DEVIKA DEWADA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 06/10/2015 issued by respondent No.3.

(2.) The respondents have published an advertisement for appointment on the post of City Program Manager under the National Health Mission Scheme. As per the said advertisement, the essential qualification for appointment on the said post is that the candidate must possesses Post-graduate degree in Social Work/Sociology/Social Science/ M.P.H./ M.B.A. As per the said advertisement additional qualifications- (i) four years experience in social field from any Government/Non-Government Institutions, (ii) Two years experience in health service field. The petitioner possesses all the qualifications as required under the said advertisement, accordingly, she has applied for appointment on the said post. The petitioner was selected for appointment on the said post and, therefore, she resigned from the post of Sankul Coordinator working under respondent No.3 since 30/10/2014. Respondent No.2 vide his letter dated 21/10/2014 directed all the C.M.& H.O. of the State to issue appointment order to the persons who found in merit list. Prior to issuance of appointment order, the documents must be verified and after appointment the candidate be sent at State Level for verification of documents. After selecting on the post of City Programme Manager the appointment order issued to the petitioner on 27/10/2014 under certain conditions. After appointment of the petitioner, an agreement was executed between the petitioner and N.H.M. authority. After execution of agreement, the petitioner submitted her joining on 27/11/2014. Respondent No.2 thereafter without giving any opportunity of hearing, has cancelled the petitioner's appointment vide order dated 29/12/2014. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.596/2015 challenging the order dated 29/12/2014. The said writ petition thereafter allowed vide order dated 04/09/2015 and the impugned order has been set aside and the respondents are directed to pass appropriate order after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Then again respondent No.2 without giving any show cause notice vide letter dated 15/09/2015 directed the petitioner to submit a representation and appeared before him. The petitioner, accordingly, appeared and submitted his representation. Respondent No.2 vide letter dated 28/09/2015 restrained the petitioner from discharging the work as City Program Manager. Thereafter without considering the representation submitted by the petitioner, the respondents have passed an order dated 06/10/2015 thereby cancelling the appointment of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 is illegal and arbitrary. He submits that after verification of all the documents, the respondents have given appointment to the petitioner. The petitioner has joined on the said post and has also discharged his duties. The petitioner has produced experience certificate dated 24/09/2015 showing that she is having an experience of eleven years and three months, however the said documents was not considered by respondent No.3 while passing the impugned order. He submits that on the date of advertisement of the post, the petitioner was having eleven years three months experiencein health service. In view of aforesaid, he further submits that in Similar circumstances, Patna High Court in the case of Vikash Ranjan Vs. The State of Bihar & ors on 26th June, 2014 in C.W.J.C. No.21512/2012 has held that the experience as obtained prior to essential qualification would be counted for appointment.