Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ms. Suman vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Others on 2 June, 2009
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.2805/2008 Tuesday, this the 2nd day of June 2009 Honble Shri Shanker Raju, Member (J) Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) Ms. Suman D/o Shri Banarasi Das W/o Shri Ajay Kumar R/o 16 A, Nangloi, Ext-4, Delhi-14 ..Applicant (By Advocate: Shri M K Bhardwaj) Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & others 1. The Chief Secretary Govt. of NCT of Delhi New Secretariat IP Estate, New Delhi 2. The Secretary D/o Health and Family Welfare Govt. of NCT of Delhi 3. The Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Delhi Town Hall, Delhi 4. The Chairman DSSSB, FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi 5. The Secretary Indian Nurses Council Combined Councils Building Kotla Road, Temple Lane New Delhi ..Respondents (By Advocate: Shri Vijay Pandita) O R D E R (ORAL)
Shri Shanker Raju:
Applicant, through this OA, has sought appointment as Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM) with consequential benefits, which has been turned down by the respondents on the ground that Registered Auxiliary Nurse Midwife posts were advertised whereas the applicant has done the course of Multi Purpose Health Worker (F) and not of ANM. As such, not fulfilling the eligibility conditions for the post, she cannot be selected for the post.
2. Learned counsel for respondents states that the Tribunal in Bimla Devi & another v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & other (OA-1151/2007) decided on 16.7.2008 has dismissed the plea of the applicants therein only on the ground of ineligibility of MPHW. However, we find that when one of the applicants before the Tribunal challenged the decision, namely, Lajwanti, by filing Writ Petition (C) No.8905/2009, an order passed by the High Court on 13.5.2009 reversed the order of the Tribunal by holding that the petitioner therein has to be treated in view of her certificate of MPHW as equivalent to the requirement of the post as well as qualified for the appointment to the post of ANM.
3. In the above view of the matter, being a binding precedent, the decision of the Tribunal when reversed by the High Court, we hold that the applicant is eligible to be appointed as ANM. Denial of appointment is not justifiable in law.
4. OA stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents to offer the applicant appointment to the post of ANM with consequential benefits. This shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
( Dr. Veena Chhotray ) ( Shanker Raju ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/