and all actions taken pursuant thereto and quash the same and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner employed in the post of Steno – Typist Grade III with the 3rd respondent along with backwages payable to them or appoint the petitioner in any other suitable post including those that are in any other department which is not required to be filled up through the TNPSC.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Ms.B.Poongkhulali
Standing Counsel
W.P.NO.9672 OF 2025 Sathya D.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Courts) Department
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General
High Court of Judicature at Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Principal District Judge
Chengalpattu District. … Respondents
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records which culminated in the order dated 29.11.2024 bearing ROC No.20375/2023/C3 passed by the 2nd respondent and all actions taken pursuant thereto and quash the same and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner employed in the post of Typist with the 3rd respondent along with backwages payable to them or appoint the petitioner in any other suitable post including those that are in any other department which is not required to be filled up through the TNPSC.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Ms.B.Poongkhulali
W.P.NO.10098 OF 2025
R.Jayasudha
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Courts) Department
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General
High Court of Judicature at Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Principal District Judge
Salem District. … Respondents
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records which culminated in the order dated 29.11.2024 bearing ROC No.20375/2023/C3 passed by the 2nd respondent and all actions taken pursuant thereto and quash the same and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner employed in the post of Typist with the 3rd respondent along with backwages payable to them or appoint the petitioner in any other suitable post including those that are in any other department which is not required to be filled up through the TNPSC.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Ms.B.Poongkhulali
W.P.NO.21319 OF 2025
M.Manimegalai
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Courts) Department
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General
High Court of Judicature at Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Principal District Judge
Namakkal District. … Respondents
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records which culminated in the order dated 29.11.2024 bearing ROC No.20375/2023/C3 passed by the 2nd respondent and all actions taken pursuant thereto and quash the same and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner employed in the post of Typist with the 3rd respondent along with backwages payable to them or appoint the petitioner in any other suitable post including those that are in any other department which is not required to be filled up through the TNPSC.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Ms.B.Poongkhulali
W.P.NO.24981 OF 2025
M.Seetha
1.The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Courts) Department
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General
High Court of Judicature at Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Principal District Judge
Namakkal. … Respondents
P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records which culminated in the order dated 29.11.2024 bearing ROC No.20375/2023/C3 passed by the 2nd respondent and all actions taken pursuant thereto and quash the same and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner employed in the post of Typist with the 3rd respondent along with backwages payable to them or appoint the petitioner in any other suitable post including those that are in any other department which is not required to be filled up through the TNPSC.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sakthivel
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Ms.B.Poongkhulali

W.P.NO.25224 OF 2025
S.Umamaheshwari

1.State Represented by its Secretary
Home Department
Secretariat,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General High Court Madras Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Principal District Judge
Vellore District. … Respondents

1.State Represented by its Secretary
Home Department
Secretariat,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Registrar General High Court Madras Chennai – 600 104.
3.The Principal District Judge
Vellore District. … Respondents

P RAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records relating to Order in Dis.No.10885/2023/A, dated 13.10.2023 on the file of the 3rd respondent quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to regularise the petitioner service from the date of initial appointment.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ezhilarasan
For Respondent – 1 : Dr.R.Gouri
Government Counsel
For Respondents – 2&3 : No representation
COMMON ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam, J.)
The present batch of writ petitions have been instituted by
the temporary Steno-Typists / Typists / Junior Assistants, serving in the District Judiciary across the State of Tamil Nadu.
2.The claim of these Steno–Typists / Typists / Junior Assistants is that the terminated temporary Steno–Typists / Typists / Junior Assistants are to be reinstated in service and their services are to be regularised and in respect of serving Steno – Typists / Typists / Junior Assistants, their claim is that their services are to be regularised in the sanctioned posts in the regular time scale of pay.
3.Since the relief sought for in all these writ petitions are
common, this Court is inclined to pass the common order.
4.The facts in brief would show that the writ petitioners have
been appointed as Steno – Typists / Typists / Junior Assistants in the
District Judiciary on temporary basis, under Rule 16(e)(i) of the Tamil
Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules. The posts of Steno – Typists /
Typists / Junior Assistant is falling under Category 5 of Class IV of Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules. There is a provision for making temporary appointments to meet certain administrative exigencies in the Judicial Department. Accordingly, the petitioners were appointed temporarily by invoking Rule 16(e)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Judicial
Ministerial Service Rules, which reads as follows:
“Rule 16(e)(i)
A person appointed under sub-rule (a), (b) or (d) to a post borne on the cadre of the service shall not be regarded as a probationer or be entitled any reason only of such appointment to any preferential claim to future appointment, the services of such a person in the post shall be liable to be terminated by the appointing authority at any time without notice and without any reason being assigned.”
5.It is not in dispute that the temporary Steno–Typists / Typists / Junior Assistants engaged in District Judiciary are periodically ousted from service and re-engaged on need basis. They have rendered service in different spells with break in service.
6.The question that arises for consideration is, whether these
temporary Steno-Typists / Typists / Junior Assistants are entitled to regularisation or permanent absorption in the Judicial Department by virtue of their temporary appointments made under Rule 16(e)(i) of the
Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules.
7.The respective learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
writ petitioners mainly contend that, except for the breaks in their service, these temporary employees are continuing in service and few temporary Steno-Typists / Typists / Junior Assistants have been terminated from service. However, they have rendered service for a long period and some of the employees have served for more than ten to fifteen years and therefore, they are entitled to be regularised in the sanctioned posts in the regular time scale of pay. In support of their claim, they have relied on the following judgments:
(i) Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaggo Vs. Union of India, reported in 2024
SCC OnLine SC 3826;
(ii) Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sukhendu Bhattacharjee Vs. The State of Assam, reported in 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 529;
(iii) Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Shripal and Another Vs. Nagar Nigham,
Ghaziabad, reported in 2025 INSC 144; and
(iv) Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Vinod Kumar and Others Vs. Union of
India and Others, reported in (2024) 9 SCC 327
8.The respective learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents would strenuously contend that all the writ petitioners were appointed purely on a temporary basis by invoking Rule 16(e)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules. The Rule unambiguously stipulates that a person appointed under the said Rule shall not be regarded as a probationer or be entitled by reason only of such appointment to any preferential claim to future appointment, the services of such a person in the post shall be liable to be terminated by the appointing authority at any time and without notice and without any reason being assigned. Therefore, accepting the said terms and conditions of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, these Steno – Typists / Typists / Junior Assistants served in the District Judiciary purely on temporary basis in non-sanctioned posts and were not appointed under the regular recruitment rules in sanctioned posts.
Therefore, they cannot claim regularisation or permanent absorption in violation of the Service Rules applicable to the regular employees appointed in sanctioned posts. In support of their contention, they would rely on a Division Bench judgment of Madurai Bench of this Court in E.Jailatha @ Sivagami in WP (MD) Nos.7134 to 7148 of 2025 etc., batch, dated 17.06.2025. The said judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present cases and thus, the writ petitions are liable to be rejected.
9.This Court has considered the rival submissions made by
the parties to the lis.
10.The legal principles for appointment to public posts are
settled by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1. Even the one-time measure permitted in paragraph 53 of the said judgment cannot be invoked or perpetuated so as to cure the irregularity or illegality in public appointments. Para 54 of the said judgment, in unequivocal terms, reiterates that “those decisions which run counter to the principle settled in this decision, or in which directions running counter to what we have held hereunder, will stand denuded of their status as precedents”. The principles laid down by the Constitution Bench is binding on all, across the Country. Any judgment running counter to the principles settled by the Constitution Bench is to be confined in respect of the facts of that particular case and cannot be followed as a precedent so as to grant the relief of regularisation and permanent absorption in other cases. In the event of diluting the mandate of equal opportunity in public employments, then, again, it would result in encouraging irregularity and illegality and back door appointments to public posts. This exactly is the reason why the Constitution Bench in Para 54 of its judgment reiterates that the principles are to be scrupulously followed so as to ensure and implement the noble constitutional principles of equal opportunity in public employments, through Constitutional Scheme of appointments.
11.All appointments to public posts are to be made strictly
under the Constitutional Scheme. Irregular, illegal, and back-door appointments not only violate the applicable Service Rules but also infringe the fundamental rights of meritorious candidates who are all aspiring to secure public employment through an open and competitive selection process. Back-door appointments / Regularisation / Permanent
Absorption are made without following the recruitment rules and without any merit assessment and without following the rule of reservation. If such affairs are allowed to be continued uninterruptedly by the Courts and by the State, undoubtedly, the equality clause enunciated under the Constitution of India would be violated and result in a constitutional sin.
12.The concept of equal opportunity in public employment, is
a noble principle, wherein even a poorest meritorious candidate from rural background will get an employment opportunity to public posts. Depriving opportunity to those poor and down-trodden youth from rural areas, would result in anti-developmental activities and such deprival of the right of those youth, at no circumstances, be allowed or encouraged by the State or by the Courts.
13.The ill effects of irregular, illegal, and back-door
appointments have been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts across the country. Finally, the Constitution Bench in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, settled the principles. The said judgment has become the law of the land and is binding on all the parties. Few discretionary orders passed by the High Courts as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the facts of the particular case cannot be followed as a precedent for the purpose of granting the relief of regularisation and permanent absorption in a routine
manner. Dehors such individual judgments by the Courts, the
constitutional principles and the equal opportunity in public employments is to be considered by the Courts while dealing with the facts of a particular case.
14.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa and Others Vs. Bhikari Chatran Khuntia and Others, reported in 2003 AIR SCW 5374 held as follows:
“Candidates whose name have been sponsored by the Employment Exchange do not acquire indefeasible right of appointment and the claim of the candidates cannot be equated with those who got employment on account of regular selection and claim for parity also untenable.”
In the above case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has differentiated the temporary appointments made through Employment Exchange and in respect of the candidates appointed by regular selection in accordance with the recruitment rules applicable to the particular post.
15.The writ petitioners herein accepted the terms and
conditions of their temporary appointment, which was made under Rule 16(e)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules and served in the Judicial Department. Therefore, now they cannot turn around and claim permanent appointment / regularisation without undergoing the regular recruitment process in accordance with the Service Rules.
16.On earlier occasions, special qualifying examinations
were conducted by taking a policy decision by the Government and the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission conducted qualifying
examinations. If at all any such policy decision has been taken, then the eligible temporary employees may participate in the special qualifying examinations for regular selection and appointment. However, this Court, in exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot direct an employer to regularise the services of a temporary employee in violation of the recruitment rules in force. Such a power would fall beyond the realm of the power of the judicial review.
17.The power of the High Court in issuing such a direction
has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Daya Lal and others reported in (2011) 2 SCC 429. Para 8 of the said judgment reads as under:
“(i) The High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and Courts should not issue a direction for regularisation of services of an employee which would be violative of the constitutional scheme. While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularised, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of
ineligible candidates cannot be regularised.
(ii) Mere continuation of service by a temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service, as such service would be ‘litigious employment’. Even temporary, ad hoc or daily-wage service for a long number of years, let alone service for one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularisation, if he is not working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of regularisation in the absence of a legal right.
(iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularisation with a cut-off date (that is a scheme providing that persons who had put in a specified number of years of service and continuing in
employment as on the cut-off date), it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent to the cut-off date, to claim or contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut-off date or seek a direction for framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut-off dates.
(iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularisation as they are not working against any sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance of part-time temporary employees.
(v) Part-time temporary employees in government-run institutions cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can employees in private employment, even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with government employees.”
18.Therefore, mere temporary appointments made under a
specific service rules, in the present case, Rule 16(e)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, would not confer any right to claim permanent absorption / regularisation. Having accepted the terms and conditions of temporary service, the writ petitioners cannot turn around and claim permanency, without undergoing the regular process of selection in order to provide equal opportunity to all the eligible candidates, aspiring and longing to secure public employments.
19.Pertinently, in respect of judicial administration, the three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court settled the legal principles in the case of Renu and Others Vs. District and Sessions Judge, Tis
Hazari Courts, Delhi and Another, reported in (2014) 14 SCC 50. Para 34 of the said judgment reads as under:
“34.We would like to make it clear that the High Court is a constitutional and an autonomous authority subordinate to none. Therefore, nobody can undermine the constitutional authority of the High Court, and therefore the purpose to hear this case is only to advise the High Court that if its rules are not in consonance with the philosophy of our Constitution and the same may be modified and no appointment in contravention thereof should be made. It is necessary that there is strict compliance with appropriate Rules and the employer is bound to adhere to the norms of Articles 14 & 16 of the
Constitution before making any recruitment.”
20.Following Renu’s case (cited supra), a Division Bench of Madurai Bench of this Court, rejected the claim of similarly placed temporary Steno–Typists / Typists / Junior Assistants, in W.P.(MD) Nos.7134 to 7148 of 2025 and etc., batch dated 17.06.2025.
21.The respondents have stated that there are insufficient
number of sanctioned posts and to meet the administrative exigencies, temporary Steno-Typists / Typists / Junior Assistants are appointed in the District Judiciary under Rule 16(e)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules. Therefore, the petitioners are working as temporary employees against non-sanctioned posts and their services cannot be regularised for want of sanctioned posts of Steno – Typists / Typists /
Junior Assistants in the District Judiciary.
22.The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, in her
affidavit dated 13.03.2025 has stated about the necessity of making these temporary appointments by the appointing authorities, which reads as under:
“(a)The post of Junior Assistant, Typist and Steno-typists are key posts and are highly necessary for effective functioning of day to day court proceedings such as daily case proceedings, deposing of witness, data entry work, correspondence regarding case proceedings, implementation of e-courts projects, Case
Information System, Digitisation of case records and Administration / Establishment work. Specifically the post of Typist and Steno-typist are absolutely necessary for smooth functioning of open court work such are typing of Decree / Orders and taking dictation and computerizing Judgments / orders, trial and speedy disposal of cases.
(b)Vacancies in the post of Junior Assistants, Typist and Steno-typist Grade-III which are under the purview of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, are continuously arising due to constitution of new courts, creation of new posts, resignation of staff members, relieving of staff members to other departments and on transfer, promotion / retirement of the staff members.
(c)Further, staff members sponsored by TNPSC for appointment in the aforesaid posts are frequently requesting District Transfer to other Districts and therefore, vacancies are arising.
(d)Though estimate of vacancies are forwarded every year, enormous delay is caused by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in sponsoring the candidates for appointment to the said posts. Lack of staff in the aforesaid posts, hampers the smooth functioning of the Courts.
(e)Therefore, in order to manage the situation and to avoid pendency of cases and in the interest of litigant public, temporary appointments are made in the said posts.”
23.When the Judicial Department has expressly stated the
administrative exigencies for engaging temporary Steno–Typists/ Typists/
Junior Assistants to meet out the emergency circumstances in Judicial Department and when there is no sanctioned posts available to regularise all these temporary employees and some of the Steno–Typists /Typists/Junior Assistants were already terminated from service and few others are continuing only as temporary Steno-Typists / Typists / Junior Assistants, there is no acceptable ground for the purpose of regularising the services of the petitioners in the permanent sanctioned posts.
24.However, this Court is of the considered view that such
temporary appointments cannot be allowed to continue for an indefinite period, which may give rise to expectations for regularisation. Therefore, the Judicial Department is expected to initiate proactive action to ensure that required number of sanctioned posts are made available and such posts are filled up by conducting recruitment process on regular basis.
This exactly is the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Renu’s case (cited supra). Therefore, regular recruitment, on annual basis, shall be undertaken, to fill the sanctioned posts, by avoiding the temporary appointments and allowing these employees to continue beyond a reasonable period.
25.In the event of issuing recruitment notification for the
posts of Steno – Typists / Typists / Junior Assistants in the District
Judiciary, the writ petitioners, presently working as temporary Steno– Typists/Typists/Junior Assistants in the Judicial Department and those temporary Steno-Typists/Typists/Junior Assistants already terminated shall also be permitted to participate in the recruitment process, if they are otherwise eligible, and if necessary, by granting age relaxation. It is made clear that other educational and essential qualifications cannot be dispensed with.
26.In view of the foregoing observations and having regard
to the factual and legal position, all the writ petitions stand disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[S.M.S., J.] [N.S., J.]

09.07.2026
Index : Yes
Speaking Order : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
TK
To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government
Home (Courts) Department
Fort Saint George, Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Registrar General
High Court of Madras High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.
3. The Principal District Judge The Principal District Court Vellore District.
4. The Principal District Judge
The Principal District Court Krishnagiri.

5. The Secretary
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission
V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.
6. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur.
7. The Chief Judicial Magistrate
Thiruvallur.
8. The Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court, Thiruvallur.
9. The Judicial Magistrate Ambattur.
10. The Principal District Judge Thiruvarur.
11. The Principal District Judge Namakkal.
12. The Principal District Judge Salem.
13. The Principal District Judge Chengalpattu.
14. The Principal District Judge
Udhagamandalam,
The Nilgiris.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
TK

W.P.NOS.16428 OF 2025, 25868 OF 2024, 25869 OF 2024,
25870 OF 2024, 25872 OF 2024, 25874 OF 2024, 25876 OF 2024,
25878 OF 2024, 25880 OF 2024, 25882 OF 2024, 25884 OF 2024,
26041 OF 2024, 34798 OF 2024, 35181 OF 2024, 7510 OF 2025,
7514 OF 2025, 7516 OF 2025, 7518 OF 2025, 21260 OF 2025, 7788 OF 2025, 7822 OF 2025, 7831 OF 2025, 7847 OF 2025,
7851 OF 2025, 7855 OF 2025, 8036 OF 2025, 8042 OF 2025,
8050 OF 2025, 7839 OF 2025, 8113 OF 2025, 8176 OF 2025,
8189 OF 2025, 8120 OF 2025, 8224 OF 2025, 8243 OF 2025,
9047 OF 2025, 9239 OF 2025, 9374 OF 2025, 9352 OF 2025,
9362 OF 2025, 9363 OF 2025, 9364 OF 2025, 9370 OF 2025,
9462 OF 2025, 9471 OF 2025, 9467 OF 2025, 9666 OF 2025,
9672 OF 2025, 10098 OF 2025, 21319 OF 2025, 24981 OF 2025,
25224 OF 2025, 25226 OF 2025, 25229 OF 2025, 25251 OF 2025, 25253 OF 2025, 25255 OF 2025 AND 25259 OF 2025
09.07.2026

Share this post:

X (Twitter) Facebook Pinterest LinkedIn Email

this Court is of the considered view that such temporary appointments cannot be allowed to continue for an indefinite period, which may give rise to expectations for regularisation. Therefore, the Judicial Department is expected to initiate proactive action to ensure

Share this post:

You may also like...

Recent Posts

Recent Posts

this Court is of the considered view that such temporary appointments cannot be allowed to continue for an indefinite period, which may give rise to expectations for regularisation. Therefore, the Judicial Department is expected to initiate proactive action to ensure

Share this post:

You may also like...

Rs Barathi case in mhc Puthiyathaimurai news video www sekarreporter. Com

The court also noted that once an offence is compounded, it cannot be used to deny statutory rights like FCRA registration. The Ministry has been instructed to re-evaluate its rejection within three months.

Recent Posts

Recent Posts