(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 26.08.2025 in W.P.No.7183 of 2025 on the file of this Court and allow the Writ Appeal.)

N. Senthilkumar, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 26.08.2025 in W.P.No.7183 of 2025, the present intra Court appeal has been filed.

2. The Appellant is Anna University, wherein the 1st respondent/Writ Petitioner was initially appointed as an Office Assistant on daily wages by proceedings dated 26.05.2009, with a scale of pay of Rs.4800-10000+ Grade pay Rs.1300, on temporary basis. The said temporary appointment was approved by the Review Committee on 21.08.2010, and thereafter, an appointment order dated 23.08.2010 was issued appointing the 1st respondent/writ petitioner to the post of Office Assistant with effect form 01.09.2010 at Anna University of Technology, Tirunelveli. The writ petitioner has continuously served for about 16 years.

3. Subsequently, the Government decided to merge all the five Anna Universities of Technology functioning at different places, with the Anna University, Chennai. In this regard, a scrutiny committee was formulated to process the absorption of teaching and non-teaching staff of the erstwhile Anna Universities of Technology into Anna University, Chennai. The Government has passed G.O.Ms.No.91 Higher Education (I1) Department dated 14.07.2017, to implement the report of the five member committee with regard to examine the improper appointments of both teaching and non-teaching staff made by erstwhile Anna Universities of Technology. The said Government Order was challenged in W.P.No.5733 of 2020 and the same was allowed. Thereafter, the 1st respondent/writ petitioner made a request for absorption in the post of Office Assistant from the date of his initial appointment before the writ Court.

4. The Appellant contended that in a batch of writ Petitions in W.P.No.7140 of 2020 & batch cases, on a similar issue of absorption, an order was passed on 30.01.2024 and the same was relied upon by the Writ Court, while allowing the Writ Petition. The said order is usefully extracted hereunder:

               “35. In view of the above stated reasons, these Writ Petitions are disposed and the report of the Five Member Committee, dated Nil,constituted by the Registrar of Anna University, Chennai, under G.O.Ms.No.91, Higher Education (I1) Department dated 14.07.2017 is hereby quashed and the first respondent is directed:

               (i) to issue orders to all those regular employees who have been working in the erstwhile unamalgamated Anna Universities of Technology for allotting them either to the amalgamated Anna University of Technology, other educational institutions or Government departments, depending on the vacancy position with continuity service and all other consequential and attendant benefits and in compliance of Section 33 (9)(a) & (b) of Chapter VIII of the Principal Act, by making due consultations with the stakeholders mentioned in the said provision, if necessary.

               (ii) While doing so, if any difficulties or discrepancies are encountered due to any difference in giving the job title, appropriate orders for re~designation shall be issued with due pay protection.

               (iii) If there are still more difficulties faced due to short of vacancies in the sanctioned posts, it is inevitable to create excess posts in order to get all those regular staffs of the erstwhile unamalgamated Universities reallotted as mandated under Section 33 (9)(a) & (b) of Chapter VIII of the Principal Act and hence the said process shall be done at the earliest as an one~time measure.

               (iv) Such one~time measure shall also be made in respect of all those employees who have been appointed on ad~hoc basis and whose services have been utilized for all these years without any break, but still remain without regularization.

               It is obligatory on the part of the Government to take all appropriate steps to fulfil its own promise and formulate any scheme for creating new posts, issuing / re~issuing / consolidating of any of the existing Government Orders already issued with necessary amendments as an complete one~time measure and complete the transition process without allowing the employees to have unnecessary anxieties of their job security.

               All appropriate orders in the line of the above direction shall be passed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”

5. Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned senior counsel for the appellant contended that the view taken by the Writ Court is erroneous, as the Writ Court did not consider that there cannot be a mandate to make the 1st respondent/writ petitioner as a permanent employee of the appellant, when there are several similarly placed persons claiming the same relief as claimed by the 1st respondent/writ petitioner. The learned counsel further contended that the impact of such a direction had not been considered by the Writ Court.

6. Per contra, Ms.Kavitha Rameshwar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner submitted that against the order passed in W.P.No.7140 of 2020 & batch cases, no appeal was filed by the Appellant. The learned counsel further contended that pursuant to the order passed in W.P.No.7183 of 2025 dated 26.08.2025, the appellant regularised the services of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner with effect from 01.09.2010, by proceedings dated 06.04.2026, subject to outcome of the present Writ Appeal.

7. Heard the rival contentions made by the learned counsel on either side.

8. The main claim made by the appellant is that, regularising the position of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner, along with the other similarly placed persons, would result in a huge backlog, making it very difficult for the appellant to regularise the services of the such similarly placed persons.

9. We are not impressed with the submissions made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant on the ground that when similarly placed persons in the batch of writ petitions viz., W.P.Nos.7140 of 2020 & batch cases, were granted the relief, by implementing the order passed in W.P.Nos.7140 of 2020 and when the 1st respondent/writ petitioner stands on the same footing as that of the petitioners in W.P.No.7140 of 2020, there is no justification to deny similar relief. Apart from that when the appellant has regularised the services of the writ petitioner from 01.09.2010, we are not inclined to differ with the view taken by the Writ Court as the Writ Court has followed the order passed in W.P.No.7140 of 2020 & batch cases.

10. It is to be noted that the appellant has not challenged the order passed in W.P.No.7140 of 2020, which has attained finality. In the case on hand, the claim of the appellant is far-fetched and cannot be justified, when they did not challenge the order passed in W.P.No.7140 of 2020 and therefore, the benefit which was extended to the petitioners in W.P.No.7140 of 2020 is similar to that of the relief claimed by the 1st respondent/writ petitioner.

11. In view of the same, we are in full agreement with the order passed by the Writ Court, therefore, the present Writ Appeal is dismissed for want of merits. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.