2011 Supreme(Mad) 473
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. CHANDRU
V. Sumathi & Others
Versus
The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai & Others
W.P.Nos.48060 to 48065 of 2006 (O.A.Nos.925, 1813, 1810, 1172, 1160 of 2000 & 1242 of 1998
Decided on : 31-01-2011
For the Petitioners:Ms. T. Aananthi, Baskar for R. Thamaraislvan, S. Ilamvaludhi Advocate.
For the Respondents:R. Murali, G.A, V. Chandrasekar, Advocate.
The government has the right to review and withdraw concessions granted, and public interest litigations must be maintainable under the relevant legal provisions.
Headnote:
Leprosy Patients - Employment Rights - G.O.Ms.No.140, G.O.Ms.No.1499, G.O.Ms.No.296 - The judgment discusses the employment rights of ex-leprosy patients and the government orders related to their appointment. It highlights the withdrawal of the scheme of appointment of cured leprosy patients and the legal implications of such withdrawal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, previously inflicted with leprosy and subsequently cured, were terminated from their employment in the Department of Health Services due to the withdrawal of the scheme of appointment of cured leprosy patients.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petitions as infructuous, as the petitioners had been subsequently regularized. It also dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the withdrawal of the concession for ex-leprosy patients' appointment, stating that the government was entitled to review the concession granted.
Issues: The issues revolved around the termination of employment of ex-leprosy patients due to the withdrawal of the appointment scheme and the maintainability of a public interest litigation challenging the government order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the withdrawal of the concession for ex-leprosy patients' appointment was within the government's right to review, and the public interest litigation was not maintainable under the Administrative Tribunals Act.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed as infructuous, and the public interest litigation was also dismissed. No costs were awarded.
1. In W.P.Nos.48060 to 48064 of 2006, the petitioners were all employed in the Department of Health Services. They were accommodated as Hospital Workers in various Government Primary Health Centres. This was on the basis that the petitioners were originally inflicted with leprosy and they were subsequently got it cured. In order to rehabilitate them, certain Government Orders were issued by granting preference as well as from exemption from the sponsorship by the Employment Exchange. The said Government Order, namely G.O.Ms.No.140, Education and Public Health dated 21.1.1965 issued various guidelines for appointment of ex-leprosy patients for Government Leprosy Institutions and other offices. This was based upon the recommendation made by the Estimate Committee of the Parliament, which directed the Governments to take concerted efforts of disabuse the minds of the people about the nature of Leprosy disease and the need to have proper treatment. In such case, the committee also recommended to utilise the service of the cured leprosy patients with advantage both to the cured patients as well as for eradication of Leprosy in various Institutions. Upon these considerations, the Committee also recommended such patients may be employed in various categories without consulting the Employment Exchange as well as without being consulted by the TNPSC.
2. The Government in G.O.Ms.No.1499, dated 14.8.1989 also issued amending the earlier directives. The petitioners were appointed by producing necessary certificate showing that they were cured leprosy patients. On the strength of the same, they were given appointment by the Deputy Director of Health Services. But, however, by the impugned order dated 25.1.2000, the Deputy Director of Health Services, namely, 2nd respondent terminated the service of the petitioners on the basis of the letter received from the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai dated 12.1.2000 and a reference was also made to the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.296, Health and Family Welfare Department dated 17.6.1997. By the Government Order referred to therein, the Government decided to do away with the scheme of appointment of cured leprosy patients to the post of Junior Assistants and other posts in the various Government Leprosy Institutions as well as other Institutions under the control of the Health Department. The Government also stated that any deviation by the Officers contrary to the Government Order will be viewed seriously. Since the petitioners were appointed subsequent to the withdrawal of the Scheme, the Unit Level Officers felt that action may be taken against them and issued the order terminating the service even though they have rendered few years of service by then.
3. Under the circumstances, the petitioners moved the Tribunal with various Original Applications starting from O.A.Nos.195, 1830, 1810, 1172 and 1160 of 2000. The Tribunal entertained the Original Applications and granted interim stay on 11.2.2000. The said interim order came to be extended until further orders by a further order dated 25.2.2000 in respect of the 1st case and similar orders were also passed in the other Original Applications. However, an application was taken out by one A.Ananda Raman, who got impleaded himself as 3rd respondent in O.A.No.925 of 2000 and also as a party in other Original Applications seeking to vacate the interim order. It was on the ground that seniority was not followed while recruitments were made. The Tribunal did not vacate the interim order.
4. On notices from the Tribunal, the official respondents have filed a reply affidavit dated 31.7.2000. In the reply affidavit, it is stated that the appointments have been made in respect of the petitioners relying upon the earlier concession made by the Government. Since the Government by G.O.Ms.No.296, Health and Family Welfare Department dated 17.6.1997 directed action to be taken to terminate the service of the individual, they