Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 978 (MAD)

K. Bharathi v. The District Employment Officer, Krishnagiri & Another

2006-04-06

N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

body2006
Judgment :- (Writ Petition came to be numbered by way of transfer of O.A.No.6244 of 2002 from the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal to direct the second respondent to select and appoint the petitioner for the post of Pharmacist in any one of the Government Hospital, Dharmapuri District.) The prayer in this writ petition is to direct the second respondent to select and appoint the petitioner for the post of Pharmacist in any one of the Government Hospital, Dharmapuri District and pass orders. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are as follows: (i) The petitioner passed S.S.L.C. in the year 1982 and completed Diploma in Pharmacy in Coimbatore College of Pharmacy and the petitioner registered his name in Employment Exchange, Vellore on 10.12.1995 and the registration was transferred to Krishnagiri in the year 1988 due to shifting of his family. The petitioner claims that on 20.07.2002, the first respondent announced through newspaper that there are vacancies for the post of Pharmacist in the Dharmapuri District Government Hospital and informed the candidate to verify the registration before the first respondent on or before 22.07.2002 and the qualification prescribed are passing S.S.L.C., and holder of Diploma in Pharmacy. (ii) The petitioner was called for the interview and according to the petitioner, he is the senior most person as per the employment registration. However, the petitioner was not given appointment on the ground that the petitioner has not completed the 12th standard pattern and crossed 30 years of age and therefore, he is not eligible for the post. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to non sponsoring of the petitioner's name by the first respondent, the second respondent has not selected and appointed the petitioner. The second respondent herein has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that since the petitioner's name was not sponsored by the first respondent, the petitioner was not given selection and it is the duty of the first respondent to send a list to the Employment Exchange at the time of interview with reference to rules. The first respondent herein has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the petitioner has crossed 30 years of age as on 01.07.2002 as his date of birth is 05.06.1967. The first respondent herein has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the petitioner has crossed 30 years of age as on 01.07.2002 as his date of birth is 05.06.1967. Therefore, the petitioner's name is not entitled to be sponsored in view of Rule 12 (d) of Tamil Nadu State General and Subordinate Service Rules. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsequently, the Government issued G.O.(D) No.373 Health and Family Welfare (C1) Department dated 13.05.2005, wherein the Government took a policy decision to appoint 570 Pharmacists under the control of the Commissioner of Indian Medicine and Homeopathy, the Director of Medical Education, the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services (ESI) and the Director of Public Health and preventive Medicine. It is stated that they should have a registration in Employment Exchange and based on the seniority of their dates of registration Districtwise and following the rules of reservation, the appointments will be made initially for a period of 2 years on contract basis. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the said Government Order, submitted that in view of the said policy decision taken by the Government, to fill up 570 posts of Pharmacists in various Government Hospitals, is purely based on the date of registration in the Employment Exchange. The age rule is deemed to be exempted by the Government as a special case. 6. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, submitted that this order is dated 13.05.2005 and therefore, the earlier rejection of the petitioner's appointment cannot be found fault with. 7. Taking note of the contents in G.O.(D) No.373 Health and Family Welfare (C1) Department dated 13.05.2005, wherein the age bar is not stated, subsequently, the first respondent is directed to sponsor the name of the petitioner for the post of Pharmacist to the Director of Medical Education and the Director of Public Health and preventive Medicine within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such sponsorship, the concerned Director of Medical Education/Director of Public Health and preventive Medicine shall pass orders, appointing the petitioner as Pharmacist based on the employment seniority within a period of four weeks thereafter, if there is no other legal impediments. 8. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. 8. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.