RAISA BANOO Vs. SHAMEEMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Civil Second Appeal filed by the appellant, the following three substantial questions of law have been framed vide Order dtd. 20/11/2017:

(2.) Before considering the substantial questions of law for determination, it would be appropriate to give brief facts of the case.

(3.) Chief Medical Officer, Pulwama, in his capacity as Vice Chairman District Health Society, Pulwama, issued advertisement bearing endorsement No.CMO/PuI/NRHM/Apptt./Cont./4486-93 dtd. 6/2/2012, inviting applications on prescribed format from eligible candidates of District Pulwama, under National Rural Health Mission (for short "NRHM"), RCH-ll, as per the criteria shown in the advertisement notice, amongst others, for the posts of Female Multipurpose Health Worker (for short "FMPHW") for Sub Centre Amlar. The prescribed qualification was Diploma in FMPHW from SMF/any recognized Institute. The terms and conditions prescribed as eligibility for applying to the post included that the candidate should be resident of the locality where the Health Institution is located so as to ensure continuous presence for 24 x 7 days" service. In pursuance of the advertisement notice and the rules prescribed by the Government of India for making selection of candidates against the post of FMPHW, the candidates applying for the post, included the appellant and respondent No.1.The appellant, vide order dtd. 19/5/2012, was appointed as FMPHW at Sub-Centre Amlar, Block Tral, and she joined her duties on 21/5/2012 and since then has been continuously performing her duties. The respondent no.1/plaintiff filed a suit against the appellant/defendant no.6, before the Trial Court and the Trial Court granted the following relief: