Notice ordered on recruitment process for assistants, readers

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M Sundar, before whom the PIL filed by Advocate P Pugalenthi came up for hearing, adjourned it to August 28, after advocate PK Rajagopal took notice for Registrar General, Madras High Court. 

Petitioner’s counsel M Radhakrishnan submitted that while deciding on a plea, the High Court in 2012 had held that 50 per cent of the vacant posts has to be filled by means of promotion and the remaining 50 per cent by means of direct recruitment. But, even after the said judgment, the High Court filled 56 posts without issuing any public notification of the vacancies resulting in it being challenged and the same is pending. 

While so, the High Court has framed the Madras High Court Service Rules, 2015, ignoring the then existing service rules resulting in all the posts of Assistant, Typist and Reader/Examiner becoming promotional posts giving a go by to direct recruitment, he said. 

Contending that thousands of eligible graduates belonging to deprived sections of society were in the state for being considered for a public employment in the High Court, he said merely confining to filling vacancies through promotions has resulted in unemployed graduates losing a valuable opportunity. 

Noting that in January 2016 about 100 persons holding the post of office assistant in the High Court have been directly promoted as assistants, he said as per the 2012 High Court order, the posts of assistants which were now occupied by the former office assistants ought to have been advertised and filled only by means of direct recruitment.

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court on Monday directed the State Election Commission (SEC) to submit an affidavit on electoral expenditure of candidates in 2011 local body elections. 

Petitioner Kannan from Madurai had stated that in October 2016, when the elections for local bodies were called for, his wife Muthu Sumathi filed nomination to contest from ward no. 41 in Madurai Corporation representing the CPI. In the same ward, one Indirani, representing the AIADMK, too filed her nomination. When Indirani contested in 2011 local body election from the same ward, she had not submitted her electoral expenditure and despite that she was not suspended as per the rules of the SEC. Though he had sent a petition to the SEC there was no action. 

So, he moved the court to direct the TNSEC to disqualify Indirani from contesting in the civic polls.  In a previous hearing, the counsel appearing for the SEC had stated that in total 4,772 persons had not filed their election expenditures. But, on Monday, the government pleader informed the court that all the candidates from Madurai district had submitted their electoral expenditures. Following the argument, the High Court directed the government pleader to submit an affidavit on the details of the expenditure of all the candidates in the state and posted the case to August 1.