The Advocate General of the Uttarakhand Government, SN Babulkar, has expressed his inability to give legal opinion on the legality of regularizing the ad hoc appointments made between 2001 and 2015 in the Vidhansabha. Along with this, a situation of confusion has also arisen regarding these old appointments. In this way, the ease with which the employees engaged on backdoor recruitment during 2016 to 2021 were shown the way out in the Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly, in the same process, the employees recruited before 2016 are not seeing the same ease in the matter. Speaker Ritu Khanduri Bhushan has only one answer to the question related to this, no comment.
But according to what is now coming out through social media, he has not been able to get the legal opinion he had sought from Advocate General SN Babulkar regarding the pre-2016 appointments. The Advocate General has sent a letter to him saying that he is not in a position to give any opinion since the case related to 228 employees expelled from the Vidhansabha is pending in a single bench of the High Court. He has also advised the speaker that he should wait for the decision of the single bench.
The Advocate General had sent his opinion only on January 9
It is worth noting that the Advocate General had sent his opinion to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly on January 9 itself. But after receiving the reply, it quickly became a matter of discussion that the Speaker has sought legal opinion from the government. The question is whether the Assembly had written again to the Advocate General for legal opinion? When the speaker was asked on the issue related to this, he flatly refused to give any response.
Was the government in the dark about the legal opinion?
There is also the question whether the government was also in the dark about the legal opinion? Was the government unaware that the Advocate General had given his reply to the Speaker on January 8 itself? These questions are arising because Radha Raturi, Additional Chief Secretary to the Chief Minister, wrote a letter to the Advocate General on January 19 to give his advice on the legality of regularization of ad hoc appointments made in the Assembly Secretariat.