AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
All that has happened is that the learned Judge has adopted a consistency of approach in his order of 12 March 2001 on CWJC. No. 1659 of 2001. The order dated 12 March 2001 is basically based on the order passed on CWJC. No. 1540 of 1994 (21 January 19S5). The State is attempting to impugn the order today after 2 years.
The contention on behalf of the State Counsel is, to the effect, that the appointments as had been made and may have been the subject matter of an issue even in CWJC. No. 1540 of 1994 and these appointments were irregular for more than one reason. The answer of the court to this is very simple. Whoever made these irregular appointments, let a departmental inquiry be made against those officers and they be proceeded with and punished for administrative lapses in making illegal appointments. Otherwise, what is happening is that the High Court is getting cluttered with cases in which the State counsel is coming out with a defence that the appointments were made illegally.
The question is who made them? Let the State take action both ways; against appointments and against those who made them.
The court has no reason to Interfere with the order on the writ petition.
Dismissed.