Court rules 2006 order on Jaruvan is constitutional

Jaruvan’s case is problematic because the order was in conflict with the law governing the Office of the Auditor General, which only allows the holder of the post to serve until the age of 65.
The court did not rule on whether Jaruvan should be reinstated. It will send its ruling to the Administrative Court to decide that issue.
In October 2010 the Central Adminis-trative Court ruled that then-auditor general Jaruvan should be removed from office due to her reaching mandatory retirement age, before endorsing Pisit Leelavachiropas as her replacement.
In its decision, the court said Jaruvan’s tenure ended when she reached the retirement age of 65 in July of that year. It also cancelled Jaruvan’s August 2010 order nullifying Pisit’s appointment as acting auditor general.
The case against Jaruvan was brought before the Administrative Court by the Office of the Ombudsman. Pisit later asked to become a co-plaintiff.
Jaruvan told the Administrative Court during her closing statement that she was not trying to hold on to the position, but simply did not want to be charged with dereliction of duty for stepping down before an official replacement was appointed. She said she had asked the Senate three times to expedite selection of the new State Audit Commission members and the auditor general, only to be told that the selection committee was waiting on Parliament to pass a new state auditing law.
The court said that although Jaruvan’s term had been extended in 2006 by the coup-makers – the Council for Democra-tic Reform – until September 30, 2007, she had no right to stay on until the new auditor-general was appointed. The court said that according to the state auditing law, Jaruvan could serve for one five-year term or until she reached the age of 65, both of which she had exceeded.
Jaruvan later appealed the verdict to the Supreme Administrative Court, which asked the Constitutional Court to rule on the constitutionality of the coup-makers’ order.