JUDGMENT SWP No. 1646/2015 1. Quashment of the order No. NHM/Dmu/spn/15/729-32 dated 1st August, 2015 is prayed for. In terms of the said order, the extension of services of the petitioners have been withdrawn on the ground that they has been enrolled in the Institute of SAI wherefrom they have got the diplomas in the year when the said institute was not recognized. 2. The centre of controversy is as to whether petitioners possessed the recognized qualification (Diploma issued from a recognized institution) for being engaged as Female Multipurpose Health Worker (FMPHW). The admitted factual position as has emerged is that amongst others, petitioners had also competed for being engaged on contractual basis as FMPHW under National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) in District Rural Health Society Shopian. 3. As per the reply filed by the respondents, the screening of the candidates for short listing was done and the short listed candidates in the ratio of 1:5 were called for interview. In the process, petitioners after facing regular process of selection have made the grade, so on merit have been engaged pursuant to order dated 2nd January, 2014 and 29th February, 2014 issued by the Vice Chairman DRHS (Chief Medical Officer) Shopian. They had joined respectively in the month of January 2014 and March, 2014 and continued to work beyond the term of one year which was treated as a deemed extension which extension in terms of the order impugned has been withdrawn with effect from 1st August, 2015. No quarrel or dispute or any controversy with regard to the proper mode, method of selection and engagement except now one i.e. the Institute from where the petitioners had obtained the diploma certificates was not a recognized one at the time when they were enrolled therein. 4. It is an admitted fact that earlier SAI Institute was not recognized as its recognition was delayed, constraining the institute to file writ petition bearing OWP No. 1257/2010 titled 'Institute of Allied Sciences (SAI) v. State and Others' which according to the learned counsel for the petitioners was disposed of with the direction to the respondent authorities therein to consider the Institute for recognition. In compliance whereof, the Government had constituted the Inspection Committee comprising of Controller of Stores, Provincial Medical Stores, Jammu and Dr. Arvind Raina (Epidemiologist Jammu). In compliance whereof, the Government had constituted the Inspection Committee comprising of Controller of Stores, Provincial Medical Stores, Jammu and Dr. Arvind Raina (Epidemiologist Jammu). The Committee so constituted vide Government Order No. 211-HME of 2012, dated 14th March, 2012, after conducting the inspection on 18th March, 2012 and 19th March, 2012 have formulated a detailed report. In the said detailed report, position of the infrastructure and other formalities fulfilled have been noticed in detail. In one part of the said report under the head "conclusion", it has been recorded as under: "During the inspection of the said institute, it was found that the institute possess all sorts of necessary infrastructure viz. furniture, fixture, equipments, computer manpower logistic, library, land and building, hostel with mess facility alongwith tie up with 150 bedded hospital for field/clinical practices of the candidates to meet out the norms/standard prescribed by the J&K Government Health and Medical Education Department vide order No. 86-HME of 2008, dated 25.01.2008. It has been observed that various candidates of J&K State have already completed different courses from the said institute. The institute imparts training in the following paramedical courses at present under All India Technical Association New Delhi, Government of India, extension of permission was enclosed with the report. Courses: 1. MMPHW 2. DMLT 3. Dental Asstt. 4. FMPHW 5. Medical Asstt. 6. Anesthesia Asstt. 7. GNM 8. Theatre Asstt. Therefore, keeping in view the infrastructure possessed by the institute and the facility provided to the students, it is recommended that Government of J&K Health and Medical Education Department (State Medical Faculty) may recognize the courses offered by the institute retrospectively, which would also protect the interest of the candidates of J&K State who have already or are being imparted training in various courses by the institute." 5. On the receipt of the report cum recommendation dated 22nd March, 2012, the Government has issued Government Order No. 654-HME of 2012, dated 19th October, 2012 sanctioning recognition of the institute imparting training in the Paramedical courses above referred as per the recommendations of the Inspection Committee. It is also mentioned therein that the recognition shall be for a period of two years whereafter the same shall be considered for renewal on the recommendations of state Medical Faculty. It is also mentioned therein that the recognition shall be for a period of two years whereafter the same shall be considered for renewal on the recommendations of state Medical Faculty. After the issue of order dated 19th October, 2012, the institute has issued certificate of merit in favour of the petitioners on 27th December, 2012 certifying therein that the petitioners have completed their courses in FMPHW during the session 2011-12 and were placed in Grade A. 6. The notification inviting applications, issued by the Chief Medical Officer in the year 2013 i.e. the date when the petitioners possessed the diploma certificates as were issued in their favour. They have produced the said diploma certificates, after proper scrutiny they were admitted to the screening test, clearing the same, have faced the other selection process and finally on merit have-made grade. Consequently, have been engaged and have been discharging the duties which were attempted to be discontinued with the issue of Order dated 1st August, 2015 but having been challenged and its operation having been stayed, as such, they continue to be there. 7. The main thrust of the arguments of the learned Dy. AG is that the petitioners were ineligible as they had completed the course for which certificate had been issued in their favour during the period when the institute was not recognized. At the time of engagement, the respondents as a precautionary measure have taken an affidavit from the candidates so as to safeguard various positions which include position of the certificate i.e. the certificates produced by the engaged candidates, if subsequently, are found to be fake or fraud that will entail disengagement of their engagement. 8. Learned Dy. AG highlighted that the institute has been recognized only for two years prospectively i.e. with effect from 19th October, 2012. 9. The position of the certificates not being fake or fraud is clear, institution is existing, not only the petitioners, so many candidates have been imparted training and certificates have been issued. The institute has been having every infrastructure both technical or otherwise essential for imparting such training which fact is fully certified by the committee as was constituted by the Government pursuant to order dated 86-HME of 2008. dated 25th January, 2008. The institute has been having every infrastructure both technical or otherwise essential for imparting such training which fact is fully certified by the committee as was constituted by the Government pursuant to order dated 86-HME of 2008. dated 25th January, 2008. The Committee has made it clear that the institution is existing, complete infrastructure is in place, in addition, it has been found that various candidates of J&K have already completed different courses from the said institute. While noticing the position of the institution, its infrastructure and all facilities, the Committee in its wisdom has recommended to the Government that the State Medical Faculty may recognize the courses offered by the institute retrospectively, which would also protect the interest of the candidates of J&K State who have already or are being imparted training in various courses by the institute. 10. Learned Dy, AG would submit that in the Government order issued on the basis of the report of the Committee recognition has not been granted retrospectively, same is not correct, wording of the order is clear that recognition is granted on the recommendation of the Committee which means that the position as projected by the Committee has not been denied. 11. The order of sanction for recognition is not to interpreted in a manner which shall be against the spirit of the recommendation of the Committee or to the disadvantage of the candidates, when no fault is attributable to them as they have completed the training courses. 12. The petitioners like other candidates in good faith and belief have pursued the course from an institution, which infrastructure wise or otherwise was lacking as is fully highlighted by the Inspection Committee. There could not be any reason for the candidates to believe that such an institution will be without any recognition. In effect, in the background of the report as has been submitted by the Inspection Committee constituted by the Government, the position of the petitioners having obtained diploma from a valid institution cannot be found fault with. There could not be any reason for the candidates to believe that such an institution will be without any recognition. In effect, in the background of the report as has been submitted by the Inspection Committee constituted by the Government, the position of the petitioners having obtained diploma from a valid institution cannot be found fault with. The same position is further fortified by the fact that the institute has waited for the issue of certificate until sanction by the Government i.e. sanction has been granted on 19th October, 2012 and it is thereafter on 27th December, 2012, the diploma certificates have been issued in favour of the petitioners and then in the year 2013, they have competed for the posts. 13. The petitioners having successfully competed and made the grade and thereafter having joined, worked for more than one year without any adverse report as against them vis-a-vis their functioning or discharging of their duties cannot at this stage be deprived of the same benefit. To deny such benefit at this stage in fact is to negate the very object and purpose of the scheme in pursuance of which they have been engaged. 14. Superficially, to say that when the petitioners were enrolled in the institute, the institute was not recognized, may be attractive but on careful scrutiny of the same, the position cannot be used in the stated facts and circumstances and in the light of the report of the Inspection Committee to the disadvantage of the beneficiaries who with all toil and with all dedication after pursuing the courses have been awarded the certificate. 15. In case, position would have been different i.e. the institute would not have been in place, proper infrastructure would not have been in place then it could be gatherable that the candidates have not been imparted requisite training which would make them in efficient to discharge their duties. They have completed, made the grade after proper selection and then thereafter have been discharging their duties for more than one and half year, without any adverse remark or any adverse report against them. At this stage, to withdraw their extension or to discontinue them, shall be totally unwarranted, inequitable and would be violative of their vested rights. 16. Their further continuation shall be governed by the Rural Health Mission Scheme. At this stage, to withdraw their extension or to discontinue them, shall be totally unwarranted, inequitable and would be violative of their vested rights. 16. Their further continuation shall be governed by the Rural Health Mission Scheme. Meanwhile, they shall be allowed to discharge their duty where they have been discharging the duties in accordance with the terms and conditions of their engagement order. 17. While summing up in the stated facts and circumstances, the order impugned issued by the Vice Chairman District Health Society, Shopian (Chief Medical Officer) bearing No. NHM/Dmu/spn/15/729-32, dated 1st August, 2015 is quashed. 18. Petition succeeds, shall accordingly, stand disposed of alongwith connected CMP. Contempt No. 539/2015 in SWP No. 1646/2015 19. Appearance as above. 20. Main petition i.e. SWP No. 1646/2015 stand disposed of today. Now, there shall be no reason or pretext available to the respondents in causing any kind of hindrance to the petitioners in discharging their duties. In case of any type of hindrance that may give rise to launching of fresh contempt proceedings which shall be totally at the peril of the respondents. Therefore, now, instant contempt proceedings do not require any continuation, as such, are dropped and closed. 21. Disposed of as above. SWP No. 1504/2015 MP No. 01/2015 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Zahoor A Shah, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Shah Amir, Dy. AG. 22. While considering the above disposed of writ petition, it was mentioned that the instant writ petition is also listed today more or less the issue to be settled is identical. On such mention, instant petition is also taken up for disposal. 23. Amongst others, the petitioner had also competed for being engaged as FMPHW/ANM on contractual engagement in pursuance to the advertisement notice issued by the Vice Chairman, District Rural Health Society (Chief Medical Officer) Shopian. On scrutiny of the papers, she had figured among the short listed candidates. After facing the due process of selection was provisionally selected as against the position of FMPHW for District Level Posts and amongst the four, she figures at Serial No. 2 in the order of merit. In the said final provisional selection list, it has been made clear that on the basis of the aggregate points secured in academic merit, performance and interview, the final provisional selection of the candidates including the petitioner is notified for objections. In the said final provisional selection list, it has been made clear that on the basis of the aggregate points secured in academic merit, performance and interview, the final provisional selection of the candidates including the petitioner is notified for objections. As against the petitioner, no one has filed objection, however, when order of engagement was not issued in her favour, she stated to have represented before the respondent authorities but without any response. Hence the instant petition. 24. The position of the petitioner having obtained the diploma certificate from Institute of Allied Sciences (SAI) Karnataka, after having pursued the course of diploma during the session 2011-2012, the objection as was raised the vis-a-vis the petitioners of the above disposed of writ petition was that they have pursued the course during the period when the institute was not recognized by the J&K Health and Medical Education Department and J&K State Medical Faculty. The same position was projected vis-a-vis writ petitioners of SWP No. 1646/2014 but for the detailed reasons the objection was not found sustainable. The only difference between the position of the writ petitioners of SWP No. 1646/2015 and the writ petitioner of the instant petition is that they were engaged and after one and a half year of engagement, objection had been raised vis-a-vis their diploma certificate whereas in the instant petition engagement order in favour of the petitioner has not been issued solely on the ground that when she has pursued the course, the institute was not recognized but as made clear in the above referred Judgment, the institute has been recognized by the J&K Health and Medical Education Department and J&K State Medical Faculty and it is only after recognition the diploma certificate had been issued. That apart, the position of the petitioner having pursued the course from the institute which was in place having all infrastructure and it is not that the institute is not in place. It is also not the case that the institute is fake and fraud. Detailed reasons have been given above as to why the certificates issued by SAI Institute cannot be found fault with. 25. It is also not the case that the institute is fake and fraud. Detailed reasons have been given above as to why the certificates issued by SAI Institute cannot be found fault with. 25. For the same reasons as detailed above, the engagement order in favour of the petitioner who has made the grade on merit cannot be denied, as such, it is directed that the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner and issue the order of engagement as FMPHW within three weeks in view of her admitted performance and merit. 26. Petition accordingly disposed of alongwith connected MP. Petition disposed of