Sunday, 04 September 2022 | Gajendra Singh Negi | DEHRADUN
Contrary to the claim the HC in fact had stayed the regularisation of ad hoc appointments in Vidhan Sabha
Contrary to the consistent claims of former Vidhan Sabha speakers Prem Chand Agarwal and Govind Singh Kunjwal that the appointments done by them in the Assembly are as per the rules and the Uttarakhand High Court had approved these appointments, the fact is the HC had issued a stay on regularisation of the employees appointment on an ad hoc basis in Vidhan Sabha.
The constitution of an expert committee by speaker Ritu Khanduri on the issue despite the claims of her predecessors also shows that she wants to settle the contentious subject of the privilege and discretion of the speaker in making appointments and resurrect the public image of the Vidhan Sabha dented by these appointments.
Former speaker Kunjwal has been consistently saying that the Uttarakhand High Court had validated the appointments made during his tenure in the Rajesh Chandola and others versus Uttarakhand Vidhan Sabha secretariat and others case in its judgement of June 26, 2018. However apart from ordering a stay on regularisation of the ad hoc workers, the division bench of the then Chief Justice KM Joseph and Justice Alok J Singh had observed that the appointments even if classified as ad hoc could not be made in violation of statute and in regards to the essential qualifications.
Chandola had filed a writ petition (PIL) number 66, 2017 and stated that appointments made between January 2016 and December 2016 in Vidhan Sabha were in violation of the Uttarakhand Vidhan Sabha Secretariat Rules (Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules) -2011. The petitioners had demanded the constitution of a high powered committee to investigate appointments made on the posts of peon, guard, editor, reporter, reviewing officer (RO), assistant reviewing officer (ARO) and assistant private secretary. In its judgement, the HC did not order the formation of high powered committee as demanded by the petitioners but stated that since the appointments were not done by the selection committee, they cannot be held to be “substantive” appointments.
It is worth mentioning here that Kunjwal and his successor Prem Chand Agarwal who had appointed 159 and 72 persons respectively in Vidhan Sabha cite the HC order in the above mentioned case as evidence that the appointments made by them were clean. In fact the Vidhan Sabha secretariat had told the court that the appointments are of temporary nature and were made for tending after the Vidhan Sabha located at Gairsain, which is the potential new capital of Uttarakhand.
In response to a question, the speaker Ritu Khanduri accepted that the speaker of the Assembly has some privileges and special powers but under what framework these privileges should be viewed would be looked at by the expert committee.
Former MLA of Kedarnath Manoj Rawat said that the HC in the Rajesh Chandola case has not given its approval to the appointments made in the Uttarakhand Vidhan Sabha. He said that the speaker does not have the privilege to make appointments in violation of rules and regulations.
