Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly’s Additional Secretary L.S. Vasanthimalar and Joint Secretary B. Subramaniyam have jointly filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court accusing Speaker P. Dhanapal of attempting to get his special private secretary K. Srinivasan appointed as the Assembly Secretary “through hook or crook.”
Claiming that orders relating to creation of a post of Special Secretary on December 14 and appointment of Mr. Srinivasan to that post on December 20 had not been made public, the petitioners sought for a writ of declaration that the posts of Assembly Secretary and Special Secretary could be filled up only with senior-most officers in the general administrative wing.
Filing an affidavit on behalf of the duo, Ms. Vasanthimalar stated that the employees of the Assembly were governed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Secretariat Service Rules.
The employees were also divided into two broad categories: the Reporting Wing consisting of staff who record the Assembly proceedings and the General Administrative Wing. As on date, there were 36 post of Reporter, five posts of Chief Reporter, six posts of Deputy Secretary (Editor), three posts of Joint Secretary (Editor of Debates) and two posts of Additional Secretary (Editor of Debates) in the reporting wing. On the other hand, there were 497 posts in the general administrative wing leading to the highest post of Assembly Secretary.
Claiming that those serving in the reporting wing could not become Assembly Secretary since they would not be conversant with the nature of the job, the petitioners said that Mr. Srinivasan was appointed as a ‘steno typist’ in 1991 in the general administrative wing and got shifted to the reporting wing in 1995 before his appointment as private secretary to the Speaker.
‘A test of loyalty’
They recalled that one A.M.P. Jamaludeen was appointed as Assembly Secretary on May 16, 2011, and though he attained the age of superannuation on May 31, 2012, he was given an extension of service till May 31, 2017.
Thereafter, the incumbent Assembly Secretary K. Boopathy should have been appointed immediately.
However, the Speaker, in order to test the loyalty of Mr. Boopathy, appointed him as Assembly Secretary (in-charge) on June 3, 2017 and made him continue so till September 7 when he was appointed as a regular Assembly Secretary. “The delay of about more than three months would show that there is something more than what meets the eye,” the petitioners claimed.
Further, pointing out that Mr. Boopathy was due to retire from service on February 28, the petitioners alleged that a new post of Special Secretary had been created on December 14 and Mr. Srinivasan had been appointed to that post on December 20 with the intention of elevating him to the post of Assembly Secretary immediately after the incumbent’s retirement.
The appointment of Mr. Boopathy was shrouded in mystery and he had not taken formal charge in the said post, the petitioners further said.
