Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Radha Rani Sain vs State (Medical An Healt Dept) Ors on 11 January, 2017
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 491 / 2017
Radha Rani Sain D/o Shri Rajendra Kumar Sain, Aged About 27
Years, Plot No. 1, Girdhar Marg, Brahampuri Khurra, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Principal Secretary, Medical and
Health Department,, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Medical and Health Department,, Swasthya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
3. The National Mental Health Programme Through Its State Nodel
Officer,, Psychiatric Centre, Sethi Colony, Jaipur
4. The Chief Medical & Health Officer,, Churu
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Sh. Tanveer Ahmed Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Order 11/01/2017 The petitioner had participated for the post of Clinical Psychologist pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Directorate, Medical & Health Services vide its notification dt.16.1.2015 (Ann.1).
At a given point of time the conditions of eligibility for the post of Clinical Psychologist were as under-
"Qualification ESSENTIAL:
Phd/Msc in Clinical Psychology from recognized institution.
(2 of 3) [CW-491/2017] DESIRABLE At least 2 year experience of working in Clinical Psychology/health sector. AGE LIMIT-60 YEARS."
The petitioner since holding educational qualification participated and was appointed on contract basis through placement agency on certain terms & conditions which was executed between the parties with the placement agency (Ann.4) dt.24.4.2015, pursuant to which he was allowed to continue & serve on contract basis but it appears that the conditions of eligibility came to be changed along with academic qualification with the Job of Clinical Psychologist which reads ad infra-
"2. Job title: Clinical Psychologist Qualifications - Essential Post Graduate Degree in Psychology or Applied Psychology and a Master of Philosophy in medical and social psychology or Masters of Philosophy in mental health and social psychology obtained after completion of a full time course of two years which includes supervised clinical training, approved and recognized by the Rehabilitation Council of India."
Indisputably the petitioner is not holding the revised qualification and after this fact came to the notice of the authorities that certain candidates who served on various posts including the petitioner as a Clinical Psychologist not holding the revised qualification, decision was taken to discontinue them from service vide order dt.2-1-2017 and the contract of service on account of change in circumstances stands terminated.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the contract was initially executed for the period of one year and that could not have been terminated in the midst and that apart further submits (3 of 3) [CW-491/2017] that the change of conditions of eligibility which has been introduced at later stage at least may not be applicable to the petitioner and he has a right to continue as a Clinical Psychologist and making the revised qualification effective on the incumbents who are serving after their selection placed through placement agency, such action of the authority is violative of Art.14 of the Constitution.
The submission is bereft of merit for the reason that the petitioner is a contractual employee and engaged through placement agency and no right could be said to be conferred and even if engaged by the govt. still status of the employee remain the same and the petitioner is always at liberty to claim damages from the authority for the alleged breach of contract in the midst. At the same time, this Court u/Art.226 of the Constitution is not adjudicating the alleged breach of the terms of contract entered between the parties. This court is further of the view that if the academic qualification has been revised which indisputably the petitioner does not fulfill, the decision taken by the authority to discontinue the petitioner's contract vide order dt.2-1-2017, this court finds no error in the decision making process being adopted by the authority which may call for interference.
Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merit, accordingly stands dismissed.
(AJAY RASTOGI)J. Shekhawatvs(S-332)