Ruchi Verma vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1568 Chatt

                                             1


                                                                                NAFR

                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                  WPS No. 4007 of 2021
          1. Ruchi Verma D/o Shri Jitendra Kumar Verma Aged About 23 Years R/o
             Near Vishnu Petrol Pump, Baloda Bazar Road, Palari, P.S. And Tahsil-
             Palari, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh
          2. Renu Sharma D/o Shri Toran Prasad Sharma Aged About 24 Years R/o
             Village- Bhalesoor, Post- Mohra, Tahsil- Simga, P.S.- Suhela, District-
             Baloda- Bazaar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh
          3. Heena Verma D/o Shri Devendra Vema Aged About 23 Years R/o Village
             And Post - Devsundra, Tahsil And Ps- Palari, District- Balodabazar-
             Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh
          4. Bhusan Lal Sahu S/o Shri Shriram Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Village
             And Post- Dattan, Tahsil And P.S - Palari, District- Balodabazar-
             Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh
                                                                     ---- Petitioners
                                           Versus
          1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Health And
             Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Police Station And Post-
             Rakhi, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District- Raipur
          2. Director Office Of Director, Department Of Health And Family Welfare,
             Indravati Bhavan, Police Staion And Post- Rakhi, Atal Nagar, New Raipur,
             District- Raipur, chhattisgarh
          3. Chief Medical And Health Officer(Cmho) Office Of Chief Medical And
             Health Officer (Cmho), Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara,
             Chhattisgarh
                                                                   ---- Respondents

     For Petitioner                    :      Mr. Abhishek Pandey with
                                              Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Advocate
     For State                         :      Mr. Suyash Dhar, P.L.



                          Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
                                   Order on Board

05/08/2021

1. The grievance of the petitioner seems to be the apprehension of his

being removed by another contractual appointee and thereby the

petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to continue

with the services of the petitioner till the Department fills up the

vacant post by way of regular appointments.

2. The brief facts which has led to the filing of the present writ petition

is that the petitioner herein got appointed as a contractual staff

nurse vide order dated 26.08.2020. The appointment of the

petitioner was pursuant to a due selection process initiated on the

basis of an advertisement that was issued on 16.07.2020.

According to the petitioner, he has all the requisite eligibility criteria

and the educational qualification for the post of staff nurse. It is

further contention of the petitioner that after her initial appointment

for a period of 90 days, the services of the petitioner has again been

renewed and the petitioner is still working as a contractual staff

nurse under the respondents. At this juncture, the petitioner

apprehends that since the respondents have now vide

advertisement dated 03.05.2021 have issued another

advertisement for filling up of 20 posts of staff nurse and in case if

the said recruitment process is completed, the respondents may

discontinue with the contractual appointment of the petitioner under

the scheme for which the said recruitment was made and he would

be replaced.

3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that since the respondents

have already been selected after undergoing a selection process,

there is no reason why the services of the petitioner should be

substituted by another contractual appointee. The counsel for the

petitioner referred to a judgment of this Court in the case of "Manju

Gupta & others v. State of Chhattisgarh & others" WPS No.

4406/2016, decided on 27.02.2017 in this regard, wherein this

Court had granted protection to similarly placed contractual

appointees and had restrained the respondents from substituting

one set of contractual appointees by another set of contractual

appointees. This Court had granted the liberty of the respondents-

State in filling up of the post by way of regular appointment. The

petitioner through this petition seeks for a similar relief.

4. Per contra, the learned State counsel on the other hand referring to

the advertisement of July, 2021 submits that the very advertisement

itself reflects that it has been issued for filling up of the vacant

contractual posts lying at District Baloda Bazar, Bhatapara and all

other contentions of the petitioner are all based on apprehension.

There is no decision as such is taken by the respondents calling for

a judicial review of the advertisement or for that matter warranting

any interference or issuance of a mandamus at this juncture qua

the relief which has been sought by the petitioner.

5. It was the further contention of the respondent that the appointment

of the petitioner was under a different scheme altogether whereas

the advertisement now published is under an altogether different

scheme. The two services are therefore not connected or related to

each other.

6. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal

of record, admittedly, the petitioner has been selected on the post of

staff nurse after undergoing a due process of selection from an

advertisement that was issued followed by due scrutiny of the

eligibility and the credentials of the petitioner. It is also not in dispute

that the services of the petitioner also appears to be satisfactory

and that is the reason why the services of the petitioner has been

extended beyond the initial engagement of 90 days. If that be so,

there should not be any reason, why the services of the petitioner

be discontinued at this juncture and she be replaced by another

contractual appointee under the scheme under which the petitioner

was appointed. Though the advertisement specifically states that it

is for the vacant post of staff nurse, it is presumed that the

recruitment to be made is in respect of those posts, which are still

lying vacant, even after the appointment of the petitioner.

7. In view of the same, following the judgment of this Court in the case

of "Manju Gupta" (supra) and also a catena of other decisions of

similar nature that has been passed, the writ petition at this juncture

stands disposed of holding that the respondents should not replace

the services of the petitioner by another contractual appointee

under the scheme under which the petitioner was appointed, unless

the services of the petitioner is dispensed with on account of

unsatisfactory work or for any other reason. So far as the

advertisement, which has been issued this Court would not interfere

with the same.

8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ

petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit