A prospective regularisation order does not support a claim to benefits from an earlier appointment.

The petitioner sought punishment of the respondents under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, alleging wilful disobedience of an order dated 8 March 2019 directing regularisation of her services, with consequential benefits, under G.O.Ms.No.35 within eight weeks.

The order identifies the underlying writ petition inconsistently as W.P.No.26369 of 2009 in the prayer and W.P.No.23639 of 2009 in its discussion.

The respondents contended that the petitioner had been appointed by the Parent Teacher Association in 2002 and did not then possess the qualification prescribed by G.O.Ms.No.7, as modified by G.O.Ms.No.175 of 2001.

The petitioner relied on a 1997 diploma from the Bureau of Data Processing Systems and a later diploma from Annamalai University.

Whether the respondents’ failure to regularise the petitioner from her initial appointment in 2002 constituted wilful disobedience of the 8 March 2019 order.

Whether the petitioner could claim regularisation from 2002 under G.O.Ms.No.35, having regard to its effective date and the qualifications prescribed by the applicable Government Orders.

Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act provides the basis for the contempt petition; the question before the Court was whether the alleged non-compliance amounted to wilful disobedience of its order.

The Court treated G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 9 February 2007, as prospective, not retrospective.

It also considered the qualification requirements in G.O.Ms.No.7, as modified by G.O.Ms.No.175 of 2001, including a diploma from Annamalai University or an equivalent qualification.

The Court found that the petitioner had not shown that her Bureau of Data Processing Systems diploma was in the prescribed subject or equivalent to the Annamalai University diploma, or that Tamil Nadu had recognised it as equivalent.

It further held that G.O.Ms.No.35 did not operate retrospectively, so it could not support a claim to regularisation from the 2002 appointment date.

On that basis, the Court concluded that the petitioner could not establish the alleged contempt by asserting entitlement to regularisation from her initial appointment.

The Court left it open to the petitioner to approach the competent authority for regularisation upon fulfilling the conditions prescribed by G.O.Ms.No.7, as modified by G.O.Ms.No.175.

No costs were ordered.