After nine years, sanitary inspector gets relief from HC

The petitioner, S Sumathi, had acquired MA, MPhil, BEd. and Diploma in Sanitary Inspection (DSI), and had registered with the District Employment Exchange, Krishnagiri. In 2010, in pursuance of a notification for appointment as Sanitary Inspector Grade-II in the Tamil Nadu Public Health Services, she had contacted the District Employment Officer, Krishnagiri.

Thereafter, she was called upon to submit her original certificates for verification and called for an oral interview. Following this, the Deputy Director of Health Services, Kallakurichi, by proceedings dated January 13, 2001, appointed her to the post in the Primary Health Centre, Elvansurkottai, Kallakurichi. But on August 07, 2012, she received a letter referring to a GO stating that the government had cancelled the appointment order, as she was not allegedly sponsored by the employment exchange.

Despite Sumathi submitting her representation on August 16, 2012, the Public Health Department failed to respond. Fearing that her appointment order would be cancelled, she moved the High Court in 2012 to quash the notice issued.

Justice C V Karthikeyan who heard the plea said, “The only ground which has been raised is the petitioner was not sponsored by the employment exchange. Admittedly, the petitioner registered herself with the employment exchange and the same is also referred in the appointment order. Naturally, therefore, the ground raised by the authorities cannot stand scrutiny of the court.”

“When the show cause notice is issued with non-application of the mind and particularly by overlooking a fact writ large on the appointment order itself wherein the registration number with the employment exchange has been given, I hold that it would only be just and fair on the part of the court, after nine years from the date of filing the writ petition, to strike down the notice issued to the petitioner,” the judge held.

The order by Justice Karthikeyan added that the effect of the order would also mean that the petitioner is deemed to have continued to work without any blemish and she is entitled for all the benefits that are available to an employee who had worked with continuity in service.