(Prayer: Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of writ of certiorari, to call for the records pertaining the termination order made in Ref.No.131/Hostel/2019 dated 14.05.2019 of the 3rd respondent to quash the same and consequently to reinstate the petitioner in service with all the benefits of hostel work Rules as contemplated therein with effect from 01.04.2017 in the interest of justice.)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents and perused the records.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she is a graduate possessing a B.Com degree; and that when applications were called for the post of Supervisor to the mess at the women’s hostel under direct recruitment, she applied for the same and was selected and appointed to the said post on 02.03.2015 by the 3rd respondent; that as per the appointment letter issued to her, the probationary period was for one year, after which she would be entitled to all other benefits of hostel workers, similar to a permanent worker; that even though she had completed her probationary period and is entitled to all the benefit, under the said order, no such benefits, as per the terms of the appointment order, have been extended to her; that though the appointment order states that the appointment is on a purely temporary basis, she was advised to follow all the rules and regularisations of the hostel and that she would be allowed other benefits of hostel workers only after completion of one year of undisputed service; and that she not only completed one year of service but has completed four years of service and therefore, her services ought to be considered as regularised.

                     2.1. It is the further case of the petitioner that she had rendered unblemished service for a period of four years from the date of her appointment; that the 3rd respondent, with malafide intention and ulterior motive to derive personal benefit, terminated her services without giving her any opportunity of hearing and without conducting any enquiry as contemplated under the service rules and regulations governing the hostel, including the procedure laid down by law for termination of service; that the 3rd respondent had served a memo on her on 02.05.2019, granting three days time to submit her explanation; that though she submitted her explanation on 03.05.2019, the 3rd respondent terminated her services on 14.05.2019 without conducting any enquiry; and thus the said action of the 3rd respondent it is contended as highly illegal and unsustainable.

                     2.2. The petitioner further contended that aggrieved by the aforesaid action, though she had submitted representation to respondents 1 and 2 as early as on 11.06.2019, the respondents neither took any action nor conducted any enquiry, nor reinstated the petitioner into service; and as such, the petitioner has no effective and efficacious remedy except approaching this Court by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction. Contending as above, the petitioner seeks for quashing of the termination order dated 14.05.2019 with a consequential relief to reinstate her into service with all attendant benefits.

3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent.

4. The 3rd respondent, in the counter affidavit, primarily contended that the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 14.05.2019 terminating her service is not maintainable, since the petitioner was appointed as a Housekeeper in the 3rd respondent hostel purely on a temporary basis and was paid salary out of the contributions of the hostel inmates; that the post of Housekeeper in the hostel is neither a Government post nor a sanctioned post and that for the benefit of the students, the petitioner was appointed by the then 3rd respondent only as a temporary measure. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim the post as a matter of right; and that the appointment of petitioner was an internal arrangement and that her salary was paid from and out of the contributions collected from the hostel inmates.

                     4.1. The respondents, in the counter affidavit, further contended that the petitioner has approached this Court by wrongly claiming that she was appointed as a regular Government servant and has misled this Court for maintaining the present writ petition.

                     4.2. The respondents further contended that the petitioner was not selected through any selection process or direct recruitment process, as claimed and that the appointment was made by the 3rd respondent management purely on a temporary basis and consequently, the petitioner was paid a lump sum amount on a monthly basis.

                     4.3. The respondents further contended that since, the petitioner was appointed as a 24 hour Supervisor in the hostel, she was advised to follow the rules and regulations of the hostel; that such a stipulation, by itself, does not confer any right of permanency on the petitioner or entitle her to be treated as permanent staff, as the appointment was only temporary in nature.

                     4.4. The respondents further contended that since, complaints were received against the petitioner from the hostel inmates, the 3rd respondent issued a memorandum dated 02.05.2019 calling for her explanation; and upon the petitioner submitting her explanation on 03.05.2019 and the same being found unsatisfactory, the 3rd respondent placed her under suspension; and when the petitioner refused to receive the order of suspension, her services were terminated vide order dated 14.05.2019.

                     4.5. The 3rd respondent, in the counter affidavit further contended that though the petitioner’s service was purely temporary in nature, she was granted sufficient opportunity to submit her explanation; that taking into consideration the overall welfare of the inmates of the hostel, the services of the petitioner which were availed purely on a temporary basis, were terminated and as such, the petitioner cannot claim that while terminating her temporary services, the 3rd respondent was required to follow the service rules applicable to permanent / temporary Government servants.

                     4.6. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents further submitted that since the appointment of the petitioner was purely temporary, the petitioner if is aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the 3rd respondent, has to approach the appropriate Labour Court to avail the remedies provided thereunder. Contending as above, the respondents seek dismissal of the writ petition.

5. I have taken note of the respective contentions.

6. Though the petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, contended that applications for the post of Supervisor to the Mess at the women’s hostel were called for through direct recruitment and that she had applied and was selected for the same, the letter of appointment as issued to the petitioner does not indicate that she being appointed against any sanctioned post or her on selection is pursuant to any notification issued for direct recruitment.

7. On the other hand, the letter of appointment reveals that the same was issued under the signature of the Warden of the hostel of the 3rd respondent and that the petitioner was paid a lump-sum salary per month. In the absence of petitioner placing any material before this Court to show that her appointment was made pursuant to any notification and that the said post was a sanctioned post, the petitioner cannot claim that her services are governed by the service rules.

8. Further, the petitioner, having been appointed on a lump-sum payment basis per month and her services having been continued by the 3rd respondent from 02.03.2015 till 14.05.2019 and thereafter terminated, if is aggrieved by the aforesaid termination, ought to have approached the concerned Labour Court by raising a dispute. Admittedly, the petitioner did not invoke the said jurisdiction.

9. Since, the appointment of the petitioner was not to a sanctioned post or a temporary post in terms of Rule 10(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Service Rules or under Section 17 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, this Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, even assuming that the petitioner’s service is governed by the service rules of the Tamil Nadu Government, the petitioner ought to have availed the appellate remedies provided under the Act and cannot seek to bypass the same by approaching this Court invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction.

10. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

11. The W.M.P. No. 40527 of 2025 is filed seeking amendment of the prayer. However, having regard to the conclusions arrived at by this Court in the main writ petition, this Court is of the view that the amendment of the prayer as sought for in the said W.M.P., is of no consequence. Accordingly, W.M.P. No. 40527 of 2025 is closed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.