Ram Singh Amrude vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 12933 MP

                             1
 IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    AT JABALPUR
                          BEFORE
            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
                       CHIEF JUSTICE
                             &
            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
                   ON THE 9 th OF AUGUST, 2023
                  WRIT APPEAL No. 1135 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
RAM SINGH AMRUDE S/O LAKHAN LAL AMRUDE,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION: INCHARGE
DISTRICT  PROGRAMME      MANAGER     NATIONAL
HEALTH MISSION IN THE OFFICE OF CHIEF MEDICAL
AND HEALTH OFFICER TIKAMGARH DISTRICT
TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                    .....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SARTHAK NEMA - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
      THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
      PUBLIC HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
      VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    MISSION      DIRECTOR NATIONAL  HEALTH
      M ISSION LINK ROAD-3 OPPOSITE PATRAKAR
      COLONY BHOPAL DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

3.    THE DIRECTOR NATIONAL HEALTH MISSION
      LINK ROAD-3 OPPOSITE PATRAKAR COLONY
      BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.    THE    COLLECTOR T I K A M G A R H DISTRICT
      TIKAMGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.    THE CHIEF MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER
      TIKAM GARH DISTRICT TIKAMGARH (MADHYA
      PRADESH)
                                     2
                                                                .....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI S.S. CHAUHAN - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.1, 4 & 5 AND
SHRI SATYAM AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 & 3 )

       This appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice passed the following:
                                      ORDER

Aggrieved by the common order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petitions, the petitioner is in appeal. In terms whereof, the facts as narrated in W.P. No.27731 of 2021 were considered by the learned Single Judge since the facts were identical and similar in the other writ petitions also.

2. The case of the writ petitioners is that on 04.02.2021 the respondent No.2 namely the Mission Director, National Health Mission, Madhya Pradesh issued an advertisement inviting applications from the eligible candidates for appointment to the posts of DPM/DCM/DAM. The said posts were to be filled on the basis of a limited departmental examination. That only existing employees were entitled to participate in the said examination. It is a case of the writ petitioners that all of them possessed the eligibility as per the criteria fixed by the respondents. They appeared in the examination and were declared successful. Consequently, a select list was prepared and the petitioners were appointed as District Accounts Officers by the order dated 07.06.2021. Thereafter, the respondents by the order dated 23.07.2021 cancelled the entire selection process. The same was sought to be challenged by the instant writ petition. During the pendency of the proceedings, a question was framed by the learned Single Judge as stated by him in para 6 which reads as follows:-

"6. Before considering as to whether the impugned order dated 23.7.2021 by which the entire selection process was cancelled, is correct or not, this Court thinks it proper to consider as to whether

holding of limited intra departmental examination was in accordance with law or not? Accordingly, counsels for the parties were directed to address on the question as to whether limited intra departmental examination for filling up the post of DPM/DAM/DCM was permissible or not."

And thereafter a question was framed in para 10 to the effect that as to whether the National Health Mission namely the contesting respondent, can debar general candidates, who are not the employees of the National Health Mission, to participate in the recruitment to the aforesaid posts on contract basis or not.

3. The learned Single Judge by relying on various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,s did not accept the contentions of the petitioners and the writ petitions were dismissed.

4. The reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge, in brief, is as stated by him in para 26 of the order. Questioning the same, the writ petitioner is in appeal.

5. We have heard learned counsels. The contention of the appellant is that the learned Single Judge committed an error in dismissing the writ petitions. That the respondent No.2 with an object to take in only those persons who have experience in the said field, has issued the advertisement. That no other persons would have experience as called for in the advertisement. Therefore, in order to assist the respondents in having persons with better qualifications and experience the said advertisement has been brought about. Therefore, the

classification made therein is just and appropriate and no interference is called for.

6. However, on considering the contentions, we do not find any merit in this appeal.

7. The learned Single Judge very clearly held that so far as restricting the advertisement only to those persons who are in the department, is inappropriate.

That since it is an appointment being made, the same should be open to every single person who is eligible. Whether any other person is eligible other than the persons who are already in service, is quite a different question. But the advertisement itself restricts the applications only to those persons who are already in service with the department. Clause 4.3 to the said effect would be noticed in support of such a plea. The same restricts the people alone as stated therein and only those persons and none other can apply. Therefore, we are of the view that this is a clear violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. When a recruitment process has been initiated, all those who are eligible are entitled to apply. It cannot be restricted only to a certain class of people as in the instant case it has been restricted only to the employees of respondent No.2 and none other. This we feel is inappropriate and cannot be upheld.

8. Hence, for all these reasons, we do not find any reason to interfere in the well considered order of the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.

                               (RAVI MALIMATH)                                           (VISHAL MISHRA)
                                 CHIEF JUSTICE                                                JUDGE
     vibha
Digitally signed by VIBHA PACHORI
Date: 2023.08.10 14:20:35 +05'30'