Can Chief Secy give an oath to follow service rules in all appointments, MHC raises question
The bench asked the Additional Advocate General J Ravindran to find out from the Chief Secretary whether he would be willing to make such a statement on oath and posted the matter to February 13 for further hearings
Madras High Court (File)
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has raised a question whether the Chief Secretary of the State was willing to make a statement on oath that the government or its departments will not make any appointment without following service rules in future in connection with what it termed as flooding of litigations before the court seeking regularisation.
A division bench of Justice R Subramanian and G Arul Murugan observed that the time has come to make the State government comply with the directions contained in the State of Karnataka Vs Umadevi case in its letter and spirit, that it won’t make any irregular appointment in any of its organs or departments.
The bench asked the Additional Advocate General J Ravindran to find out from the Chief Secretary whether he would be willing to make such a statement on oath and posted the matter to February 13 for further hearings.
The bench asked the question to the State while hearing an appeal moved by the government seeking to set aside a single judge order directing it to consider a representation of a typist appointed on a daily wage basis in the Andimadam Panchayat Union.
S Sathiya was appointed as a typist in the panchayat union in 1997 on a daily wage basis. The authority has re-designated the typist post as computer assistant and subsequently in 2011. The State government, through an order, took a policy decision to bring the computer assistant post into the regular time scale of pay.
After the move, Sathiya made a representation to the State government to bring her into the regular time scale of pay. However, competent authorities rejected her appeal.
Aggrieved by the order, she moved the HC, seeking relief.
After hearing the matter, on February 28, 2024, the single judge directed the State to consider the representation and issue an order within twelve weeks.
Assailing the order, the government moved the appeal before the bench, seeking to quash the single judge’s order to consider the litigant’s plea.