Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dharmendra Choudhary vs State & Ors on 9 December, 2016
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR
RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B.CIVIL WRIT NO. 11717 / 2016
Dharmendra Choudhary S/o Chandra Ram, Aged About 30
Years, Address: Resident of House No. 42, Near Hilodi Market,
Nandari Road, Jodhpur
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Princiapal Secretary,,
Address: Medical & Health Department, Government of
Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Director, NRHM,, Address: Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg,
Jaipur
3. Chief Engineer,, Address: Medical & Health Department,
Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur
4. Director,, Address: Medical & Health Department, Swasthya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur
5. Executive Engineer,, Address: Medical & Health Department,
Jodhpur Jhalamand Choraha, Jodhpur
----Respondents
__________________________________________
For Petitioners : Mr. I.R. Choudhary.
__________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 09/12/2016 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief:-
"(a) The respondents may be directed to reinstate/reappoint the petitioner on the post of Site Supervisor (Electrical) in NRHM Project in pursuance of this Hon'ble High Court's order dated 7.5.2012 (2 of 4 ) [CW-11717/2016] (Annex.-11) with all consequential benefits including continuation of his service like above Health Managers, Patient Counselor and Class IV employees.
(b) Alternatively, the respondents may be directed to fairly consider and appoint the petitioner on the post of Electrical Supervision Consultant by declaring his interview result for which he was called vide interview call letter dated 4.9.2013 (Annex.16) with all consequential benefits.
(c) Any other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble Court Tribunal deems just and proper in favour of the petitioner may kindly be granted to the petitioner."
In the past when the contract of the petitioner was put to an end, the petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8374/2011. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 07.05.2012, inter alia, directing as under:-
"Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner if services of Site Supervisor is required in future and give preference to the petitioner looking to the petitioner's experience on the said post."
The said direction was passed based on the judgment by Jaipur Bench in Masarrat Miyan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13811/2011, wherein it was directed as under:-
"Accordingly, all the writ petitions are disposed off with the following observations and directions:
(i) The petitioners have been engaged in RHSDP and continued till 31st September, 2011, thus discontinuance with the closure of project cannot be held to be illegal.
(ii) If the Health Managers engaged under RHSDP are continued despite of denial of budget vide Annex.II to the reply then respondents are directed to take proper view in the case of petitioners so as to give them similar (3 of 4 ) [CW-11717/2016] treatment. In case, Health Managers are not continued at DH Level then aforesaid exercise can be ignored.
(iii) It is further directed that in future if service for Patient Counselor/Peon is required, petitioners would be given preference looking to their experience upto seven years.
(iv) If any of the petitioners continued either by way of interim order or otherwise by the respondents, then it goes without saying that they would be paid salary/remuneration for the period they were allowed to serve as Patent Counselor/Peon.
This disposes of the stay applications also." The petitioner, thereafter filed a contempt petition alleging violation of the direction dated 07.05.2012 passed by this Court, which contempt petition came to be rejected by this Court holding that there was no case for willful disobedience of order. Whereafter the respondents issued advertisement for walk-in-interview, in which, the petitioner applied, however, the said recruitment did not proceed further.
The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, on the ground that though the project is still on and persons other than the Site Supervisor/Supervision Consultant are working, the respondents deliberately with a view to deprive the petitioners relief, are not seeking to recruit/appoint the Site Supervisor/Supervision Consultant.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.
This Court while deciding the earlier writ petition filed by (4 of 4 ) [CW-11717/2016] the petitioner had directed to consider the petitioner, if services of the Site Supervisor/Supervision Consultant are required in future and give preference to the petitioner looking to his experience on the said post.
The judgment in the case of Masarrat Miyan (supra), which was basis of passing the order dated 07.05.2012 also noticed the said aspect and the respondents were only directed to take appropriate view so as to give the petitioners therein similar treatment.
In view of the fact that no direction was issued earlier, to continue with the petitioner irrespective of the requirement of the Site Supervisor/Supervision Consultant, relief claimed by the petitioner seeking implementation of the judgment, contempt thereof already stands dismissed cannot be countenanced.
Further so far as the relief claimed regarding granting appointment to the petitioner pursuant to the walk-in-interview held in the year 2013 is concerned, no petition lies for the purpose of directing the respondents to hold recruitment and/or recruit particular persons on particular posts.
In view thereof, no directions can be issued as prayed by the petitioner. There is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI)J. PKS-37