Pending service-rule issues preclude directions for regularisation or absorption into the Junior Assistant cadre.

The six petitioners were working as Examiners/Typists in various subordinate courts in Cuddalore District.

They sought regularisation of their services as Examiners from the dates of their initial appointments and consequential absorption as Junior Assistants under G.O.Ms. No. 535, Home (Courts-V) Department, dated 24 September 2024, along with appropriate seniority and consequential monetary and service benefits.

The petitioners contended that similarly placed employees had been considered for absorption as Junior Assistants.

The respondents submitted that the issue was pending consideration before the High Court and involved wider repercussions for numerous employees serving in the same cadre throughout Tamil Nadu.

1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to a direction for regularisation as Examiners from the dates of their initial appointments and consequential absorption as Junior Assistants under G.O.Ms. No. 535 dated 24 September 2024.

2. Whether the High Court should grant the consequential direction sought when the underlying service-related issue was pending consideration and had wider implications for similarly placed employees across the State.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the context of claims concerning regularisation, absorption, seniority, and consequential service benefits.

It applied the principle that a writ court should not grant an isolated service direction where the governing issue is pending adjudication and has wider repercussions affecting a larger class of employees.

The Court also considered the relevant service framework and G.O.Ms. No. 535, Home (Courts-V) Department, dated 24 September 2024, but did not finally interpret or adjudicate the petitioners’ entitlement under that Government Order.

The Court noted the petitioners’ grievance that similarly placed employees had been considered for absorption as Junior Assistants.

However, the respondents pointed out that the broader issue remained pending before the High Court and concerned a large number of employees in the same cadre across Tamil Nadu.

In view of the pending proceedings, the applicable rules, and the potential State-wide consequences, the Court held that it was not appropriate at that stage to issue the specific direction sought by the petitioners.

Rather than deciding the merits of regularisation or absorption, the Court requested that the pending issues be decided expeditiously and in accordance with law.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with a request to the High Court to adjudicate the pending issues expeditiously on merits and in accordance with law.

W.M.P. No. 20185 of 2025 was ordered subject to payment of a separate court fee.