Dismissed

Dr. Santosh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC13 Jul 2020WRIA/4367/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench allowed a writ petition challenging the replacement of the petitioner, a Nodal Officer under the Ayusman Bharat Scheme, with a junior official. The court held that the petitioner had no substantive right to continue in the post as the scheme required an Additional Chief Medical Officer, and the matter was bereft of merits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the termination of the petitioner's appointment as Nodal Officer was dismissed as the State had no liability to retain him in the absence of a substantive right.

Dr. Santosh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4367 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Dr. Santosh Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Indra Raj Singh,Adarsh Singh,Kamal Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶6

Vide order dated 06.07.2020, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed this case to be put up as fresh on 13.07.2020 expecting the learned Standing Counsel to necessarily obtain instructions in the matter failing which it was directed that Court may not only impose cost but may also proceed with the matter on its merit.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 11.03.2020 whereby petitioner who was working as Nodal Officer under the 'Ayusman Scheme' floated by the Union of India and implemented by the State of Uttar Pradesh has been replaced by another person who has been impleaded as respondent no.4 in the present writ petition.

¶8

Admittedly, petitioner was appointed as a Medical Officer, Level-1 on 22.08.2006 and was thereafter promoted as Medical Officer, Level-2 in August, 2014 and subsequently in February, 2020 as Medical Officer Level-3.

¶9

It is an admitted fact that petitioner was appointed as a Nodal Officer under the Ayusman Bharat Scheme vide order dated 12.10.2018 issued by the Office of Chief Superintendent of Lala Laljpat Rai and Associated Hospitals, Kanpur.

¶10

Petitioner's contention is that vide impugned order dated 11.03.2020 on the basis of the instructions issued by the Principal Secretary, Medical Education, petitioner has been replaced with respondent no.4 who is working as Assistant Professor in the Surgery Department of G.S.V.M. Medical College, Kanpur.

¶11

Petitioner's contention is that scheme for implementation of 'Ayusman Bharat National Health Protection Mission' is contained in order dated 13.09.2018, Annexure-2 and in this Scheme, there is a provision for appointment of a district implementation unit with one District Nodal Officer under whom there will be one District Programme Co-ordinator, District Information System Manager and District Grievance Manager. It is further mentioned that District Nodal Officer shall be appointed from amongst the persons holding a fullfledged post of Additional Chief Medical Officer, therefore he could not be replaced with respondent no.4.

¶12

Admittedly, petitioner is not holding a substantive post of Additional Chief Medical Officer and, therefore, as per the document dated 13.9.2018, he has no right to continue in the said post.

¶13

When petitioner's counsel is specifically asked as to which of his fundamental right has been infringed, he is not in a position to answer except saying that a person junior to him has been appointed. There is no mention of equivalence between the petitioner and the Assistant Professor of Surgery working in a Medical College. In any case, it's administrative discretion which has been exercised and since petitioner has been unable to show any substantive right to continue on the post of Nodal Officer under the 'Ayusman Bharat National Health Protection Mission', this petition being bereft of merits, deserves to be

¶14

dismissed and is dismissed.

¶15

Before parting with the case, it will not be out of place to mention that despite specific order passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 06.07.2020, learned Standing Counsel has failed to seek instructions which clearly reveals in difference of the Authorities of the State towards the matters pending in the Court.

¶16

Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary of the State so to take appropriate action against the delinquent officials who have failed to respond to the fax and message sent by the Standing Counsel.

¶17

Order Date :- 13.7.2020 Ashutosh

Dr. Santosh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Santosh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Vidyawati and Another Vs Amt Kumar Kerkatta and 4 Others

Dharmendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Satyapal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Hemant Kumar Malviya Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Sandeep Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others