Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2248 (RAJ)

Om Prakash Deora v. State

2018-12-04

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. - The petitioner has challenged the order of his termination dated 30.4.2001 whereby without conducting any inquiry, the petitioner's services have been dispensed with. 2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed after due selection vide order dated 3.7.1986 as a lab Technician and thereafter he had completed 09 months' training from Jai Prakash Hospital, Bhopal (MP) which is a Government hospital and certificate was issued by the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Bhopal ( hereinafter referred to as "CM & HO") stating that the petitioner had completed 10 month's laboratory Technician Practical Training from 18.11.1983 to 17.9.1984. The said certificate had been placed by the petitioner at the time of submitting his application and the petitioner was thereafter appointed on regular pay-scale of Lab Technician of Rs. 490-840. It is submitted that the petitioner has worked continuously with the respondent/s and was granted the revised pay-scale of Lab Technician and placed in the pay-scale of 880-1680 w.e.f. 1.9.1996 and thereafter on completion of 09 years of service, was granted selection scale vide order dated 7.2.1997 in the pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2600. It is also submitted that his name was placed in the seniority list published by the Addl. Director (Admn.) vide his order dated 5.7.2000. While he was lastly posted at Jhalrapatan, an order was issued on 30.4.2001 holding that the certificate of Lab Technician received by the petitioner from the Jai Prakash Hospital, Bhopal was not the recognized hospital by the State Government and he was removed from service. The counsel also submits that the order impugned had been passed contrary to the principles of natural justice and prays that apart from taking training, he had already put in service for 09 months as Lab Technician in the Governmental Hospital at Jhalrapatan earlier, and therefore, it could not be said that the petitioner was not a trained Lab Technician. The counsel for the petitioner also submits that the order impugned dated 30.4.2001 seeks it arbitrary and also seeks to take away the petitioner's right to continue in service without following the provisions of law. 3. Reply to the writ petition was not filed for long, and the same has been filed now on 29.11.2018. The counsel for the petitioner also submits that the order impugned dated 30.4.2001 seeks it arbitrary and also seeks to take away the petitioner's right to continue in service without following the provisions of law. 3. Reply to the writ petition was not filed for long, and the same has been filed now on 29.11.2018. As per the reply, the respondent/s submit that the course of Lab Technician which has been recognized is wholly in relation to the certificate issued by the Superintendent of attached hospitals to the Medical Colleges and to the other CM & HO of various districts of Rajasthan. A list has been placed on record dated 3.1.1998 and on the said basis, it is stated that the petitioner cannot be said to be in possession of 09 month's training certificate from a recognized institute. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, and find that the list has been placed on record in 1998 while the petitioner was appointed in 1986. The certificate which the petitioner has placed on record, shows that the same has been issued by the Government Hospital, Bhopal (MP). It is not the case of the respondent/s that the training course conducted by the recognized Government Hospital of Madhya Pradesh is not equivalent to that of training course conducted by Medical Hospital in Rajasthan. So far as rule for appointment under the Rajasthan Medical & Health Surbordinate Rules, 1965 is concerned, requisite qualification required is Secondary or equivalent with 09 month's training certificate of the institute recognized by the Government. No document has been produced by the respondent to show that the training certificate issued by the Government Hospital of Bhopal (MP) duly signed by CM & HO, Bhopal is not a recognized institute by the State of Rajasthan. Even otherwise possible the institute granting certificate by the respective State Government cannot be held to be de-recognized by another State Government in the fedral form of Government. The respective State Governments are entitled to conduct courses. However, it is only the additional body which may take a decision of recognition or de-recognition of a course being conducted in another State. Except the above, it is not for the State Government's authorities to derecognize the institute run by the respective State Governments. The respective State Governments are entitled to conduct courses. However, it is only the additional body which may take a decision of recognition or de-recognition of a course being conducted in another State. Except the above, it is not for the State Government's authorities to derecognize the institute run by the respective State Governments. Be that as it may, in the present case, the petitioner's certificate has not been de-recognized nor a show cause notice has been served on the petitioner nor any inquiry was conducted, hence the action is thus contrary to the provisions as laid down under the CCA Rules, 1958 or also against the principles of natural justice and would, therefore, be deemed to be non est and void. 5. Accordingly, in view of above, writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.4.2001 is quashed and set aside. Taking into consideration that the petitioner was a regular employee working with the department, and had already put in service of 14 years and had already been granted first selection scale, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner and give him all consequential benefits including the arrears of service and pay fixation under the Revised Pay-scale from time to time. The petitioner shall also be entitled to receive interest @ 6% per annum. Compliance of that order be made within a period of three months, failing which the petitioner shall be free to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent/s. Writ Petitioner Allowed - Petitioner Entitled To Arrears Of Revised Pay - Scale With Interest @ 6 % P.A.Within 3 Months Failing Which Respondents Shall Be Liable For Contempt Of Court.