HC directs regularisation of services of 13 staff of CICT

The Madras High Court has directed the Central Institute of Classical Tamil (CICT) to regularise the services of 13 employees, who were appointed in 2007, within four months.
Justice V Parthiban passed the order recently after setting aside the notification issued by the institute on October 17, 2012 calling for applications for appointment to various posts.
The judge allowed a writ petition while concurring with the submissions of the 13 employees that already a communication had been sent by the Union Ministry of Human Resources Development to the CICT to carry out a comprehensive review of existing temporary posts.
In his order the judge said, "The appointments of the writ petitioners which were made after due selection process cannot either be termed as illegal or irregular and therefore the petitioners have made out a case for grant of relief."

"In the upshot, this court has no hesitation to allow the writ petitions...The impugned notification dated October 17, 2012 is set aside," he said.
He said the authorities were directed to take up the claim of the petitioners for regularisation of their services in their respective cadres by issuing necessary instructions.

The court also directed the authorities to pass necessary orders regularising their services with effect from their initial appointment, with all attendant benefits, and to complete the process within four months from the date of receipt of the order.
The matter relates to the establishment of the CICT by the central government to recognise Tamil as a classical language.

The petitioners submitted that a committee comprising eminent scholars was constituted by the HRD ministry. A notification was issued in 2007 calling for applications for various posts, both academic and non-academic, they said.
All the petitioners, after being thoroughly interviewed by the selection committee, were appointed to various posts. Though they continued in their respective posts and were paid consolidated salary, they were denied regular employment, they alleged.
Later, on October 17, 2012, applications were called for appointment to various posts by the institute which was challenged by the petitioners in the court.
They alleged that the institute attempted to do away their services by replacing them with the candidates from the open market and sought to quash the same.

They also prayed for a consequential direction from the court to regularise their services in their respective posts.