SAROJ KUMARI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the aforesaid two writ petitions, the common questions of law and facts are involved, hence at the request of learned counsel for both the parties, the arguments were heard and both the writ petitions are being disposed of finally together.

(2.) The respondent No. 3 Additional Director, Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur, issued an advertisement dated 24th January, 2006 inviting the applications for ANM training course from the candidates in 27 districts of the State of Rajasthan. The duration of the training was 18 months. The petitioners, who were having the requisite educational qualification, applied for admission in the ANM training course in OBC category. The petitioners could not be selected in the first and second counselling, but in view of the fact that number of vacant seats were available, therefore, they submitted a representation, which was allowed and vide order dated 24th February, 2007 (Annexure-3) issued by Directorate, Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur, the petitioners were selected for admission in ANM training course against vacant seats and they were directed to report to concerned Chief Medical and Health Officer. The petitioners submitted their joining report and the Chief Medical and Health Officer passed necessary order admitting the petitioners for the above training course vide order dated 6th March, 2007. All of a sudden, after completion of training for more than 7 months, the District Reproductive and Child Health Officer- respondent No. 5 issued an order dated 18th October, 2007 (Annexure-8) cancelling the admission of the petitioners with immediate effect. Being aggrieved with the said order, the present writ petitioners have said order, the present writ petitions have been preferred.

(3.) A notice to show cause was given to the respondents and in response thereto, they have filed their reply to writ petition, wherein it is contended that petitioners could not be selected in first and second counselling; petitioner No.2 (Mahesh Kumari in writ petition No.9548/2007) was less meritorious at the centre and petitioners No.1 and 3 Saroj Kumari and Sharmila in writ petition No.9548/2007 did not apply for admission at centre, but some seats remained vacant due to non-joining of the selected candidates, therefore, as per instructions received from Additional Director, Medical and Health Services, the petitioners were given admission. It is contended that as per knowledge of respondent No. 5, some higher meritorious candidates were available in the waiting list and the correct fact was put in the knowledge of higher authorities and as per communication communicated by the office of Directorate of respondent No.5 on telephone, the admission of the petitioners was cancelled. The similar reply has also been filed in writ petition No. 9547/2007.