Contractual service prior to regularisation cannot be counted for seniority, regular service, or monetary benefits.

The petitioners in W.P.(MD) No. 7355 of 2020 and respondents in the connected Writ Appeals were recruited as Secondary Grade Teachers/BT Assistants between 2004 and 2005 on a contract basis with monthly consolidated pay under G.O.(D).No.100.

Their services were subsequently regularized on 01.06.2006 per G.O.(D)No.99.

Relying on a Single Judge order in W.P.No.4991 of 2015, they sought Mandamus to regularize their services from the date of initial appointment for the purposes of seniority and monetary benefits.

Third parties (appellants) challenged similar orders, arguing that treating contract service as regular service adversely affects the seniority of teachers appointed on a regular basis prior to 01.06.2006.

1. Whether the period of service rendered by teachers on contract basis/consolidated pay prior to 01.06.2006 can be counted toward seniority and monetary benefits upon regularization.

2. Whether a Mandamus can be issued to regularize services from the initial date of contract appointment in light of subsequent Division Bench rulings.

The services of contract employees brought into regular stream from 01.06.2006 are deemed regular only from that date.

The ratio in W.A(MD)No.435 of 2020 affirmed that service prior to 01.06.2006 cannot be taken into consideration for counting service, seniority, or monetary benefits.

Legal principles established by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Review Application No. 60 of 2020.

The Court observed that while a Single Judge had originally allowed such regularization in W.P.No.4991 of 2015, that view was effectively overturned.

The Division Bench in Review Application No. 60 of 2020 determined that counting contract service as regular service would "directly affect the seniority of those who had been recruited on regular basis even prior to 01.06.2006".

Since the judgment in the Review Application currently "holds the field," the court reasoned that the Writ Petitioners are legally bound by it.

The court applied this ratio to the present cases, concluding that the earlier service was distinct in nature (contractual) and cannot be equated with regular service for any legal benefit.

Writ Petition (MD) No. 7355 of 2020 was dismissed and the Writ Appeals (MD) Nos. 449 and 450 of 2020 were allowed, setting aside the orders of the Single Judge dated 09.12.2019.