Merely Permitting A Protection Officer Appointed On Contract Basis To Continue Service After Completion Of One Year Doesn’t Categorize It As Appointment Under Rule 3(3) PWDV Rules: Madras HC
The Madras High Court held that merely permitting a Protection Officer who was appointed on a contract basis to continue service after the completion of the contractual period of one year does not categorise the said appointment within the scope of Rule 3(3) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules 2006 (PWDV Rules).
The Court stated that the petitioner was not appointed under Rule 3(3) of the PWDV Rules but on a contractual basis for a period of one year. As per her contract, the petitioner's services could be terminated at any time without any notice.
A Single Bench of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan observed, “It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner was appointed for the period of one year on contract basis under the consolidated salary by an order dated 26.08.2009. Thereafter she was permitted to continue her service after completion of one year. Merely permitting the petitioner to continue her service after completion of one year, doesn't amount to 'her appointment was made as per Rule 3(3) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules 2006'. As per contract, at any time without any notice, she will be terminated from her service.”
Sr. Advocate P.V.S. Giridhar represented the petitioner, while GA R.L.Karthika appeared for the respondents.
Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the PWDV Rules provides for the tenure of the Protection Officer as a minimum period of three years.
The petitioner was terminated from her services as a Protection Officer by the Social Welfare and Women Empowerment Department of Lady Wellington College without issuance of any notice and without conducting any enquiry.
The Department justified the said termination arguing that the petitioner was appointed temporarily for a period of one year on a contractual basis. Due to various complaints from the general public, her service was terminated after a detailed enquiry was conducted and the explanation submitted by the petitioner for the said complaints was deemed not satisfactory.
The Court pointed out that the petitioner was appointed as Protection Officer for the period of one year on a temporary basis on a consolidated salary.
“The said posts are not governed by any service rules of the Government and governed as per the terms of contractual agreement entered by the incumbents and the contract could be terminated before the completion of one year on the ground of unsatisfactory service on the candidate selected or on the administrative grounds or when it is felt that continued employment is found unnecessary,” the Court explained.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Pandiammal v. The Director/Commissioner & Anr.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Sr. Advocate P.V.S. Giridhar; Advocates K.G.Krishnaraj and S.Shanthakumari
Respondents: GA R.L.Karthika
