R PORKODI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed O.A.No.9090 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking to challenge the order passed by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.543, Health Department dated 8.10.1998. By the impugned order, the statutory Rules relating to appointment to the post of Reader in Rheumatology coming under the Director of Medical Education was amended. Even before the amendment, the 3rd respondent was posted temporarily as a Reader in Rheumatology in the Government General Hospital on 14.3.1997. THE petitioner challenged the same by O.A.No.3446 of 1997. It is stated that the said Original Application was dismissed by the Tribunal. Even otherwise, during the pendency of the Original Application, the amendment came into force and therefore the petitioner contended that in the light of Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, the State Government could not have proceeded with the amendments. That Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act operates as a bar from the Government passing the order. It is also stated that the petitioner was originally qualified as per the original Rules and the amendment made with retrospective effect has taken away her vested right of promotion.

(2.) BY the perusal of the amendment shows that the Government found that the earlier adhoc Rules were framed only when there was no separate specialities available for Rheumatology and now the speciality course has come, it is required that the said Rules will have to be framed for the said post. Challenging the said amendment, the Original Application came to be filed.

(3.) NOTWITHSTANDING the fact that the 3rd respondent retired from service, since the contentions raised by the petitioner are without substance as the Government under Article 309 of the Constitution has got power to amend statutory rules even with retrospective effect, the reason given by the Government in the impugned order cannot be said to be either arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The last contention based upon Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act is clearly without merit. Hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.