Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Nitin Kumar Sharma S/O Ashok Kumar ... vs Union Of India on 20 November, 2020
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13599/2020
1. Nitin Kumar Sharma S/o Ashok Kumar Sharma, Aged
About 35 Years, R/o 163/299, Pratap Nagar, Sec.-16,
Sanganer, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Yuvraj Sharma S/o Shri Om Prakash Sharma, Aged About
40 Years, R/o Bojpura Via Jobner, District Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Sunil Kumar Jain S/o Mahaveer Kumar Jain, Aged About
37 Years, R/o 174, Main Market Ranipura, Bundi (Raj.)
4. Uttam Bhardwaj S/o Shri Brajraj Bhardwaj, Aged About
39 Years, R/o Ghatal Mandap, Kota (Raj.)
5. Rajendra Kumar S/o Umed Singh, Aged About 41 Years,
R/o Ward No.12, Rajnava, Jaipur
6. Jitendra Asolia S/o Mahendra Singh, Aged About 37
Years, R/o H.no.217, Rajatgarh Colony, Bundi (Raj.)
7. Gautam Kumar Sharma S/o Raghunandan Sharma, Aged
About 43 Years, R/o 380 Gate No.3, Rajatgarh, Bundi
(Raj.)
8. Mahendra Kumar Agarwal S/o Shri Narendra Kumar, Aged
About 40 Years, R/o H.no.118, R.k.nagar Police Line,
Baran Road, Narayanpura, Kota (Raj.)
9. Rajesh Kumar Sharma S/o Ram Charan Sharma, Aged
About 35 Years, R/o Mali Mohalla Ward No.6, Mangrol,
Bhatwara, District Baran (Raj.)
10. Suresh Chand Sharma S/o Shri Ramswaroop Sharma,
Aged About 39 Years, R/o Adalpur Post Khedla, Nemoda
Station, Tehsil Sapotra, District Karauli (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Its Ministry Of Medical Health
And Family Welfare, National Health Mission Through Its
Mission Director, New Delhi.
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
Secretary, Medical Health And Family Welfare
Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
Rajasthan (Raj.)
3. The Director, (Rch), Medical Health And Family Welfare
(Downloaded on 23/11/2020 at 09:10:40 PM)
(2 of 4) [CW-13599/2020]
Department, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme
Jaipur
4. The Mission Director, Nhm, Special Secretary To Govt.,
Medical Health And Family Welfare Department, Swasthya
Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order 20/11/2020 The petitioner, by way of this writ petition, assails the advertisement dated 31.08.2020 and submits that the advertisement for the post of Community Health Officer has been issued erroneously and the norms are in contravention of the guideline issued by the Ministry of Human Resources which laid down criteria for the selection of Community Health Officer.
Learned counsel submits that the essential qualification for Community Health Officer is that apart from B.Sc. in Community Health or Nurse (GNM or B.Sc) or Ayurveda Practitioner (BAMS) from a recognized University, the candidate should have been registered with the respective Rajasthan Nursing Council/Board of Indian Medicine Rajasthan in Rajasthan and the must have possessed a certificate of six months bridge course successfully.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that for the purpose of bridge course a candidate must have two years of relevant work experience in the health sector. Hence for the advertisement of Community Health Officer, the respondents (Downloaded on 23/11/2020 at 09:10:40 PM) (3 of 4) [CW-13599/2020] ought to have included two years work experience in Health Community as eligibility norms.
I have considered the submissions.
A look at the advertise dated 31.08.2020 shows that apart from the essential qualification as mentioned hereinabove, the clause 3 of other terms and conditions are laid down as under:
"3. All Candidates have to appear for a screening exam and short listed candidates a. having certificate in Community Health (CCH) /B.Sc in Community Health will be posted on contractual post of CHO in SHC-H& Wcs.
b. Who do not have Certificate in Community Health (CCH) have to pass the 6 months bridge course successfully.
I. if Candidate is not successful in the Bridge Course in first attempt, he/she shall be given one more opportunity (at the willingness of the candidate) and this second opportunity the fees and other expenditure of Bridge Course shall be borne by candidate himself/herself.
ii. If any candidate is not qualified even after availing second opportunity, such candidate shall not be considered for the contractual post of CHO. Thus, those who have cleared the screening examination and possess the certificate of training would be posted directly on contractual post of CHO while those who have qualified B.Sc in Community Health or Nurse (GNM or B.Sc) or Ayurveda Practitioner, will have to pass 6 months Bridge Course. The criteria for joining the six month bridge course is different from the criteria for selection for the post of CHO. Hence the present advertisement cannot be said to be in any manner anomalous or lacking any eligibility norms. (Downloaded on 23/11/2020 at 09:10:40 PM)
(4 of 4) [CW-13599/2020] The contention of the petitioner, therefore, is found to be without any basis.
This Court notices that the petitioners are that those who have already passed the bridge course and possess a certificate cannot be said to have any lis with the candidates who do not possess certificate course.
Another prayer made to consider them directly for appointment on the post of CHO, has been made. This Court in the case of Tosib Ansari and ors. Vs. State Of Rajasthan and Ors.: SBCWP No. 11161/2020, decided on 12.10.2020 has already held that all the persons who have earlier cleared the bridge course would have the above participate in the selection process.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J Pcg/119 (Downloaded on 23/11/2020 at 09:10:40 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)