Disposed

Ku.Sangita Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC7 Oct 2013WPS/5564/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur disposed of a writ petition seeking appointment as Lab Technician. The Court held that while posts may not be available, the evaluation of past performance under the impugned circular is an administrative task not for judicial determination. The petitioner was directed to submit a representation to the competent authority for consideration within four mon

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit representation to the competent authority for continuation of service, to be considered within four months.

Ku.Sangita Mishra Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

¶2

BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH

¶3

w.p.(s). No.§§§</ /2oo7 (5.3.)

¶4

M‘

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

Ku. Sangita Mishra, a ged. W about 27 years, D/o Shri ..... r” R.D.Mishra, R/o ‘irrigation Colony, Premabag, Baikunthpur, Distt’. Korea (C-G-)

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Wm
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh
Th rough Secretary

¶9

Health Department

¶10

1 D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur gg;_G-) 1v < ~ g9 2. Director, Directorate Chhattisgarh Health Services f^{,Raipur(C.G.)} 3. Chief Medical Officer Baikunthpur, District Korea (c.G.)

¶11

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF

¶12

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶13

1.
2.

¶14

PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER

¶15

As detailed in Cause title above.

¶16

PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS

¶17

As detailed in cause title above.

¶18

(ri’t 3

¶19

w‘§

¶20

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR

¶21

Writ Petition (S) No.5564 of 2007

¶22

PETITIONER Ku. Sangita Mishra

¶23

Versus

¶24

RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others

¶25

Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

¶26

Present :— Shri H.V. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State;

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(Passed^{onthis7thdayofOctober,2013)}

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶30

In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^ofIndiathe petitioner^has prayed^{foradirectiontotherespondehtstoappoint} her as Lab Technician and continue her^services.

¶31

According to the petitioner, she was appointed^{asLabTechnician} by the Chief Medical & Health Officer,^Baikunthpur, District Korea, on contract basis on 27-6-2002 (Annexure^— P/3), which was continued by order dated 7—3-2006 (Annexure^— P/1), however, after March, 2006 her contract services^{werenotcontinueddespite} circular dated 3-4-2006 (Annexure^{—P/9)issuedbythe} Director, Directorate of Health Services,^{Chhattisgarh,Raipur.} Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner^would submit that consequent to issuance of the circular dated 3—4—2006, similarly t placed persons namely; Shri Shailendra Kumar Mishra, Ku. \ Subhasini Neelam Singh & Shri Jainul Hasan Pirdausi were igranted contract appointment vide orders dated 13-6-2006 &

¶32

¶33

7-8-2006 (Annexures^— P/8 & P/7, respectively), but the case^ofthe petitioner^was not considered. According to him, it was cie'ariy mentioned in the circuiar dated 3—4—2006 that the contract appointment of Staff Nurse, ANM & Lab Technician appointed under the RCH Scheme be^{determinedandthereafter,theymay} again be appointed on contract^{basisonvacant} posts^onthebasis of their past performance.

\ ,:

'55 " ’

Learned counsei appearing for^{theStatewouldsubmitthat,infact,} this is a circuiar by which their contract appointment wasvnot continued, as posts^{werenotavaiiabieaftercompletionofRCI:|-|} Scheme.

¶39

After hearing the learned^{counselappearing} for the parties, it is manifest that whether or^not posts^{wereavaiiabieforappointment} of the petitioner,^{theevaluationofherpastperformance} is to be considered by the concerned^{appointingauthorityandnotbythis} Court, thus, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction^thatin the event the petitioner submits a representation before the competent authority^{claimingbenemofthecirculardated3-4-2006} for continuance of her^{contractserviceasLabTechnician,thesaid} competent authority shall^{consideranddecidethesameasearly} as possible preferably^withina period^{offourmonthsfromthedate} of submission of^{representation.}

¶40

Sd//-

¶41

Gowri

¶42

Prashant^KumarMishm Judge

Ku.Sangita Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ku.Sangita Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.G.Karmchari Mazdoor Ekta Union Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ganga Prasad Verma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Manoj Tamboli And Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Gend Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Jogiram Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Sanjay Sharma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.