Madhya Pradesh High Court
Soniya Parveen vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 December, 2016
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH : JUSTICE MS.VANDANA KASREKAR
WRIT PETITION NO.7103/2016
Anoop Kumar Patel & others
Vs.
State of M.P. & others
WRIT PETITION NO.9192/2016
Dhruv Kumar Verma & others
Vs.
State of M.P. & others
WRIT PETITION NO.9211/2016
Ram Gopal Sahu & others
Vs.
State of M.P. & others
WRIT PETITION NO.9148/2016
Smt.Kalpna Mishra & another
Vs.
Union of India & others
WRIT PETITION NO.9219/2016
Anurag Shrivastava
Vs.
State of M.P. & others
2
WRIT PETITION NO.7999/2016
Sarita Dubey
Vs.
State of M.P. & others
CON.C. NO.929/2016
Soniya Parveen & others
Vs.
State of M.P. & others
WRIT PETITION NO.8033/2016
Nidhi Jain
Vs.
State of M.P. & others
WRIT PETITION NO.8161/2016
Smt. Meera Mishra & others
Vs.
Union of India & others
WRIT PETITION NO.8958/2016
Smt. Reeta Saxena & others
Vs.
Union of India & others
3
WRIT PETITION NO.8371/2016
Meenakshi Sharma
Vs.
State of M.P. & others
WRIT PETITION NO.8181/2016
Dr. Sarita Vishwakarma & others
Vs.
Union of India & others
WRIT PETITION NO.8548/2016
Laxmi Prasad Dubey & others
Vs.
State of M.P. & others
WRIT PETITION NO.11944/2016
Sanjay Kumar Yadav & another
Vs.
State of M.P. & others
WRIT PETITION NO.12145/2016
Anil Hingwasia
Vs.
Mission Director and another
4
WRIT PETITION NO.12147/2016
Smt. Rashmi Verma & others
Vs.
Mission Director & others
WRIT PETITION NO.8599/2016
Kranti Choudhary & others
Vs.
National Health Mission M.P. & others
WRIT PETITION NO.11840/2016
Manish Kumar Tiwari & others
Vs.
State of M.P. & others
WRIT PETITION NO.10741/2016
Mirza Washif Baig & others
Vs.
State of M.P. & others
WRIT PETITION NO.12230/2016
Smt. Durgesh Nandani Ghosh
Vs.
State of M.P. & others
5
WRIT PETITION NO.12256/2016
Smt. Vandana Pandey
Vs.
State of M.P. & others
WRIT PETITION NO.12259/2016
Neelima Keer
Vs.
State of M.P. & others
CONC.C. NO.990/2016
Anoop Kumar Patel & others
Vs.
State of M.P. & others
WRIT PETITION NO.7167/2016
Anurag Sharma & others
Vs.
Union of India & others
WRIT PETITION NO.7722/2016
Veena Tripathi & another
Vs.
National Health Mission MP & another
6
WRIT PETITION NO.7829/2016
Shadab Hamid Khan
Vs.
State of M.P. & others
WRIT PETITION NO.12265/2016
Ritesh Kumar Shandilya & another
Vs.
State of M.P. & others
WRIT PETITION NO.12293/2016
Deepak Thapak
Vs.
State of M.P. & others
WRIT PETITION NO.7998/2016
Sandhya Jain
Vs.
State of M.P. & others
WRIT PETITION NO.7997/2016
Arti Dubey
Vs.
State of M.P. & others
7
WRIT PETITION NO.7160/2016
Vipin Pateriya & others
Vs.
Union of India & others
WRIT PETITION NO.9786/2016
Harishankar Prajapati
Vs.
State of M.P. & others
WRIT PETITION NO.9558/2016
Ku.Rajkumari
Vs.
State of M.P. & others
WRIT PETITION NO.7110/2016
Soniya Praveen & others
Vs.
State of M.P. & others
WRIT PETITION NO.12351/2016
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Dehariya & others
Vs.
State of M.P. & others
8
WRIT PETITION NO.13329/2016
Smt. Uma Vishvakarma
Vs.
State of M.P. & others
WRIT PETITION NO.14291/2016
Ghanshyam Das Gupta & another
Vs.
State of M.P. & others
WRIT PETITION NO.14370/2016
Rupesh Nilose & others
Vs.
State of M.P. & others
WRIT PETITION NO.13034/2016
Santosh Yadav & others
Vs.
Union of India & others
WRIT PETITION NO.13072/2016
Brijkishore Kherpuse & others
Vs.
State of M.P. & others
WRIT PETITION NO.14615/2016
Ravishankar Shukla
Vs.
State of M.P. & others
9
WRIT PETITION NO.14502/2016
Ku. Anuradh Khobragade
Vs.
Mission Director
WRIT PETITION NO.18265/2016
Umesh Singh Patle & others
Vs.
State of M.P. & others
WRIT PETITION NO.12782/2016
Surendra Singh Rajpoot & another
Vs.
State of M.P. & others
WRIT PETITION NO.18549/2016
Miss Asma Parveen
Vs.
State of M.P. & others
WRIT PETITION NO.18733/2016
Suresh Kumar Patel
Vs.
State of M.P. & others
10
WRIT PETITION NO.19107/2016
Pratibha Jaiswal
Vs.
State of M.P. & others
WRIT PETITION NO.19113/2016
Jyoti Rajkput
Vs.
State of M.P. & others
WRIT PETITION NO.18752/2016
Mansi Parihar & another
Vs.
State of M.P. & others
Shri Mrigendra Singh, senior counsel with Ms. Ghuncha
Rasool, Vipin Yadav, Shri Devendra Kumar Tripathi,
Shri Priyank Awasthy, Shri Praveen Kumar Pandey,
Shri Suraj Verma, Shri Radhelal Gupta, Shri Siddharth
Gupta, Shri Suyash Tripathi, Shri Rajneesh Gupta, Shri
Shiv Kumar Dubey, Shri Chimanlal Sethi and Shri
Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
Smt. J. Pandit, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents/
State.
Shri Satyam Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent-
Mission Director, National Health Mission.
11
ORDER
(16/12/2016) Since the point involves in all these above writ petitions is identical, therefore, all these writ petitions were analogously heard and are being decided by this common order. For the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from Writ Petition No.7103/2016.
2. An advertisement was published in the local newspaper in respect to appointment on the posts of Counselor, Bemonce Accountant, Distt. Accounts & Evaluation Officer, Nutrition Consultant, Woman Health Worker, Hospital Manager, Staff Nurse, Support Staff and Divisional Accounts Manager in the block level and Primary Health Centre in the State of Madhya Pradesh under the National Rural Health Mission. As the petitioners were qualified for appointment on the said posts, they have submitted their applications. Thereafter written examination was conducted and common merit list was prepared. On the basis of the merit, the petitioners were appointed on the posts of Bemonce Accountant vide order dated 17/12/2007. Thereafter an agreement was executed 12 between the petitioners and respondent No.4 on 22/12/2007 for a period of one year and the same was extended from time to time upto 2012. In the year 2014-15 performance appraisal form was prepared and on the basis of the performance their services was further extended for a period of one year. Thereafter the State Government has taken a decision to hand over the entire services to non-government organizations and, therefore, respondent No.3 vide order dated 31/03/2016 informed respondent No.4 not to include certain posts in the year 2016-17. The petitioners are apprehending that as in the order dated 31/03/2016 the post of Bemonce Accountant was also included, however, their services will be discontinued and, therefore, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.
3. The impugned order has been challenged on the ground that no notice or any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners before passing the said order. Learned counsel has further submitted that the impugned order dated 31/03/2016 has been passed to give favour to certain NGOs. The petitioners have also challenged the impugned order on the ground that the scheme or the project in which the petitioners are working is yet not abolished. Counsel for the petitioner has 13 argued that there is no deficiency of funds. In fact, the funds have been granted by the Government of India for continuing the post in question and as the petitioners are working since 2008, a notice should have been given in terms of appointment before discontinuing the petitioners from the service.
4. The respondent No.3 filed reply and in reply respondent No.3 has stated that the petitioners are the contractual employees and their contract stood expired on 31/03/2016 and the same is admittedly not being renewed, therefore, their services can be termed temporary in nature and without there being any further renewal, the relationship of employer and employee is not in existence. Respondent No.3 has further submitted that the petitioners have been appointed on the post of Bemonce Accountant on contract basis and the contract is executed for one financial year i.e. from 1 st April to 31st March of each year. The contract of the petitioners has not been renewed on 1st April, 2016 as the posts have not been continued, therefore, the contract of all the petitioners has come to an end on 31/03/2016. Respondent No.3 has further stated that the State of Madhya Pradesh is using maximum percentage of its budget in HR, but results are not upto the 14 mark. The Union of India has specifically requested to reduce the budget specially for HR as it was more than upto 30% of the total budget. In view of the aforesaid, the executive body of the State Health Society of Madhya Pradesh National Health Mission has decided to abolish certain posts which are not necessary for the effective working of the programme and their work can be allotted to similar post available to the department. In the aforesaid circumstances, it has been decided to rationalize/reduce the burden and to abolish the said post by the State Executive Body. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid, impugned order dated 31/3/2016 has been passed.
5. So far as issuance of notice before discontinuing the services of the petitioners are concerned, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has argued that as the services were discontinued due to abolition of the posts, therefore, issuance of show cause notice is not required. He has submitted that it is the policy decision taken by the respondents which cannot be interfered into by this petition. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 further submits that a bunch of writ petitions involving identical issue, have been filed before the Indore Bench of this Court and these writ petitions were dismissed vide order dated 15 05/12/2016.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order passed by the Indore Bench of this Court in W.P. No.3743/2016 (Shyam Kumar Vs. State of M.P. & others) along with connected writ petitions on 05/12/2016. On perusal of the order dated 05/12/2016 passed by the Indore Bench of this Court, this court is of the view that the point involves in these writ petitions is identical to those writ petitions which are decided by the Indore Bench of this Court. Indore Bench of this Court in W.P. No.3743/2016 vide order dated 05/12/2016 in operative para has held as under :
" It is not a case where a contractual appointee is being discontinued prior to completion of tenure and, therefore, the aforesaid judgments wherein it has been held that opportunity of hearing should be given before terminating a contractual employee, are of no help to the petitioners. They have been permitted to complete their contractual period. So far as their continuance, in the light of the period they have put in is concerned, the contractual employees are being 16 discontinued as the post on which they were working have not been continued by the Government and, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the question of directing the continuance of the petitioner on the post held by them, does not arise. However, it is made clear that in case in future any appointment is made in respect of the post on which the petitioner was working, the respondents shall appoint the petitioner on preferential basis and in case there is any need in the Department in respect of other posts, the respondents shall also consider the case of the petitioner on preferential basis, subject to their fulfilling the qualification. With the aforesaid, the question of interference does not arise.
The petitioner shall be free to file a detailed representation stating the qualifications to the respondents and the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner in case the posts are available and the petitioner is qualified and also keeping in view the number of years of service the petitioner has put in.
Accordingly, admission is
declined"
17
7. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid order passed by the Indore Bench of this Court, all these writ petitions are dismissed in the same term.
(Ms. Vandana Kasrekar) JUDGE ts