Chattisgarh High Court
Aman Abhishek vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 July, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 3555 of 2021
Aman Abhishek S/o Mr. Ajay Kumar Das Aged About 24 Years Presently
Working As Staff Nurse (Male) At District Dedicated Covid Hospital
Mungeli District Mungeli Chhattisgarh, R/o Gokul Nagar, Ward No. 04,
Behind Takshila School , Ghuru, Tifra, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.,
District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Health
And Family Welfare , Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar,
Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Director Directorate Of Health And Family Welfare , Mantralaya
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. Chief Medical And Health Officer District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate
For State : Ms. Abhyunnati Singh, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
13/07/2021
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 31.01.2021. The appointment of the
petitioner was pursuant to a due selection process initiated on the
basis of an advertisement that was issued on 25.08.2020.
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 30.01.2021 have issued another
advertisement for filling up of 12 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 January, 2021 submits that the very
advertisement itself reflects that it has been issued for filling up of
the vacant contractual posts lying at District Mungeli and all other
contentions of the petitioner are all based on apprehension. There
is no decision as such 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 petitioner 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, under the scheme in the advertisement has been
issued.
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
Ved
