The fight for the auditor general's seat heated up yesterday when the acting auditor-general, Pisit Leelawachiropas, called a press conference with six deputies to show that his predecessor should have vacated her office, only to have her show up to defend herself.
Shortly after the media event began, Jaruvan Maintaka, the retiring auditor-general, entered the room.
She has been insisting on staying in the position until her replacement is officially appointed.
Pisit said the Office of the Auditor-General on Monday informed state agencies in a memorandum that Jaruvan has vacated the auditor-general's office.
The move was aimed at protecting the office and preventing possible adverse impact on other agencies, he said.
The office stopped disbursing Jaruvan's salary in June and is now in the process of paying her retirement benefits, he said.
However, Jaruvan questioned Pisit's authority, saying she had issued a new order dated August 18 - revoking her order appointing him, as her deputy as acting auditor-general.
"That means Pisit is no longer the acting auditor-general," she said.
Pisit should have sought a ruling from the Constitution Court or the Administrative Court regarding her status, she said, as she thought the recent opinion issued by the Council of State - the government's legal advisory arm - was not legally binding.
The council ruled that Jaruvan should have left her office in 2007, based on an order by the military clique that staged the coup of September 2006. The Council of Democratic Reform's order extended the auditor-general's term for one year until September 2007.
Jaruvan said the CDR order also stated she should take the caretaker role until her successor is appointed. She told the press conference that she had thought of stepping down immediately upon reaching retirement age of 65 early last month, but changed her mind after some law experts warned her of a possible charge of negligence.
"I'm not trying to hang onto my position. Throughout my bureaucratic career, I have performed my duties honestly," she said.
"To end this issue, it must be decided by some agency with the power to do so, such as the Administrative Court or the Constitution Court. With a final court order, I will go. Why didn't Pisit take this course?" Jaruvan said.
Pisit responded that he did not take the case to court because he believed the Office of the Auditor-General should follow the Council of State's ruling.
"The Office of the Auditor-General has often consulted with the Council of State on legal questions. So why don't we listen to the council on this issue?" he said.
Jaruvan said she did not seek a court interpretation because she had no doubts about her status and was confident that what she was doing was lawful.