Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kanwarjeet Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 October, 2014
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
CWP no. 18431 of 2014 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP no. 18431 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 01.10.2014
Kanwarjeet Singh and others
....Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present : Mr. H.C.Arora, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Daman Dhir and
Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocates for the respondents
MAHESH GROVER, J.
CM no. 12166 of 2014 is allowed as prayed for.
The petitioners who are Multi Purpose Health Workers (hereinafter referred to as the 'MPHW') were appointed pursuant to the Central scheme under the National Health Mission. They are working on contractual basis for about 6 to 7 years. The respondents no. 2 to 5 now intend to fill up 12 posts on regular basis but the right of consideration is being denied to the petitioners on the ground that they have become overage.
The petitioners have placed sufficient material on record to indicate that regularization has been granted in the cases of overage employees. The rules would also indicate a power of relaxation in this regard.
The only distinction that has been admitted to deny the REKHA 2014.10.06 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP no. 18431 of 2014 (O&M) 2 petitioners the right of consideration is that relaxation cannot be granted in their favour as it is admissible only to those persons who are Government employees.
I am afraid such an artificial distinction sought to be created by the respondents would be unacceptable in law, being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have been working under Central scheme for the last 6 to 7 years and at this stage have become overage. Their cases thus cannot be distinguished from those who have been in Government service. They would have to be necessarily equated with them as far as benefit of age relaxation for the purposes of consideration of appointment to regular service is concerned. Needless to say that it is only a right of consideration which they will be earning and the respondents would obviously be within their rights to make a selection in accordance with law from the candidates who aspire for such an appointment.
Having regard to the aforesaid, instant petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to grant participatory rights to the petitioners in the process of appointment by giving them benefit of age relaxation.
Since this is the solitary prayer made in the instant petition, the same is disposed of as above. In case the petitioners have any grievance against the selection they would be at liberty to agitate against the selection so made by the respondents.
Reply filed to the petition also indicates the stand of the respondents that in case they need more human resources to be employed on contractual basis, preference would be given to the petitioners and other REKHA 2014.10.06 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP no. 18431 of 2014 (O&M) 3 similarly situated persons. Obviously the respondents would be bound by the stand that they have taken before this Court.
October 01, 2014 (MAHESH GROVER)
rekha JUDGE
REKHA
2014.10.06 14:29
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
High Court Chandigarh