HC confirms order on job preference to former inmates

April 15, 2016 12:00 am | Updated 05:36 am IST - MADURAI:

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court Bench here has confirmed a single judge’s order directing the Director of Social Defence to give preference to former inmates of homes run by the State government for the rehabilitation of neglected, abandoned, surrendered or abused children while filling up vacancies in lower level jobs in those homes.

The Division Bench comprising Justices S. Manikumar and C.T. Selvam dismissed a writ appeal preferred this year by the Director of Social Defence and Director of Employment and Training against the order passed by Justice D. Hariparanthaman (since retired) on July 23, 2012, and held that they did not find any reason to interfere with the single judge’s order.

The 2012 order had been passed while allowing a writ petition filed by a former inmate of a Government Children’s Home for Boys in Thanjavur, seeking preference in the recruitment of a Guard at the same home.

The petitioner had claimed to have studied up to Class VIII in the home before moving on to a Government After Care Home in Chengalpet to study up to Class X.

Alleging that the Superintendent of Thanjavur home was attempting to appoint a Guard by calling for names from the Employment Exchange, the former inmate had approached the court seeking a direction to the officials to scrupulously follow a 1983 Government Order to provide preference to former inmates while filling up posts not falling under the purview of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.

Finding force in his submissions, Mr. Justice Hariparanthaman ordered that outsiders should not be provided employment in the homes unless there were no qualified candidates from among former inmates. However, assailing the order, the appellants claimed that such preference in employment could be provided only to former inmates of Government Vigilance Homes run for victims of immoral trafficking.

However, the Division Bench said that the appellants could not take a different stand in the appeal after having given an undertaking before the single judge to follow the 1983 G.O.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.