Medical college teachers call off stir - Doctor Victimised

From http://www.hindu.com/2007/01/07/stories/2007010717720100.htm

# Crime Branch to probe case against doctor
# Panel to examine cases of medical negligence

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Doctors led by the Kerala Government Medical College Teachers Association called off their stir following assurances given by Health Minister P.K. Sreemathy here on Saturday.

The doctors had been agitating over the manner of arrest of doctor P. Asokan of Kottayam Medical College on charges of negligence and corruption, following the death of a patient at the college hospital.

The Minister assured the Association during talks that norms specified by the Supreme Court and the Government in a circular issued last month would be followed. The investigation of the case against Dr. Asokan would be transferred to the Crime Branch. Besides, a State-level apex committee constituted to examine cases of medical negligence would inquire into the incident within 30 days and submit a report to the Government.

Ms. Sreemathy said the apex committee consisted of the Director of Health Services, Director of Medical Education, Additional Director (Vigilance) and Director General of Prosecution. There were district committees with the district medical officer, district Government pleader or prosecutor and a forensic expert to look into such cases at the district-level. However, the present case was being referred to the apex committee in view of complaints that the district committee would be influenced, she said.

The Minister said there was substance in the allegation of the doctors that the police did not follow the norms while arresting the doctor. The Government would ensure that the district committees acted promptly when similar cases occurred in future. Association president K.V. Raju and secretary R. Mahadevan said Dr. Asokan was initially arrested on charges of negligence. Subsequently, the corruption charge was added to strengthen the case. The Association would not support the doctor if corruption charge was proved, they said.

The doctors had gone on a State-wide token strike over the incident. Besides, the doctors of Kottayam Medical College were on a work to rule agitation. The Minister said the Government would soon provide extra doctors in community health centres and block-level primary health centres.

On the Government decision to go ahead with another round of pulse polio programme despite doubts being raised about the programme, she said the inefficacy of the oral vaccine had not been scientifically established.

Doctors stage demonstration to take action againts Health Inspectors

From http://www.hindu.com/2007/01/01/stories/2007010107790300.htm

Government and private doctors attached to the Doctors' Association for Social Equality (DASE) staged a demonstration here on Sunday. The urged the authorities to take action against two health inspectors, who allegedly misbehaved with doctors in separate incidents recently.

The agitators said Thangavel, a health inspector, was said to have talked in a threatening manner to Sreenivasan, medical officer at Pandaranvilai Primary Health Centre (PHC), on the PHC premises. Similarly, Terrance, another health inspector, reportedly used unparliamentary language against a government doctor, Pradeep, during a review meeting held at Pudukottai PHC, recently.

The DASE members asked the authorities concerned to take departmental action against the "erring" health inspectors, at the earliest. About 50 doctors took part in the agitation.

What is the demand


What happened in Pandaravillai Primary Health Centre

Supreme Court judgement on criminal medical negligence: a challenge to the profession

From http://www.ijme.in/134ed110.html


Past Issues
Support
About IJME

Oct-Dec 2005(4)

EDITORIAL
Supreme Court judgement on criminal medical negligence: a challenge to the profession
MR Hariharan Nair

The Supreme Court recently stated in Dr Jacob Mathew’s case (1) that in order to make a doctor criminally responsible for the death of a patient, it must be established that there was negligence or incompetence on the doctor’s part which went beyond a mere question of compensation on the basis of civil liability. Criminal liability would arise only if the doctor did something in disregard of the life and safety of the patient. Certain directions have also been given in the case.
Negligence, in simple terms, is the failure to take due care and caution. It is a breach of a duty caused by the omission to do something which a reasonable person – guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs – should have done. It may also be doing something, which a prudent and reasonable person would not have done.

The essential components of negligence are: ‘duty’, ‘breach’ and ‘resulting damage’. These definitions are rather relative and can change with the circumstances. When trying to drag a person away from the clutches of an attacking animal, one cannot ask whether this would cause damage to the person’s limbs. Doctors can also be faced with similar contingencies. On finding an accident victim in a dangerous condition, a doctor may have to attempt a crude form of emergency surgery to try and save the person’s life. No negligence is involved in such cases.

Under the civil law, victims of negligence can get relief in the form of compensation from a civil court or the consumer forum. Here, the applicant only needs to prove that an act took place that was wanting in due care and caution, and the victim consequently suffered damage. There is a difference between civil and criminal negligence. However, in certain circumstances, the same negligent act may also be seen as criminal if it constitutes an offence under any law of the land.

Criminal negligence
According to Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, causing death by doing a rash and negligent act attracts imprisonment for up to two years, or a fine, or both. The burden to collect evidence of criminal liability is upon the complainant. The accused person will be presumed innocent until proof beyond reasonable doubt is adduced by the prosecution; a mere preponderance of probabilities would satisfy the civil court. For these reasons, an act that is seen as negligent in a civil court need not necessarily be culpable negligence in the criminal court.

The main question in the above case was whether different standards could be applied to professionals (doctors) alone, placing them on a higher pedestal for finding criminal liability for their acts or omissions. The Court noted that as citizens become increasingly conscious of their rights, they are filing more cases against doctors in the civil courts, as also under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging ‘deficiency in service’. Furthermore, doctors are being prosecuted under Section 304A of the IPC (causing death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act which does not amount to culpable homicide) which is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years. They are also being prosecuted under Section 336 (rash or negligent act endangering human life), Section 337 (causing hurt to any person by doing any rash or negligent act as would endanger human life) or Section 338 of the IPC (causing grievous hurt to any person by doing any rash or negligent act so as to endanger human life). The Court observed that allegations of rashness or negligence are often raised against doctors by persons without adequate medical knowledge, to extract unjust compensation. This results in serious embarrassment and harassment to doctors who are forced to seek bail to escape arrest. If bail is not granted, they will have to suffer incarceration. They may be exonerated of the charges at the end; but in the meantime they would have suffered a loss of reputation; often irreversible. The tendency to initiate such cases has therefore to be curbed.

Since the medical profession renders a noble service, it must be shielded from frivolous or unjust prosecutions. With this perspective in mind the Court went into the question as to what is actionable negligence in the case of professionals. The law now laid down is as follows:

1. A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, even fatal, will not constitute culpable medical negligence. If the doctor had followed a practice acceptable to the medical profession at the relevant time, he or she cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available, or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice.

2. Professionals may certainly be held liable for negligence if they were not possessed of the requisite skill which they claimed, or if they did not exercise, with reasonable competence, the skill which they did possess.

3. The word ‘gross’ has not been used in Section 304A of IPC. However, as far as professionals are concerned, it is to be read into it so as to insist on proof of gross negligence for a finding of guilty.
4. The maxim Res ipsa loquitur (Let the event speak for itself; no other evidence need be insisted) is only a rule of evidence. It might operate in the domain of civil law; but that by itself cannot be pressed into service for determining the liability for negligence within the domain of criminal law. It has only a limited application in trial on a charge of criminal negligence.

5. Statutory Rules or executive instructions incorporating definite guidelines governing the prosecution of doctors need to be framed and issued by the State and Central governments in consultation with the Medical Council of India (MCI). Until this is done, private complaints must be accompanied by the credible opinion of another competent doctor supporting the charge of rashness or negligence. In the case of police prosecutions, such an opinion should preferably from a doctor in government service.

6. Doctors accused of rashness or negligence may not be arrested simply because charges have been levelled against them; this may be done only if it is necessary for furthering the investigation, or for collecting evidence, or if the investigating officer fears that the accused will abscond.
The Supreme Court has not stated, even now, that doctors can never be prosecuted for medical negligence. It has only emphasised the need for care and caution in prosecuting doctors in the interests of society. A certain amount of immunity or extra insulation is now allowed to them considering the noble service rendered by their fraternity and in view of the reports that complainants often use criminal cases to pressurise medical professionals and to extract unjust compensation.

This immunity is available only in criminal courts and not elsewhere. The principles laid down above may apply to other professionals like engineers and lawyers as well. The decision in Jacob Mathew’s case(1) is thus a landmark judgment though some of the principles mentioned therein have been mentioned in earlier judgments.

The present judgment, however, may give room for criticism that the court, vested with the power to interpret the written law has, instead, ventured to change the law by interpreting it the way it thought would be better for society. Since Section 304A refers only to rash or negligent acts, it is a doubtful proposition that mens rea (guilty intent) must be shown for establishing a case of criminal negligence . The interpretation reading in the prefix ‘gross’ before ‘negligence’ (the latter alone appears in Section 304A of the IPC) also attracts the same criticism.

One has to hope that professionals will rise to the occasion and start discharging their functions with more care and responsibility rather than trying to hide under the shield provided by the court. Let not the profession be emboldened by the new shield, and turn less careful and inhumane in their dealings and treatment to the patients who approach them. If this happens, that will be a sad day for suffering patients. The new judgment, reading in many things not in the written law, would result in a serious blow to their rights. While it is necessary to save doctors treading the righteous path, it is also necessary to take to task those violating the oath that they took. Immunity to this group means suffering for vulnerable patients.

Reference:
1. Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and another - 2005 SCCL.COM 456. Criminal Appeal No. 144-145 of 2004 decided by the Supreme Court on August 5, 2005.

Retired Justice of the Kerala High Court, Chair, Institutional Ethics Committee, Sree Chitra Institute for Medical Science and Technology,
Thiruvananthapuram 695 011, Kerala, INDIA e-mail: justicemr@sancharnet.in

Supreme court judgement violates medical ethics

From http://www.ijme.in/033ed018.html

On January 19, 1995 we learnt that Justices Kuldip Singh and B. L. Hansaria of the Supreme Court of India passed a judgement which forces doctors em- ployed in prisons to participate in exe- cution by hanging and thus violates medical ethics. This judgement was passed on a petition in the public interest against provisions, in the Punjab Jail Manual, on keeping the body of a con- demned prisoner hanging for half an hour after falling from the scaffold. It was argued that such provision and practice were inhuman and barbarous.

The Judges ruled that the purpose of hanging is to execute the prisoner, the duration of hanging being immaterial. The prisoner should only hang till his/her body became lifeless.

The second part of the ruling orders the doctor employed by the jail authorities to examine the body every few minutes after the drop. As soon as the doctor diagnoses death, the body must be brought down.

Violation of medical ethics

This judgement makes the doctor a direct participant in the judicial execution of a human being. On occasion, the doctor will have to tell the jail authorities that the person is still alive, knowing that such information will be used only to continue hanging the body till the person dies. The ruling also implicitly orders the doctor not to resuscitate the condemned prisoner who remains alive after the drop.

These requirements violate medical ethics: (a) By providing information that leads directly to death, the doctor know- ingly acts to cause death of a person. (b) For a doctor to remain present and refrain from resuscitating a person in danger of losing his life contravenes medical ethics, (c) The judgment orders the doctor to discriminate against the prisoner simply because the Court has condemned him/her to die. Whilst the Courts have full authority to punish a prisoner with death, they cannot make a doctor discriminate against the condemned prisoner. For the doctor, a prisoner, like any other individual, is to be helped when in danger of losing life.

Forum protests

The Forum for Medical Ethics Society wrote to the Chief Justice, Supreme Court of India, on February 3, 1995 and requested him to ensure that the judgement not be implemented. The Forum expressed its willingness to assist the Court by making a detailed submission (including notes on practices and provisions in other countries that safeguard the ethics of doctors under such circumstances) after going through the full text of the judgment. A review was requested.

The Forum agreed with the need to abolish the procedure of leaving the body hanging for half an hour. It also accepts the need to examine the condemned person to determine death. It suggested that these repetitive examinations be conducted by a non-medical prison official trained to make the diagnosis of death. Once such a diagnosis is made, the body can be taken to the doctor for final examination and certification of death.

The Supreme court rejected Forum's request. Mr. Raj Gopal, Assistant Reg- istrar of the Supreme Court of India replied (letter 321/90/Sc/PILC dated April 1, 1995): "I am directed to say that The Forum for Medical Ethics Society not being a party to the proceed- ings, no action can be taken on the matter."

This is a response expected of a bureaucrat. It uses a technical point to dodge a vital issue. The Honorable Judges of the Supreme Court could, if they wished, modify their judgement in the public interest. If necessary they could have converted our letter into a petition.

Representations from others in India and abroad to the Honorable Chief Justice, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi, India (Telegraphic Address: SUPRE- MECO.'New Delhi, India) may help.

Amar Jesani,310, Prabhu Darshan, S. Sainik Nagar, Amboli Andheri (W), Bombay 400 058. He is a member of the editorial team of Medical Ethics. He is also the Coordinator of Centre for Enquiry into Health and Allied Themes (CEHAT), Bombay.

Right to Information Act - Department of Health and Family Welfare

The RTI Act Manual of Health and Family Welfare Department can be seen at
http://www.tn.gov.in/rti/proactive/hfw/handbook-health.pdf

Public Information Officers & Appellate Authorities of the Health and Family Welfare Department are (http://www.tn.gov.in/rti/hfw.htm)

Public Information Officer
Thiru T. P. Easwaran
Deputy Secretary (ME) to the Government
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009

Appellate Authority
Additional Secretary to the Government,
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009

Dalits who have converted to Buddhism eligible to apply under SC Quota

The Madras High Court has asked the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) to delete a clause in its notification, wherein Dalits who had converted to Buddhism were declared not eligible for benefits under the Scheduled Castes category. The First Bench, comprising Chief Justice A.P. Shah and Justice K. Chandru, gave the direction on a public interest litigation petition filed by I. Elangovan, Head of the Department of English, Voorhees College, Vellore.

The TNPSC invited applications for 229 posts of assistants and 190 personal clerks in the Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service and 82 assistants and seven personal clerk posts in the TNPSC. The examination is scheduled to be held on January 7, 2007. The last date for submitting applications was October 18.

In its general instructions, the TNPSC specifically stated that a member of the Scheduled Castes on conversion to Buddhism would not be entitled to the concessions admissible to Adi Dravida (Hindus).

Prof. Elangovan submitted that by way of a constitutional amendment in 1990 the Centre had declared that Dalits embracing Buddhism too were eligible for all benefits under the SC category. Acceding to the submissions, the Bench asked the TNPSC to delete the impugned clause and publish a new advertisement calling for applications from Dalit-Buddhists.

Contract Medical Officers & Contract Medical Consultants working in the Government Medical Institutions - Bringing into regular time scale of pay

ABSTRACT

Contract Medical Officers and Contract Medical Consultants working in the Government Medical Institutions - Bringing into regular time scale of pay - Orders - Issued.
________________________________________

HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (B2) DEPARTMENT

G.O.(Ms) No.302
Dated: 20.11.2006

Read:
1. G.O.(Ms) No.197, Health, dated 7.6.2004.
2. G.O.(Ms) No.31, Health, dated 3.3.2005.
3. From the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Letter No.47018/E5/A3/2006 dated 24.5.2006.
4. From the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Letter No.47018/E5/A3/2006 dated 27.5.2006.
5. From the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Letter No.47018/E5/A3/2006 dated 7.7.2006.
---
ORDER:

In the Government Order first read above, orders were issued for the creation of 186 posts of Medical Officers in the 93 upgraded Primary Health Centres on contract basis on a consolidated pay of Rs.8,000/- at the rate of 2 posts for each upgraded Primary Health Centre.
2. In the Government Order second read above, orders were issued, pending selection of candidates by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, to recruit 2322 Assistant Surgeons in the Tamil Nadu Medical Service to be filled up on contract basis by calling for candidates from Employment Exchange for a period of 6 months or till the candidates selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission join duty on a consolidated pay as indicated below:-

1. Doctors with MBBS qualification - Rs. 8,000/- p.m.
2. Doctors with MBBS and Post Graduate diploma qualification - Rs. 9,000/- p.m.
3. Doctors with MBBS and Post Graduate degree qualification - Rs.10,000/- p.m.

3. The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine has stated that as on date against 186 posts of Contract Medical Officers sanctioned to the 93 upgraded Primary Health Centres, 153 Contract Medical Officers are in position and the remaining 33 posts are vacant. The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine has, therefore, stated that the 186 posts of Contract Medical Officers to the 93 upgraded Primary Health Centres sanctioned on a consolidated pay of Rs.8,000/- p.m. may be brought into time scale of pay of Rs.8000-275-13500.

4. The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine has also stated that as against the permission accorded for filling up 2322 Contract Medical Consultants in the vacancies available, only 1575 Contract Medical Consultants were in position as on May 2006. Even among these Contract Medical Consultants, some of them have been selected by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and they were given necessary appointment as Assistant Surgeon in the time scale of pay. The remaining 1352 doctors who are working as Contract Medical Consultants have to be absorbed in the time scale of pay. The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine has, therefore, requested the Government to consider the need for bringing the Contract Medical Officers / Contract Medical Consultants into time scale of pay of Rs.8000-325-13500 in order to make them to discharge their duties with more dedication and commitment in serving the vulnerable rural sections of the society.

5. Apart from the Contract Medical Consultants there are about 30 Medical Officers who are working in Tamil Nadu Medical Service on temporary basis on time scale of pay without being selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for regular appointment in the Special Qualifying Examination held earlier.

6. The Government have examined the above proposals and direct that the 153 Contract Medical Officers and 1352 Contract Medical Consultants who were appointed on consolidated pay of Rs.8000/- p.m. be appointed temporarily as Assistant Surgeon in the Tamil Nadu Medical Service in the time scale of pay of Rs.8000-275-13500 with other allowances admissible to the post as per the rules and orders in force with effect from 1.11.2006 in relaxation of rule 10(a)(i) of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services and they will be allowed to continue in service pending passing of Special Qualifying Examination to be conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The Government also direct that about 30 temporary Assistant Surgeons who are working in the Tamil Nadu Medical Service on time scale of pay without being selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for regular appointment in the Special Qualifying Examination conducted earlier are instructed to appear for the Special Qualifying Examination to be conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.

7. The Government also direct that their seniority shall be fixed by the merit list drawn by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the Special Qualifying Examination to be conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission under rule 35(a) of the General Rules for the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services.

8. The Government also direct that the 186 posts of Contract Medical Officer created in the Government Order first read above, be brought into time scale of pay of Rs.8000-275-13500 with effect from 1.11.2006 with other allowances admissible to the post as per the rules and orders in force. However only 153 persons are working in the above sanctioned posts.

9. In exercise of the powers conferred under rule 48 of the General Rules contained in Part-II Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules in Volume I of the Tamil Nadu Services Manual 1987, the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby relaxes the rule 10(a)(i) of the General Rules for Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services so as to enable the Government to appoint 153 Contract Medical Officers and 1352 Contract Medical Consultants temporarily as Assistant Surgeons in the Tamil Nadu Medical Service pending passing of the Special Qualifying Examination proposed to be conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.

10. The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine is directed to instruct all the Contract Medical Officers and Contract Medical Consultants who are brought into time scale of pay to appear for the Special Qualifying Examination proposed to be conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for regularizing their services. Further, the temporary Assistant Surgeons who are in service without being selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the Special Qualifying Examination conducted earlier shall also be instructed to appear for the Special Qualifying Examination to be conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for regularisation of their services.

11. The individuals mentioned above who have not passed in the Special Qualifying Examination proposed to be held shall be ousted from service without assigning any reason therefor.

12. This order issues with the concurrence of the Finance Department vide its U.O.No.350 / DS (PU) / 2006-1 dated 20.11.2006.

(BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR)

V.K. SUBBURAJ
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

To
The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai-6.
The Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, Chennai-6.
The Director of Medical Education, Chennai-10.
The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,Chennai-2.
The Accountant General (A&E), Tamil Nadu, Chennai-18.
The Accountant General (Audit), Tamil Nadu, Chennai-18.
The Pay and Accounts Officer (South), Chennai-35.
The Pay and Accounts Officer (East), Chennai-5.
The Pay and Accounts Officer (North), Chennai-79.
Copy to:
Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Pers.C) Department, Chennai-9.
Finance (Health-I) Department, Chennai-9.
The Special Personal Assistant to Minister (Health), Chennai-9.
The Special Personal Assistant to Minister (Finance), Chennai-9.
The Secretary to Chief Minister, Chennai-9.
Sf/Sc

//Forwarded/by Order//

SECTION OFFICER

Chennai High Court Stays Special TNPSC

சென்னை :

அரசுப் பணியில் கடந்த 2003ம் ஆண்டு நியமிக்கப்பட்ட தற்காலிக ஊழியர்கள் 11 ஆயிரத்துக்கும் மேற்பட்டோரை நிரந்தரப்படுத்த அரசு எடுக்கும் நடவடிக்கையை எதிர்த்து சென்னை ஐகோர்ட்டில் மனு தாக்கல் செய்யப்பட்டுள்ளது. தற்காலிக ஊழியர்களைப் பொறுத்தவரை தற்போதையை நிலையே தொடர வேண்டும் என்று சென்னை ஐகோர்ட் இடைக்கால உத்தரவிட்டுள்ளது.

சென்னை ஐகோர்ட்டில் வக்கீல் எம்.ஞானசேகர் என்பவர் தாக்கல் செய்த மனுவில் கூறியிருப்பதாவது:

கடந்த 2003ம் ஆண்டு அரசு ஊழியர்கள் போராட்டத்தில் குதித்தனர். இதையடுத்து போராட்டத்தில் ஈடுபட்டதாக பணியில் இருந்து அரசு ஊழியர்கள் டிஸ்மிஸ் செய்யப்பட்டனர். டிஸ்மிஸ் செய்யப்பட்ட இடங்களில் தற்காலிகப் பணியாளர்களை வேலை வாய்ப்பு அலுவலகம் மூலம் தேர்ந்தெடுத்து அரசு நியமித்தது. இவ்வாறு 10 ஆயிரத்துக்கும் மேற்பட்ட ஊழியர்களை ஒப்பந்த முறையில் இளநிலை உதவியாளர்களாக அரசு நியமித்தது. இவர்கள் தமிழ்நாடு அரசுப் பணியாளர்கள் தேர்வாணையம் மூலம் தேர்ந்தெடுக்கப்படவில்லை. பணியில் இவர்களை நியமிக்கும் போது "தற்காலிகமாக ஒப்பந்த அடிப்படையில் நியமிக்கப்படுவதாகவும் பிற்காலத்தில் இதை வைத்து பணியில் உரிமை கோர மாட்டோம்' என்றும் அவர்களிடம் உத்தரவாதம் பெற்றனர்.

தற்போதைய நிலையில் தமிழக அரசின் பல்வேறு துறைகளில் 11 ஆயிரத்துக்கு மேற்பட்ட ஒப்பந்த தொழிலாளர்கள் பணிபுரிந்து வருகின்றனர். அனுமதிக்கப்பட்ட பணியிடங்கள் 7 ஆயிரத்து702. அப்படியிருக்கும் போது எப்படி 11 ஆயிரத்துக்கும் மேற்பட்ட ஒப்பந்தத் தொழிலாளர்களை பணியில் தொடர அனுமதிக்கின்றனர் என்பது தெரியவில்லை. அரசின் செயலர்கள் கூட்டத்தில் நடந்த விவாதத்தின் அடிப்படையில் கடந்த 19ம் தேதி ஒரு அரசாணை பிறப்பிக்கப்பட்டது. அதில், ஒப்பந்த அடிப்படையில் தற்காலிகமாக நியமிக்கப்பட்டவர்களின் நலனை கருத்தில் கொண்டு அவர்களுக்கென்று டி.என்.பி.எஸ்.சி., மூலம் குரூப்4 அளவில் தேர்வு நடத்தி இளநிலை உதவியாளராக பணிக்கு தேர்ந்தெடுப்பது என்று கூறப்பட்டுள்ளது. மேலும் குரூப்4 அளவில் சிறப்புத் தேர்வு நடத்துமாறு டி.என்.பி.எஸ்.சி.,யையும் கேட்டுக் கொண்டுள்ளது.

இத்தகைய உத்தரவை பிறப்பிப்பதற்கு தமிழக அரசுக்கு அதிகார வரம்பில்லை. இளநிலை உதவியாளர் பணியிடங்களை நிரப்புவது டி.என்.பி.எஸ்.சி.,யின் அதிகார வரம்புக்கு உட்பட்டது. ஒப்பந்த ஊழியர்களை கொண்டு முழுவதுமாக அதை நிரப்ப முடியாது. ஒப்பந்த ஊழியர்களுக்காக மட்டுமே சிறப்புத் தேர்வு நடத்துவது என்பது வேலைவாய்ப்பு அலுவலகத்தில் பதிவு செய்து காத்திருக்கும் ஆயிரக்கணக்கான பேர்களை புறக்கணிப்பதாகும். இது சட்டவிரோதமானது. ஒப்பந்த ஊழியர்களை பணியில் நியமிக்கும் கட்டத்தில் அவர்களது பணி நிபந்தனைகள் பற்றி அவர்களுக்கு கூறப்பட்டுள்ளது. ஒப்பந்த ஊழியர்களை தேர்ந்தெடுக்கும் போது இடஒதுக்கீட்டை, வேலைவாய்ப்பு அலுவலகத்தில் பதிவு செய்யப்பட்ட சீனியாரிட்டியை அரசு பின்பற்றவில்லை.

எனவே, கடந்த 19ம் தேதி தமிழக அரசு பிறப்பித்த அரசாணைக்கு தடை விதிக்க வேண்டும். இந்த உத்தரவை ரத்து செய்ய வேண்டும்.

இவ்வாறு அந்த மனுவில் கூறப்பட்டுள்ளது.

இம்மனு நேற்று தலைமை நீதிபதி ஏ.பி.ஷா, நீதிபதி சந்துரு ஆகியோர் அடங்கிய "முதல் பெஞ்ச்' முன் விசாரணைக்கு வந்தது. இம்மனுவுக்கு நான்கு வாரங்களுக்குள் பதிலளிக்குமாறு தமிழக அரசுக்கு "முதல் பெஞ்ச்' உத்தரவிட்டது. தற்காலிக ஊழியர்களைப் பொறுத்தவரை தற்போதைய நிலையே தொடர வேண்டும் என்றும் "முதல் பெஞ்ச்' உத்தரவிட்டுள்ளது.

Temporary appointments made on contract basis during 2003

ABSTRACT

Public Services-Temporary appointments made on contract basis during 2003-
Conduct of Special Competitive Examination by Tamil Nadu Public Service
Commission-Orders-issued

PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (P) DEPARTMENT

G.O.Ms.No. 155 DATED: 19 .9.2006

READ:

1. G.O.Ms.No.84, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (G)
Department, dated 4.7.2003
2. G.O.Ms.No.85, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (G)
Department, dated 4.7.2003
…………….
ORDER:
In the Government Orders read above, orders have been issued for appointment of temporary Assistants / Junior Assistants in Secretariat and in various Departments in the Districts on contract basis. Taking into account the welfare of those appointed temporarily on contract basis and are continuing in service at present, Government have decided to conduct a Special Competitive Examination in Group IV standard, through the Tamil Nadu Public Service
Commission so as to absorb them as Junior Assistant in Tamil Nadu Ministerial
Service/ Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service.

2. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission is therefore requested to conduct a Special Competitive Examination in Group IV Standard to the above Assistants / Junior Assistants continuing in service as Assistant in the Departments of Secretariat and as Junior Assistant in the Districts so as to absorb them as Junior Assistant in the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service/ Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service .

(BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR)

L.K. TRIPATHY
CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

To
The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
Chennai- 2.
All Departments of Secretariat, Chennai- 9.
The Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Secretariat, Chennai -9.
All Heads of Departments
All Collectors and District Judges,
All Sections in Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department,Chennai 9.
The Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Chennai 35
The Director of Employment and Training, Chennai 5
The Registrar of High Court, Chennai 104
Stock File/Spare Copies.

/Forwarded/ By Order/

Section Officer