Himachal Pradesh High Court
Smt. Laxmi Devi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 19 August, 2020
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWPOA No.7694 of 2020
Decided on: 19.08.2020
Smt. Laxmi Devi ....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents.
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the petitioner : Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Dinesh Thakur and Mr. Sanjeev
Sood, Additional Advocate Generals, for
respondents No.1 to 4State.
None for respondent No.5.
(Through Video Conferencing).
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2020 20:21:30 :::HCHP 2.
" i) That a writ in the nature of Certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing and setting aside the appointment of respondent No.5 as ASHA Worker in Gram Panchayat Ludhiyana, Tehsil Sangrah, District Sirmour (H.P.).
ii) That a writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued directing the Respondents to select and appoint the petitioner as ASHA Worker in Sangrah Block of Gram Panchayaat Ludhiyana, Tehsil Sangrah, District Sirmour (H.P.)"
2. The case of the petitioner is that the Department of Health had issued Annexure P1 on the subject of appointment of ASHAs under NRHM. The petitioner being eligible for being appointed as an ASHA Worker, had applied for being appointed as such in Gram Panchayat Ludhiayana in the year 2014. She was interviewed for being considered for appointment against the post in issue by respondent No.3.
Her grievance is that despite the fact that she fulfilled the eligibility criteria prescribed in Annexure P1 and had also gone ASHA Training, she was not selected for being appointed against the post in issue and the private respondent ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2020 20:21:30 :::HCHP 3 .
stood engaged. It is in this background, that the petitioner has filed the present petition.
3. In the response which has been filed to the writ petition by respondents No.1 to 4, their stand is that in pursuance to the Guidelines issued by the Government of India, regarding Accredited Social Health Activists (ASHAs), the selection process was initiated for selection and imparting training to Accredited Social Health Activists in the year 2007 in the State of Himachal Pradesh. On account of imposition of the Model Code of Conduct in the State in the year 2007, on account of the ensuing State Assembly Elections, none of the candidates were given complete training as ASHA Worker.
The ASHA Scheme never became fully operationalized in the State of Himachal Pradesh in the year 2007. Thereafter, in the year 2012, a fresh decision was taken by the Government and approval was conveyed for appointment of 7750 ASHA ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2020 20:21:30 :::HCHP 4 .
Workers in the State of Himachal Pradesh. In response thereto, in the process which was so initiated, the petitioner also participated and as she could not make a grade, she cannot now challenge the selection process and seek the relief, prayed for. On these grounds, the petition is resisted by the petitioner.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith.
5. It is not in dispute that when the process stood initiated for appointment of ASHA Workers in the year 2014, the petitioner did participate in the selection process. In the said process, private respondent was found to be more meritorious by the Selecting Authority and she has been offered appointment.
::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2020 20:21:30 :::HCHP 5.
6. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner was put a pointed query by the Court, as to what was the disqualification with which the private respondent was suffering from, which rendered her ineligible for being offered for the post of an ASHA Worker. To this, learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that no such averment stood made in the petition.
7. On a subsequent query of the Court, as to what was the indefeasible right of the petitioner of appointment against the post in issue, learned Counsel submitted that as the petitioner had been imparted training of ASHA Worker, therefore, she was having a preferential right to be appointed against the post in issue.
8. In my considered view, there is no force in the said contention of the petitioner. This is for the reason that it is not the case of the petitioner that the candidate, who stands ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2020 20:21:30 :::HCHP 6 .
selected, is suffering from any disqualification. The stand of the State that in the year 2007, full training was not imparted to any ASHA Worker, could not be controverted by the petitioner. Even otherwise, as the appointment in issue, has been made in the year 2014 and it is not the case of the petitioner that the selected candidate was ineligible for being appointed against the post in issue, therefore also the petition deserves dismissal.
9. Petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand dismissed.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 19, 2020 (Rishi) ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2020 20:21:30 :::HCHP