STATE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU Vs. K VIJAYAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. By consent of the parties, the writ appeal as well as the writ petition ar e taken up for hearing. The parties are referred as arrayed in the writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner is challenging G. O. Ms. No. 201, Health and Family Welfare (M1) Department dated 31. 08. 2005 issued by the first respondent granting extension of service to the 3rd respondent for a period of one year commencing from 01. 09. 2005 to 31. 08. 2006. THE impugned order was purportedly passed in exercise of power available under Fundamental Rule 56 (1 ) (a) in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 2035, Public (Services-A) Department dated 28. 10. 1969.

(3.) ACCORDING to the respondent-State extension of service has been granted to the 3rd respondent under Fundamental Rule 56 ( 1 ) (a) only after taking into consideration her extraordinary capabilities. It is claimed that the 3rd respondent has 37 years of vast experience in testing food/drugs and cosmetics and has knowledge in testing all drugs and she has been notified as member of the prestigious Drug Technical advisory Board. She has also audited certain State Drug Testing Laboratories, and on the request of the Jammu and Kashmir Government, she has submitted her report in respect of strengthening their State Drug Testing Laboratory. Apart from that, she is a Fellow of the Chemical Society of London. It is also claimed that during her tenure, she has developed the Microbiology Section of the Laboratory and Vitamin B-12, Folic Acid and Calcium Pantothenate (in Multivitamin formulations) assay by Microbiological method during the year 1987. It is also claimed that during her tenure, the Government of India and the World Bank have sanctioned funds for the Drug Testing Laboratory, Chennai. It is claimed that keeping in view of all these factors, the State Government has decided to grant extension to the 3rd respondent for a period of one year.