RAJNI SINGH PARMAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall also govern the disposal of W.P. No.18111/2015 (Deepika Singh Vs. State M.P.& others) since the point involves in these writ petitions is identical. For the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from Writ Petition No.18113/2015.

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

(3.) The respondents have published an advertisement for appointment on the post of Consultant-Account and Evaluation 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 MCA or Post- graduate in Computer Science with A.I.C.T.E. approved University or M.Sc. (Compluter/Information Technology) or P.G. Degree Health Information. As per the said advertisement additional qualifications- (i) two years experience of data entry and software online work from any Government/Non-government institution, (ii) Data entry in computer and Hindi, English typing efficiency. 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 Computer Operator working under respondent No.5 since 20/04/2010. Respondent No.3 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 Consultant -Account and Evaluation 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 his joining on 01/11/2014. Respondent No.3 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.71/2015 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.3 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 Consultant-Account and Evaluation. 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.