Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 370 (RAJ)

Munesh Kumar Meena v. State of Rajasthan

2019-02-01

ALOK SHARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Alok Sharma, J. As the bunch of writ petitions agitate the same issue, arguments common as they are have been heard and they are being decided by this common order. 2. Writ petition No.1992/2019 is taken as the lead case. 3. The case of the petitioners is that they were regularly appointed as Nurse Grade-II under the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 1965') and have been working for the last several years on the said post. The Director, Reproductive Child Health (RCH) and National Health Mission (NHM) issued an advertisement dated 17.01.2019 for admissions in the training for the bridge programme in community health. The said advertisement confined eligibility only to those working on contract basis with Central Health Centres (CHC) and Public Health Centres (PHC). The petitioner submits that the bridge programme in community health is financed by the Central Government and the scheme therefor contemplates participation both of regular and contractual employees. Yet the exclusion therefrom of those regularly appointed as Nurse Gr.II by the Medical and Health Department, Government of Rajasthan is thus wholly arbitrary and discriminatory as it affects the monetary benefits to which the petitioners would be entitled on successful completion of the bridge programme whereon the petitioners would be appointed as Community Health Officers with 20 % enhancement of salary. It has been submitted that the arbitrariness of the respondents is magnified by the fact that in the past three years they have allowed regular Nurse Gr.II to participate in the bridge course training prorgramme in community health. The deviation from the earlier policy is wholly unexplained, unjustified and unsustainable hence appropriate directions be issued and the petitioners be admitted to the examination for the bridge course. 4. Mr. Harshal Tholia appearing on behalf of Dr. V.B. Sharma, AAG for the respondents submitted that indeed the bridge programme in community health is under a Central Government scheme and financed by it but only a step gap arrangement till availability of fully qualified. The State Governments in consonance with the guidance note issued by the Central Government initiates and conducts the selection process of the candidates for the Bridge Programme. The State Governments in consonance with the guidance note issued by the Central Government initiates and conducts the selection process of the candidates for the Bridge Programme. He submitted that the Central Government in its scheme for the Bridge Programme has given complete independence to the State Government as is palpable from the Part B (Action points for State) clause 2 (Selection of Candidates) of the guidance note dated 25.05.2017 which inter alia provides that "State may constitute a committee or a similar mechanism on the bridge programme for selection of candidates and oversight of the entire programme." "State may call for applications from in service candidates (regular and/or Contractual as decided by the State) for the Bridge Programme." (underlining for emphasis). In fact it is open for the State even to independently recruit Community Health Officers for the Health and Wellness Centres. It has been submitted that a meeting was held by the respondents for conducting examinations for the Bridge Programme. There a policy decision was taken to only permit contractual employees to seek admission into the bridge course to the exclusion of regular employees. Such exclusion of regular employees was founded on reasons of public interest to ensure that the regularly appointed Nurse Gr. II continued to discharge their respective duties at the CHC and PHC. Further in the event regularly selected Nurse Gr.II were allowed to participate in the bridge course in issue for the period of 6 months training it would have entailed payment of 6 months salary for the duration without regular work being discharged by the Nurse Gr.II. It has been submitted that the classification between the contractual employees and the regular employees (Nurse Gr.II) therefore was founded on an intelligible differentia with a nexus to the objective sought to be achieved. The classification hence being valid no grievance can be made out from the exclusion of regularly selected Nurse Gr.II from admission to the bridge course in community health. Mr. The classification hence being valid no grievance can be made out from the exclusion of regularly selected Nurse Gr.II from admission to the bridge course in community health. Mr. Harshal Tholia also emphatically submitted that the bridge course in community health has no bearing on the career prospects of the petitioners who are regularly selected Nurse GR.II, and will be at the appropriate time entitled to promotion to the next higher post i.e. Nurse Gr.I. The mere possibility of the petitioners successfully writing the examination for entering into the bridge course programme and thereafter after successful completion availing 20 % enhancement of the salary for the duration of holding the post of Community Health Officers is of little relevance. It has been further submitted that on one earlier occasion regularly selected Nurse GR.II were admitted into the bridge course in terms of the interim order of this court. Subsequently thereafter they were allowed in terms of the then operative policy which has now been changed which reference to the situation obtaining on the ground and the necessity of the regularly selected Nurse Gr.II discharging their regular duties and the State Government not being burdened with payment of salary without actual work for the duration of the training. It has been submitted that there are limitations in law against the interference by courts with policy decisions of the State Government when no case of palpable arbitrariness or discrimination is made out, as in the instant case. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. The petitioner are regularly appointed Nurse Gr.II under the Rules of 1965. The post of Community Health Officers is not encadred under the Rules of 1965. It is only a post at the Health and Wellness Centres in the Ayushman Scheme of the Government of India. The bridge course in community health for appointment as Community Health Officers at the wellness centers under the Ayushman Bharat Scheme of the Central Government is a only temporary measure till the availability of B.Sc. in community health following a 42 months course. The scheme of the Central Government for conducting the bridge course in community health even though financed fully by it, it to be operated in the discretion of the State Government including on the sourcing of candidates. It can for the purpose invite applications from those working on the contractual post with the State Government and/ or as regular employees. The scheme of the Central Government for conducting the bridge course in community health even though financed fully by it, it to be operated in the discretion of the State Government including on the sourcing of candidates. It can for the purpose invite applications from those working on the contractual post with the State Government and/ or as regular employees. From the reply to the respondent-State it is apparent that the State Government has taken a considered decision not to allow regularly selected Nurse Gr.II to participate in the 6 months bridge course in community health, for to so do would entail loosing their services at the CHC and PHC central to provide basic medical services to the people at large at the said centres and also simultaneously entail regular outgo of salary from State funds for six months without long term benefits. That decision of the State Government is quite clearly a policy decision and in the overall facts, I cannot find any arbitrariness or perversity in it to warrant interference by this court. I am of the considered view that in the overall facts of the case no case of discrimination against the petitioners at all can also be made out as the career prospects of the petitioners in their regular line of service are not at all diminished. The merely temporary loss of potential enhanced salary of 20 % over the current salary as community health officers in regard to which the petitioners have no statutory right is not enough to persuade the court to interfere as prayed for. 7. There is thus no force in the petitions. Dismissed. 8. A copy of this order be placed in each connected petition.