Chhaya Bapurao Shinde vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6176 Bom

                                                  906-wp-12027-2019 aw wp-12903.odt
                                       (1)

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     906 WRIT PETITION NO.12027 OF 2019

 1.       Sayyed Hinabanu Sharfoddin,
          Age 27 year, Occ. Staf urse,
          R/o Sugaon (Camp),
          Tal. Mukhed, Dist. anded.

 2.       Pradnya Bhausaheb Gandhale,
          Age 27 years, Occ. Staf urse,
          R/o Samrat Ashok agar,
          Tandulwadi Road, Kallamb,
          Tal. Kallamb, Dist. Osmanabad.

 3.       Surekha Bapurao Jadhav,
          Age 34 years, Occ. Staf urse,
          R/o Ahmedpur, Tal. Ahmedpur,
          District Latur.                                  ...Petitioners

                  Versus

 1.       State of Maharashtra
          Through its Principal Secretary,
          Public Health Department,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai.

 2.       Commissioner of
          Health Services and Project Director,
          Health Mission, Mumbai.

 3.       Director of Health Services,
          Directorate of Health Services,
          Mumbai-002.

 4.       Deputy Director of Health Services,
          Arogyabhavan, Mumbai.

 5.       Deputy Director of Health Services,
          Latur Region, Latur.                             ...Respondents



                                    WITH
                        WRIT PETITION NO.12903 OF 2019

 Chhaya Bapurao Shinde,
 Age 30 years, Occ. Service,
 R/o Ambika agar, Palwan Road,
 Beed, Tal. & District Beed.                               ...Petitioner

                  Versus


::: Uploaded on - 08/04/2021                      ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 19:03:05 :::
                                                      906-wp-12027-2019 aw wp-12903.odt
                                          (2)



 1.       State of Maharashtra
          Through its Principal Secretary,
          Public Health Department,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai.

 2.       Commissioner of
          Health Services and Project Director,
          Health Mission, Mumbai.

 3.       Director of Health Services,
          Directorate of Health Services,
          Mumbai-002.

 4.       Deputy Director of Health Services,
          Arogya Bhavan, Mumbai.

 5.       Deputy Director of Health Services,
          Latur Region, Latur.                               ...Respondents
                                       ...

 Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate for the Petitioners.
 Mr. P. . Kutti, learned AGP for the Respondents/State.
                                      ...

                                      CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN &
                                              M.G. SEWLIKAR, JJ.

DATED : 07 th APRIL, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER UJJAL BHUYAN, J) :-

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. We have heard Mr. Thombre, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mr. P. . Kutti, learned AGP for the respondents.

3. Petitioners in these two writ petitions are nurses having

qualifed in G M course. They are registered with the Maharashtra

ursing Council. Without entering into the details as set out in the two writ

petitions, we may refer to the identical prayers made which are as under:

"A. This Writ Petition may kindly be allowed.

B. By issuing an appropriate writ, order or directions in the

906-wp-12027-2019 aw wp-12903.odt

like nature, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to conduct the Special Written Examination for the petitioners as like the special written examination held on 22.09.2019 and for that purpose issue necessary orders;

C. Pending the hearing and fnal disposal of this Writ Petition, the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioners to appear for the special written examination which is scheduled on 22.09.2019 and for that purpose issue necessary orders;

D. Any other suitable and equitable reliefs may kindly be granted in favour of the Petitioners;"

4. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the

issue raised in the two writ petitions are covered by a division bench

decision of this Court dated 06.10.2020 passed in Writ Petition o.11645

of 2019 and other connected cases.

5. In view of above, we may extract the relevant portion of the

judgment and order dated 06.10.2020 which reads as under:

"16. The reason by respondents that the government had no intention to regularize services of those who were not in services from the date of examination, appear to be over stretched rather over-reaching and not compatible with the decision as is appearing from the Government Resolution dated 28-06-2019. Moreover, while in paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-reply fled by respondent o.1, it has been specifcally referred to that issue arose in respect of nurses recruited during 01-01-2012 to 15-04-2015. Albeit, it is further superimposed referring to that, who were still working and confrmed and having regard to that rectifcation under government resolution dated 28-06-2019 was issued. While it is so stated in the affidavit yet the government appears to have resolved to accommodate those nurses who were

906-wp-12027-2019 aw wp-12903.odt

working till 15-04-2015 and it had not intended as contended in the reply were required to be working after the said date till the date of special examination. Regard may be had to the portions in Marathi, reproduced hereinabove. The government resolution does not at all refer to that the candidates shall be working till the examination is held. On the other hand, it specifcally declares approval to that bonded nurses working up to 15-04-2015 would be considered eligible to appear at the special examination. It does not appear that the intention underlying the government resolution would be as sought to be interpreted as appearing from the two affidavits-in-reply respectively in paragraph o.7 of frst and paragraph o.5 of later. Resistance in affidavit-in- reply is digressed from the underlying purpose spelt out in the resolution. The Government Resolution had been issued with a view to accommodate the nurses/staf appointed during the period from 01-01-2012 to 15-04-2015. Petitioners' claim that they were appointed during period from 01-01-2012 to 15-04- 2015 and were working up to the cutof date has not been disputed. It is also to be noted that, they were appointed for 18 months on bond and their further continuation on ad-hoc or contractual basis were at the pleasure of respondents while respondents specifcally refer to that the kind of services rendered by the petitioners were essential services for healthcare.

17. In the face of clauses reproduced hereinabove from the Government Decision dated 28-06-2019, insistence about being in service till the date of special examination incompatible with, incongruous to and digressed from the purpose underlying the same. The reason referred to refecting reluctance and disinclination emerging from the affidavits-in-reply to consider petitioners eligible, is untenable. In the circumstances, the petition will have to be considered accordingly.

18. Petitioners are stated to have appeared at the examination held on 22-09-2019 pursuant to interim directions issued by this court and it has further been

906-wp-12027-2019 aw wp-12903.odt

referred to that, their results have also been declared and the petitioners have been declared to be successful in the same.

19. In the circumstances, the petitions stand disposed of in terms of prayer clause (B), and (C) as well albeit purpose under the same appears to have been worked out.

20. Rule is made absolute accordingly."

6. Accordingly, the two writ petitions are also disposed of in

terms of prayer clauses (B) and (C) as extracted above, subject to the

eligibility of the petitioners to appear in the special written examination for

the post of staf nurse. However, as the special written examination

scheduled on 22.09.2019 is over, let a fresh special written examination

be conducted by the respondents within a period of two months from the

date of receipt of copy of this order.

7. Both writ petitions are disposed of.

8. Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

 [M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.]                                  [UJJAL BHUYAN, J.]




 Mujaheed//