Home |Index Jul 14|Archive
 
Home
Archive
Editorial
Albums
Links
Directory
Advertise
Subscribe
Contact
 
 
Jul 2014|Volume 11|Issue 7
 
Jul 2014|Vol 11|Issue 7


NEWS
 
Madras High Court bars TNHMC Registrar again and again

    Dr.R.Gnanasambandam, former president, Tamil Nadu Homoeopathy Medical Council filed a Writ petition in Madras High court challenging the appointment of Registrar Thiru.K.Chithari Kannu for officiating as Registrar of the Council without Government order. Honourable Justice S. Nagamuthu passed orders restraining the Registrar an interim injunction had been granted. It is pertinent to note that Honourable High Court had granted Injunction for the same for third time.

    Earlier the honorable High Court has passed orders restraining Thiru C. Soundarajan and Thiru G.Chandra babu for officiating as Registrar for the same. Appointment of Registrar of the council is subject to approval of the government 14(1) (C) of the Tamil Nadu Homoeopathy system of Medicine and Homoeopathy Practitioners Act 1971. Hence the functioning of the registrar had been restrained by the court in all three petitions filed by Dr. R. Gnanasambandam, former president of the Council

    In his affidavit W.P.15620/2014 at Madras High Court, he stated Dr .G.P.Hahnemann, president of the council appointed Dr. J. Joice Thilagam as temporary Registrar in charge on 12.07.2013. Sec. 14(2) of the Act permits such temporary appointment for a period of 3 months; he failed to take immediate steps to fill the post by making a permanent appointment as per law. He issued an advertisement in the newspapers belatedly on 06.11.2013 calling for applications for appointment as Registrar of the council. The said advertisement did not contain the correct details as to the required educational qualifications, age limit and salary. The 3rd respondent has suppressed the fact that the appointment is subject to approval by the Government. The Registrar started functioning as “the Registrar” straightaway without the mandatory approval of the Government in terms of Sec. 14(1) (c) of the Act.


    The appointment of the 4th respondent as ‘Registrar’ of the Tamil Nadu Homoeopathic Council is contrary to Section 14 of the Act and Regulations 25, Proviso to Regulation 25D, Regulations 30 and 32 and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

    The section 14(1) (c) of the Act stipulates that the appointment of the Registrar of the Council shall be subject to the approval of the Government and shall not take effect until such approval has been accorded. In this instant case there has been no approval of the Government approving the appointment of Thiru K.Chithrai Kannu as the ’Registrar’. Hence in view of the specific bar stated in the provision of the Act, he cannot discharge the functions as Registrar. However the provision of law has been thrown to the winds and the registrar is not only functioning as Registrar but is indulging in several corrupt practices affecting the institution.
The proviso to Regulation 25(D) of the Tamil Nadu Homoeopathy Council Regulations, 1973 stipulates that ‘Every vacancy of fresh appointment of the Registrar shall be advertised in two of the leading daily newspapers (one in English and one in Tamil). The purpose of the regulation is to employ a suitable candidate for the smooth and efficient functioning of the Council by giving fair opportunity to all eligible candidates. However the advertisements have been issued purely with the intention to favour the 4th respondent and appoint him as the Registrar. The advertisement is issued with deliberate delay on 06.11.2013 although the vacancy arose on 09.06.2013 itself as the 4th respondent retires from government service only on 30.09.2013. The 3rd respondent has suppressed the fact that the appointment is subject to approval by the Government. Hence the prescribed selection process has not been followed in this case.

    Approval has been sought under Sec.14 (1) (c) of the Act “for the continuation of the post of Registrar for a period of two years”. It is to be noted the approval cannot be granted for the continuation of the post of Registrar for a period of two years as per Sec. 14(1)(c) of the Act. Regulation 25 clearly states that “No employee shall ordinarily be continued in service after he has attained the age of 60 years.” Further extension of service alone is provided under Regulation 25-A which states that “Provided further that under extraordinary circumstances the Registrar, if he is found physically fit, may be retained in service by a resolution of the Council subject to approval of Government even after he attains 60 years of age.” In this case the 4th respondent admittedly retired on 30.09.2013 on reaching 58 years which is the age of superannuation for Government servants. Thereafter the 4th respondent was improperly appointed temporarily on 10.1.2014 by the 3rd respondent exercising his power under Sec. 14(2). Thereafter the proposal dated 25.03.2014 has been sent to the government seeking continuation of the post for a period of two years which will exceed the maximum age of 60 years permitted. The post of Registrar is an approved and sanctioned post and there is no necessity for seeking approval of the “post”. The approval should be sought for the selected individual to be appointed as the ‘Registrar’. Hence the proposal dated 25.03.2014 itself is illegal and improper and cannot be acted upon by the Government.

    The advertisement has been issued to show that it is a temporary appointment only. When the vacancy is a regular vacancy there is no necessity to appoint a person on temporary basis. Further the Act and the Regulations nowhere provides for such temporary appointments to the post of Registrar. Hence the appointment of the registrar is void abinitio.

    The proposal dated 25.03.2014 is sent by the registrar himself to the principal secretary is illegal and improper. The proposal for approval can be made only by the President, the president herein and that too only for a selected candidate enclosing all details about the nature and manner of selection and the salary to be given. Hence the proposal dated 25.03.2014 cannot be acted upon by the principal secretary to Health. In any event the appointment and continuation of the Registrar is illegal and hence liable to be set aside.

    The petitioner stated in his affidavit that the Registrar is being used by the President for implementation of his nefarious activities affecting the public interest and the Homoeopathy Medical Practitioners in particular. The council cannot function effectively since the Thgiry K.Chithrai Kannu cannot legally discharge the functions of the Registrar. Further since the registrar is a nominee of the president he is acting to the dictates of the president and indulging in several malpractices severely delaying the compilation of the Medical Register in accordance with law, assisting in misappropriation of funds, the inquiry into illegal registrations, forming several committees without the approval of the government. The petitioner had given a complaint dated 10.06.2014 to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption regarding the several instances of abuse of authority, misuse of council funds etc.

    The petitioner stated that he has no other alternative, speedy and efficacious legal remedy other than to approach this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No other Writ Petition is filed or pending for the same relief and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass an interim order of injunction restraining the incumbent Registrar from officiating as ‘Registrar’ of Tamil Nadu Homoeopathy Medical Council pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper and thus render justice.

    Therefore it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass an order, direction or writ more in the nature of Writ of Quo Warranto directing the 4th respondent to show cause on what authority he holds the post of ‘Registrar’ of ‘Tamil Nadu Homoeopathy Medical Council’ and pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper and thus render justice.