HC to scrutinise appointment of child rights commission head

The Madras High Court today decided to subject to judicial strutiny the appointment order of Kalyani Mathivanan as the Chairperson of Tamil Nadu Commission for Protection of Child Rights.
A Narayanan, Director of Change India, an NGO, challenged the appointment, contending that the mandatory pre-appointment rules had not been followed in her case.
The First Bench comprising Chief Justice S K Kaul and Justice R Mahadevan in it order said, "The appointment prima facie appears to be in breach of the affidavit furnished to this court.
"The records be, thus, produced in respect of the recruitment process for us to scrutinise. We will examine as to whether suo motu quo warranto petition should be issued questioning the appointment in breach of the sworn affidavit of the state government," it said.

Kalyani was appointed Vice Chancellor of Madurai Kamaraj University on April 9, 2012, but it was set aside by Madurai Bench of the high court on June 26, 2014 on the ground that she had served only as an associate professor and not as a professor as required under UGC regulations.
However, the Supreme Court upheld her appointment on March 11, 2015.

Her academic tenure, however, was marked by allegations of inappropriate appointments, instigated assaults on her critics and general campus unrest.
Kalyani's present appointment pertains to an earlier PIL by Narayanan seeking mandatory registration of child care homes and to close down illegal homes not maintaining minimum facilities.

During the hearing, the court said the chairperson's post was lying vacant for several months, prompting the government to commit that it would fill the vacancy expeditiously.
The court was informed that a government order had been issued appointing Kalyani as Chairperson of Tamil Nadu Commission for Protection of Child Rights.
Narayanan contended that the government had onJune 20 told the court that it would follow procedures prescribed as per sections 17(2)(a) and 18 of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, and it would invite applications for the post.
He said that Kalyani's appointment had been made in complete breach of the affidavit filed before the high court, as no applications were invited for the post. The Advocate General also submitted that no advertisement was issued.

"In our view, there can be no doubt that a transparent process has to be followed," the judges said, adding they would initiate quo warranto proceedings on their own if the allegations are proved and adjourned the case toSeptember 23for further hearing.