Rajasthan High Court
Poonma Ram Bishnoi Son Of Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 22 August, 2023
Bench: Augustine George Masih, Sameer Jain
[2023:RJ-JP:18603-DB] (1 of 9) [SAW-922/2020]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 922/2020
1. Poonma Ram Bishnoi Son Of Shri Asuram Bishnoi, Aged
About 36 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Dawal,
Tehsil Chitalwana, District Jalore Rajasthan.
2. Raju Ram Son Of Shri Poonama Ram, Aged About 34
Years, Resident Of Village Dadusan, Post Bawarla, Tehsil
Sanchore, District Jalore (Rajasthan).
3. Narpat Chouhan Son Of Shri Rameshwar Lal, Aged About
34 Years, Resident Of Panghat Road, Ward No. 13, Village
And Post Balotra, District Barmer (Raj.).
4. Prakash Son Of Shri Chunni Lal, Aged About 35 Years,
Resident Of Near Mahadev Temple, Village And Post
Asotra, District Barmer (Rajasthan).
5. Dinesh Panwar Son Of Shri Mangi Lal Panwar, Aged About
38 Years, Resident Of Near Mali Samaj Bhawan,
Gandhipura, Balotra, District Barmer.
6. Krishna Kumar Son Of Shri Uma Ram, Aged About 42
Years, Resident Of Dabari Chooti, Tehsil Taranagar,
District Churu (Rajasthan).
7. Prakash Bola Son Of Shri Hari Ram Bola, Aged About 35
Years, Resident Of Village And Post Goda, Tehsil Sedwa,
District Barmer (Rajasthan)
8. Suresh Kumar Bera Son Of Shri Jeetmal Bera, Aged About
36 Years, Resident Of Village Katholi, Tehsil Jayal, District
Nagaur (Rajasthan)
9. Raghunath Ram Suthar Son Of Shri Heera Lal Suthar,
Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Village And Post
Chitalwana, Tehsil Chitalwana, District Jalore.
10. Swaroop Singh Chouhan Son Of Shri Jaswant Singh
Chouhan, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Village And
Post Hotigaon, Tehsil Chitalwana, District Jalore
(Rajasthan).
11. Ramesh Chand Soni Son Of Shri Bhanwer Lal Soni, Aged
About 37 Years, Resident Of Village Kathoti, Tehsil Jagal,
District Nagaur (Rajasthan).
12. Surendra Kumar Joshi Son Of Shri Shyam Lal Joshi, Aged
About 37 Years, Resident Of Near Ashapura Complex,
Badgaon Road, Raniwara District Jalore.
13. Om Prakash Son Of Shri Rugnath Ram, Aged About 35
Years, Resident Of Village Balana, Post Arnay Block
Sanchore District Jalore (Rajasthan).
14. Mohan Lal Beniwal Son Of Shri Ram Chandra Beniwal,
Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of Village Siwara, Tehsil
Chitalwana, District Jalore (Raj.).
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:25:29 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:18603-DB] (2 of 9) [SAW-922/2020]
15. Gopal Choudhary Son Of Shri Jora Ram, Aged About 35
Years, Resident Of Village Vamal, Post Itada, Tehsil
Chitalwana, District Jalore (Rajasthan).
16. Nanji Ram Son Of Shri Padma Ram, Aged About 35 Years,
Resident Of Village And Post Nainol, Tehsil Sanchore,
District Jalore (Rajasthan)
17. Dhanraj Son Of Shri Gopal Das, Aged About 36 Years,
Resident Of Panghat Road, Barmer (Raj.).
18. Tirthraj Son Of Shri Lekhraj, Aged About 32 Years,
Resident Of Juna Keradu Marg, Dhani Bajar Barmer.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The Mission Director, National Health Mission, Rajasthan,
Medical, Health And Family Welfare Department,
Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. The Director, R.c.h., Medical, Health And Family Welfare
Department, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
4. Union Of India, Through Ministry Of Medical Health And
Family Welfare, National Health Mission Through Its
Mission Director New Delhi.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Manju Jain
For Respondents- : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Advocate General
State through V.C. assisted by
Mr. Siddhant Jain
Mr. Vaibhav Pareek on behalf of
For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Arvind Kumar Pareek
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
Reserved on :: 20/07/2023
Pronounced on :: 22/08/2023
[2023:RJ-JP:18603-DB] (3 of 9) [SAW-922/2020]
(Per Hon'ble the Chief Justice):
1. The appellants preferred a writ petition praying for issuance
of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the
petitioners on the post of Community Health Officer (CHO) from
the date of completion of the Bridge Course Program along with all
consequential benefits by quashing/setting aside the
advertisement issued by the respondents on 31.08.2020 for
recruitment on the post of Community Health Officer contractual
positions under the National Health Mission (NHM) requiring the
passing of the recruitment test, on the plea that the appellants
had completed the Bridge Course in pursuance of the
advertisement dated 15.05.2018 for a period of 6 months and
were declared successful vide the result dated 20 th July, 2018. It
was contented that the appellants were working with the
Department of Health and have been relieved for undergoing
training for Bridge Course in Community Health for a period of 6
months and after completion of the Bridge Course Program they
have been issued certificate of Community Health from Indira
Gandhi National Open University.
2. The said writ petition has been dismissed by the learned
Single Judge vide order dated 12.10.2020 holding that in the
advertisement, in pursuance whereof the petitioners have
completed their Bridge Course, there was no assurance given that
they would be appointed on the post of Community Health Officer
without participating in the selection process rather what was
stated is that passing of the Bridge Course would not make the
department responsible for appointing or posting them on the post
of Community Health Officer. Reference in this regard has been
[2023:RJ-JP:18603-DB] (4 of 9) [SAW-922/2020]
made to Clause 8 of the advertisement dated 15.05.2018 (Annx.2
to the writ petition).
3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the
appellants, in pursuance of the advertisement dated 15.05.2018,
proceeded for completing the Bridge Course Program in
Community Health for Nurses/Ayurveda Practioners. The
petitioners having completed the said course, were posted in the
Community Health Centers and are performing the duties of the
Community Health Officers. It is asserted that they were also
called upon to submit a bond for a period of 3 years and it is in
pursuance thereof that they had been performing their duties.
Learned counsel has therefore asserted that in an earlier
advertisement, which was issued and the persons having acquired
the Bridge Course for Community Health have been appointed on
the said post, but the appellants herein are being discriminated
against by not appointing them on the post of Community Health
Officer. Prayer has thus been made by the counsel for the
appellants for issuance of a direction to the respondents for
appointing the appellants on the post of Community Health
Officers pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.08.2020.
4. The judgment passed by the learned Single Judge has been
challenged on the plea that the aspect of discrimination has not
been looked or gone into by the learned Single Judge and,
therefore, they should be granted the benefit as prayed for.
Reference has also been made to guidance note dated 25.05.2017
para 3(b) to contend that in-service candidates would also be
appointed on the post of Community Health Officers on fixed
emoluments. These guidelines are placed at Annx.6 to the writ
[2023:RJ-JP:18603-DB] (5 of 9) [SAW-922/2020]
petition. Counsel for the appellant has also asserted that the
judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is unsustainable as
the appellants having passed the Bridge Course were not required
to go through the rigors of the selection process and the said
process would apply only to those candidates who had not passed
the Bridge Course as the said course was an essential qualification
for being appointed as the Community Health Officer. The
appellants belong to a class apart who are eligible for appointment
on direct basis. They are not required to go through the
process/rigors of selection. Prayer has thus been made for
allowing the present appeal by setting aside the judgment passed
by the learned Single Judge and directing the respondents to issue
the appointment letters to the appellants on the post of
Community Health Officer.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate General has
categorically stated that no assurance whatsoever, in pursuance of
the advertisement which lead to the appellants having participated
in the Bridge Course Program in Community Health, was given for
appointment as Community Health Officer upon completion of the
Bridge Course. Referring to Clause 8 of the advertisement dated
15.05.2018, it is submitted that the passing of the Bridge Course
Program in Community Health for Nurses/Ayurveda Practitioners
would not confer any right of appointment or posting nor would
there be any liability at the end of the department for the same.
He, on this basis, contends that when no assurance has been
given by the department rather it has categorically been stated so
otherwise the contentions with regard to the appellants being
entitled to appointment without going through the rigors of
[2023:RJ-JP:18603-DB] (6 of 9) [SAW-922/2020]
selection is without any basis and deserves to be rejected and has
been rightly so done by the learned Single Judge. Learned
Advocate General has submitted that as per the advertisement
dated 31.08.2020, 6310 posts of Community Health Officer were
advertised to be filled on contractual basis under the National
Health Mission. It is clearly mentioned in the said advertisement
that all candidates will have to participate in the selection process.
The only benefit which has been conferred to the candidates who
have passed the certificate of Community Health or the Bridge
Course is that on selection, they would be posted on the post of
Community Health Officer whereas, the candidates who have not
yet qualified the certificate of Community Health or Bridge Course
would not be entitled for appointment unless they obtain the said
certificate or undergo the said Bridge Course. This, the learned
Advocate General contends in reference to the terms and
conditions as mentioned in Clause 3 of the advertisement dated
31.08.2020. It is on this basis that the prayer has been made for
dismissal of the appeal being devoid of merit.
6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for
the parties and with their assistance have gone through the
judgment passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the
pleadings including the affidavit filed by the Under Secretary to
the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
New Delhi and the affidavit of the State Nodal Officer, HWC,
National Health Mission, Jaipur.
7. What is apparent from the pleadings and the documents
which have been appended along with the writ petition as also the
additional affidavit is that the appellants are working in the
[2023:RJ-JP:18603-DB] (7 of 9) [SAW-922/2020]
Department of Health. They had undergone and completed the
Bridge Course Program in the year 2019 in pursuance of the
advertisement dated 15.05.2018. The primary contention is that
the persons who had completed the Bridge Course Program in
Community Health in the year 2018 have been posted as
Community Health Officer vide order dated 05.09.2018 by the
Government without having to go through process of selection and
appointment. The appellants have been called upon to participate
in the selection process in pursuance of the advertisement dated
31.08.2020 for appointment to the post of Community Health
Officer. This has led to discrimination between the appellants and
the other similarly placed employees who had completed the
Bridge Course Program of Community Health in the year 2018.
The said ground, as has been pressed into service by the
appellants, would not be of any help to them as in pursuance of
the advertisement dated 15.05.2018 inviting the application for
the Bridge Course, there was a clear stipulation at Clause 8 that
passing of the Bridge Course will not oblidge the respondents to
offer appointment/posting to the successful candidates. Merely
because the appellants had been rendering their services to the
department as staff nurses, would not confer any right upon the
appellants to claim priority in the matter of appointment to the
post of Community Health Officer. Nothing has been brought on
record which would indicate that mere passing of the Bridge
Course or having certificate in Community Health entitles such a
person to be appointed contractually on the post of Community
Health Officer. As is apparent from the advertisement dated
31.08.2020 the only benefit which the appellants would be entitled
[2023:RJ-JP:18603-DB] (8 of 9) [SAW-922/2020]
to is that they would be contractually appointed on the post of
Community Health Officer in the event of their selection and they
would not be required to pass the 6 months Bridge Course.
Meaning thereby, that without passing the selection process, the
appellants again cannot claim appointment on the post of
Community Health Officer.
8. Reliance on Annx. 5 dated 05.09.2018, on the basis of which
the appellants claim discrimination, is misplaced as after
mentioning the persons, who have participated and completed the
Community Bridge Course in Community Health for Nurses for a
period of 6 months and given them posting as Community Health
Officer, it has clearly been mentioned as a condition that they
would be drawing their salary against the post on which they were
working and would not be entitled to make the claim for future
posting. This posting was only by way of working arrangement.
Since it is merely a working arrangement which has been made
without conferring any substantial right in pursuance of the
posting order dated 05.09.2018, the appellants cannot be granted
the benefit as is being claimed by them.
9. What therefore carves out is that participating in the Bridge
Course would only entitle the appellants to be eligible, on
acquiring such qualification, for recruitment to the post of
Community Health Officer. It does not confer any right of selection
or appointment to the post of Community Health Officer. In case,
the appellants participate in the selection process in pursuance of
the advertisement dated 31.08.2020 and are selected, they would
be appointed without undergoing the Bridge Course again. The
claim of the appellants for appointment without going through the
[2023:RJ-JP:18603-DB] (9 of 9) [SAW-922/2020]
selection process, therefore, is misplaced as nothing has come on
record which would entitled them to the claim, as is being sought
to be made in the writ petition.
10. Judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, being in
accordance with the pleadings and proper appreciation of the
provisions of the scheme under which the post of Community
Health Officer stands created and is being sought to be filled up,
no interference in the present appeal is called for.
11. The appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. Pending
applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH),CJ
Jayesh Soni/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
