Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
,
The petitioners – Appellant
Versus
The respondents – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background and statutory basis for temporary deputation under food safety act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 8) |
| 2. petitioners' challenge versus respondents' defense on temporary appointment and repatriation. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court’s review of statutory provisions, circulars and government communications regarding lien and seniority. (Para 6 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. absence of service rules and need for proper implementation of food safety act. (Para 13 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. judicial reasoning upholding repatriation and rejection of petitions. (Para 14 , 15) |
COMMON ORDER
The petitioners, who were appointed as Designated Officers under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 in the Department of Food Safety and Drugs Administration, were repatriated to the Public Health Department and posted as Assistant Surgeons. The reliving orders and the consequential transfer orders are challenged in these writ petitions.
2.Since the issue involved in both writ petitions is similar, the writ petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.
3.All these petitioners have been appointed as Assistant Surgeons in the Tamil Nadu Medical Services and they were working as Medica
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
