R. NISHA Vs. DIRECTOR MEDICAL SERVICES, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned order, dated 20.04.2015 stating that the petitioner did not attend the counselling for appointment to the post of staff Nurse on contract basis is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the writ petitioner made a submission that the petitioner has completed Diploma in Nursing (3 years course) and she is fully qualified for appointment to the post of staff Nurse. The case of the writ petitioner was considered for appointment to the post of staff Nurse on contract basis and an order of appointment was issued by the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services in proceedings, dated 26.08.2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the address of the writ petitioner has been wrongly mentioned in the list of selected candidates and therefore, she could not able to get the order and appear during the counselling. However, there is no proof to establish the said contention by the petitioner. The facts in this regard cannot be now enquired into by this Court in a writ proceedings after several years. However, the fact remains that the petitioner had not participated in the counselling and therefore, she could not able to appoint in the post of staff Nurse on contract basis.

(3.) Beyond all these factors, the petitioner also approached the authorities as well as the Court of law, after a lapse of many years. In fact, the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, Chennai issued the appointment order in proceedings, dated 26.08.2008. The writ petitioner states that, she submitted representation to the authorities. However, the first writ petition was filed in W.P(MD).No.18964 of 2014, dated 22.01.2015, after a lapse of above seven years from the date of issuance of the order of appointment. Accordingly, the impugned order has been passed. The impugned order states as follows: