Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Rigzin Motup And Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 3 January, 2025
S. No. 43
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case No. :-WP(C) No. 65/2025
Rigzin Motup and ors. .....Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Akhil Ahmed Bardi, Advocate.
Vs.
Union of India & Ors. ..... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Sumant Sudan, Advocate vice
Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE
ORDER
03.01.2025
1. Petitioners through the medium of this petition have called-in-question the Advertisement Notice No. 93/SHS/UTL/NHM/HR of 2024-25 dated 01.10.2024 and also interview Notification No. 145/SHS/MD NHM/HR 2024-25 for the post of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgeon and Orthodontist. In addition, the petitioners have also sought a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondents to comply with Indian Public Health Standards of 2022 guidelines (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPHS Guidelines of 2022), which provides that MDS, master in dental surgery candidates should be eligible regardless of specialization and, accordingly, the advertisement notification has violated the said norms and guidelines, with further direction to the respondents to comply with the IPHS guidelines of 2022.
2 WP(C) No. 65/2025
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the notification regarding interview for various posts on contractual basis under National Health Mission (in brevity, "NHM") UT of Ladakh has been issued on 28.12.2024 and the petitioners have challenged the same insofar as the post/qualification of two posts, namely, Oral & Maxillofacial Surgeon and Orthdontist, which is contrary to the guidelines prescribed under the IPHS Guidelines of 2022, which does not specify the specific dental specialties and provides that the candidates with an MDS should be eligible regardless of their specialization and the Advertisement Notice, which has been issued prior to the notice of interview, has violated the said rules and guidelines.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the IPHS Guidelines of 2022 do not mention the requirement of a specific branch of dentistry of MDS in Sub-District and District Hospitals, unlike the recruitment stated to be in Medicine and the Surgical branches, which guidelines clearly mention the branch, that is required as MD/MS.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners possess an MDS Qualification and meet the necessary qualification under IPHS Guidelines of 2022 and, thus, the criteria, which has been prescribed in the impugned Advertisement Notice has caused grave prejudice to the petitioners and hence, the present petition has been preferred.
3 WP(C) No. 65/2025
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners at length and perused the record.
6. From the record, it appears that the Advertisement No. 93/SHS/UTL/NHM/HR of 2024-25 was issued on 01.10.2024 for various contractual appointments under NHM UT of Ladakh 2024-25, in which the State Health Society, National Health Mission, UT of Ladakh invited applications from the eligible candidates for the various contractual posts, which included the posts of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgeon and also Orthdontist.
7. Inspite of the fact that the aforesaid Notification was issued on 01.10.2024, the petitioners herein did not challenge the same and instead, feeling aggrieved of the said Advertisement Notification, have filed a representation before the respondents on 09.10.2024, which has been placed on record as Annexure-III with the instant petition. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the said representation has not been decided as on date. Pursuant to the aforesaid Advertisement Notice dated 01.10.2024, the subsequent Notification dated 28.12.2024 has been issued for interview for various posts under NHM on contractual basis and is impugned in the instant petition, for which learned counsel for the petitioners prays that the same be quashed/stayed.
8. Since the record reveals that the petitioners did not approach this Court, immediately pursuant to issuance of the Advertisement Notice and rather, have chosen the remedy of filing a representation for redressal of their grievance and the subsequently, 4 WP(C) No. 65/2025 the petitioners have allowed the selection process to commence for two months which ultimately culminated into issuance of interview notice, therefore, it would not be appropriate to stay the entire selection process, at this stage, which will cause grave prejudice to the competing candidates for various posts.
9. Accordingly, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it proper to issue notice, at this stage, which is accepted by Mr. Sumant Sudan, Advocate, appearing vice Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI. He seeks and is granted three weeks' time to file the response.
10. List again on 14.02.2025.
11. Meanwhile, respondents are directed to accord consideration to the representation alleged to have been filed by the petitioners during the notice period. However, the selection for the posts, namely, Oral & Maxillofacial Surgeon and Orthodontist shall be subject to the outcome of the instant writ petition.
(Wasim Sadiq Nargal) Judge JAMMU 03.01.2025 Ram Krishan Ram Krishan 2025.01.03 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document