Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 395 (JK)

Sajda Begum v. State Of J&K

2010-07-14

J.P.Singh

body2010
1. District Health Society, Jammu issued Advertisement Notice No.DIP/J-6896 dated 06.02.2009 inviting applications for various posts under National Rural Health Mission 2005-2012 to strengthen the Health care delivery, improveness to quality services and to make the CHCs, PHCs, Sub Centers and Urban Health Centers functional 24 x 7 which included the posts of ANMs (Auxiliary Nursing Midwives). The petitioner applied for one of the post of ANMs and was selected therefor. 2. The selection made by the District Health Society including that of the petitioner was, however, later withdrawn vide Society’s order No.173-DDCJ of 2009 dated 17.11.2009 on the ground that the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose had ignored the "basic criteria" of allowing "weightage to experience and local residence" in making selection. 3. Aggrieved by the District Health Society, Jammu’s order aforementioned, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking, quashing of the District Health Society’s order of November 17, 2009 and the Advertisement Notice dated 22.03.2010 issued for fresh selection against the posts indicated in the Notice, besides a direction to the respondents to appoint her against the post of ANM under National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) Scheme for which he had been selected. 4. According to the petitioner, there was no such criteria of giving weightage to place of residence as indicated in the District Health Society’s order under challenge and that the withdrawal, made under political pressure was arbitrary and unjustified. 5. In their Response to the Writ Petition, the State respondents justify the District Health Society’s order urging that the "local criteria" was one of the necessary conditions requisite for making selection against the posts under NRHM, and that the guidelines issued in this behalf indicated so specifically. Copy of the conditions laid down by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India has been placed on records. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on records by the petitioner and the respondents. 7. Advertisement Notice of February, 2009 issued by the District Health Society, Jammu specifically talks of giving preference to local person having experience. Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, placed on records by the respondents, too provide that "all posts under NRHM are on contract and based on local criteria. The appointment should be done by the Rogi Kalyan Samiti/District Health Society. Guidelines issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, placed on records by the respondents, too provide that "all posts under NRHM are on contract and based on local criteria. The appointment should be done by the Rogi Kalyan Samiti/District Health Society. Residence at place of posting is mandatory. All such appointments are for a particular institution and non transferable". 8. Perusal of the two documents aforementioned, therefore, clearly demonstrates that residence at place of posting is an essential eligibility condition for engagement against posts under NRHM. 9. The petitioner is, thus, not right in saying that "local criteria" was not indicated in the guidelines. 10. District Health Society’s order under challenge indicates that the Selection Committee had made selection ignoring the "local criteria", which fact has not been disputed by the petitioner in the Writ Petition. 11. District Health Society’s order No.173-DDCJ of 2009 dated 17.11.2009, withdrawing the Select List notified vide No.CMO/J/NRHM/DHS/229 dated 20.10.2009 on the ground that requisite criteria for making selection had not been followed by the Selection Committee cannot, thus, be faulted. 12. Petitioner’s selection, being in violation of the guidelines, does not entitle him to appointment against the post of ANM. No direction can, thus, be issued to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the basis of the invalid selection and against the norms fixed under the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) Scheme. 13. No case for admission of the Writ Petition to hearing has thus been made out by the petitioner. 14. This Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.