Chennai: The Madras High Court has said the
Tamil Nadu Government should draft a litigation policy on the
lines of the Centre to avoid vexatious appeals and wastage of
the court`s time.
Justice N Paul Vasanthakumar passed the order on a
contempt petition against K Ganesan, Secretary, Higher
Education Department, and Nalini Ravindran, Director of
Collegiate Education, seeking to punish them for not obeying a
Vexatious appeals and unnecessary spending on litigations
and wasting of the court`s time could be avoided by such a
policy, the judge held.
In the petition, M Uthandaraman and four others said they
served as Assistants in government colleges.
Despite having Master of Library and Information Science
(MLIS) and M Phil, their request for promotion as Librarians
in government colleges was not considered, they claimed.
The four, then, had moved to the High Court.
The court directed the authorities concerned to consider
the petitioners` claim and pass appropriate orders within two
months. As no appointment was made, the petitioners filed the
present contempt petition in April last year.
Meanwhile, the State took up the matter with the Supreme
Court. But the court dismissed a petition seeking to condone
the delay in preferring the appeal and imposed costs of Rs
25,000 payable to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services
Authority (TNSLSA) within four weeks.
The authorities were also directed to implement the
High Court order.
Accordingly, the government appointed the petitioners as
Librarians in five government colleges on September 23 this
year. It also paid the costs to the TNSLSA.
In his order treating the contempt petition as closed,
Justice Paul Vasanthakumar said in view of the Supreme Court
order and the implementation of the High Court order, no
further adjudication was necessary.
He, however, observed that the condemnation (by the
Supreme Court) could have been avoided if proper legal advice
had been obtained by the authorities.
The Tamil Nadu Government should frame a litigation
policy as had been done by the Central Government so that such
a kind of vexatious appeal could be avoided, the court held.