The Madras High Court has slammed the State for resorting to back-door appointment of nurses who had failed to qualify in the exams held in 2015 and thereafter either grant regularisation or permanent absorption in violation of the recruitment rules in force.
Madras High Court
Chennai:
Noting that public employment is a fundamental right of a citizen and if such a constitutional right is infringed upon, then the State has failed to be a model employer, the judge in his order held. “The unsuccessful candidates of the selection process conducted during the year 2015 and appointed on contract basis cannot be granted with the benefit of regularisation and permanent absorption in the sanctioned posts in regular time scale of pay.”
Holding that the Department of Health and Family Welfare and the Medical Services Recruitment Board are at liberty to proceed with the process of selection by strictly following the recruitment rules in force and by following the procedures contemplated to fill up the posts of nurses in the service rules, the judge held that “all these contract employees, who were appointed in violation of the recruitment rules by grant of illegal relaxation, shall be permitted to participate in the process of selection in the ensuing recruitment notification to be issued.”
Justice Subramaniam also directed the board to allow the contract employees appointed in the cadre of nurses to continue in service till the sanctioned posts are filled up by way of regular recruitment in accordance with the rules in force. However, he made it clear that soon after the regular appointments are made, the services of all those contract employees ought to be discharged.
The plea had contended that the State appointed candidates over and above the notified vacancies in the recruitment conducted in 2015. Moreover, without even conducting the process of selection by following the recruitment rules in force, the authorities concerned are going on appointing candidates, from and out of the unsuccessful candidates from the erstwhile list, with reference to the selection conducted in 2015.
Holding that such a procedure adopted is undoubtedly a fraud on the Constitution, Justice S M Subramaniam said, “This court is of the considered opinion that the State can never be allowed to continue such illegal or irregular appointment or back-door appointment and thereafter grant regularisation or permanent absorption in violation of the recruitment rules in force and deprive the rights of all other candidates who all are waiting to secure public employment.”
Noting that public employment is a fundamental right of a citizen and if such a constitutional right is infringed upon, then the State has failed to be a model employer, the judge in his order held. “The unsuccessful candidates of the selection process conducted during the year 2015 and appointed on contract basis cannot be granted with the benefit of regularisation and permanent absorption in the sanctioned posts in regular time scale of pay.”
Holding that the Department of Health and Family Welfare and the Medical Services Recruitment Board are at liberty to proceed with the process of selection by strictly following the recruitment rules in force and by following the procedures contemplated to fill up the posts of nurses in the service rules, the judge held that “all these contract employees, who were appointed in violation of the recruitment rules by grant of illegal relaxation, shall be permitted to participate in the process of selection in the ensuing recruitment notification to be issued.”
Justice Subramaniam also directed the board to allow the contract employees appointed in the cadre of nurses to continue in service till the sanctioned posts are filled up by way of regular recruitment in accordance with the rules in force. However, he made it clear that soon after the regular appointments are made, the services of all those contract employees ought to be discharged.
The plea had contended that the State appointed candidates over and above the notified vacancies in the recruitment conducted in 2015. Moreover, without even conducting the process of selection by following the recruitment rules in force, the authorities concerned are going on appointing candidates, from and out of the unsuccessful candidates from the erstwhile list, with reference to the selection conducted in 2015.