Bhuwneshwar Patel v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC17 Jul 2024WPS/5622/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Lab Technician appointment cancellation; Senior Treatment Supervisor contractual service; experience marks withdrawal; merit list Serial No. 03; National Tuberculosis Control Program; CMHO Mahasamund; Divisional Joint Director Health Services Raipur; quashment of order dated 01.10.2014; reinstatement; back wages denied; consequential benefits; writ of certiorari; service law; Chhattisgarh High Court.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; order dated 01.10.2014 of respondent No. 3 quashed; petitioner reinstated in service with other consequential benefits but without back wages. ¶¶31

Bhuwneshwar Patel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors. — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; order dated 01.10.2014 of respondent No. 3 quashed; petitioner reinstated in service with other consequential benefits but without back wages.

¶¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 01.10.2014 of respondent No. 3 cancelling the petitioner's appointment as Lab Technician, on the ground that 08 experience marks were wrongly awarded because the post of Senior Treatment Supervisor is not a post of the Health Department, is sustainable. +1 more

¶¶27

Court's answer

Having been appointed to the post of Senior Treatment Supervisor by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Mahasamund, under the Scheme of the National Tuberculosis Control Program, District Mahasamund, the petitioner was working under the Health Department; therefore the finding of respondent No. 3 to the contrary is erroneous.

¶¶30

Ratio / Principle

The order dated 01.10.2014 passed by the Divisional Joint Director, Health Services, Raipur (respondent No. 3) cancelling the petitioner's appointment is quashed.

¶¶30

Key takeaways

The petitioner is reinstated in service but is not entitled to back wages; he is entitled to other consequential benefits.ratio¶¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Single Bench, Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.), W.P.(S) No. 5622 of 2014, decided 18.07.2024 — Service law — Cancellation of appointment as Lab Technician — Petitioner selected pursuant to advertisement dated 23.01.2014 issued by the Divisional Joint Director, Health Services, Raipur for 35 posts of Lab Technician; placed at Serial No. 03 in the merit list on award of 08 experience marks for 04 years of contractual service as Senior Treatment Supervisor under the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Mahasamund — Respondent No. 3 cancelled the appointment order dated 31.07.2014 vide order dated 01.10.2014, holding the post of Senior Treatment Supervisor to be outside the Health Department — Held: the petitioner was appointed as Senior Treatment Supervisor by the CMHO, Mahasamund under the Scheme of the National Tuberculosis Control Program and was thus working under the Health Department; the finding of respondent No. 3 is erroneous — Impugned order quashed; petitioner reinstated in service; not entitled to back wages but entitled to other consequential benefits — Petition allowed.

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P.(S) No. 5622 of 2014

¶4

Bhuwneshwar Patel, S/o. Shri Ratan Singh Patel, aged about 30 years, Presently working as Lab Technician, Community Health Centre, Toshgaon, Block Saraipali, Civil and Revenue District Mahasamund (C.G.) R/o. Village Kalidarha, Post Gerra, Block Saraipali, Civil and Revenue District Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Health Services, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Police Station Rakhi, Post Office Rakhi, District Raipur (C.G.) PIN 492002

¶8

Director, Health Services Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, 3^rd Floor, New Raipur, Police Station Rakhi, Post Office Rakhi, District Raipur (C.G.) PIN 492002

¶9

Divisional Joint Director Health Services, Office of the Divisional Joint Director Health Services, Raipur Division, Old Nursing Hostel, DKS Premises Building, Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

Commissioner, Public Health and Family Welfare Chhattisgarh Indrawati Bhawan, 3^rd Floor, New Raipur, Police Station Rakhi, Post Office Rakhi, District Raipur (C.G.) PIN 492002

¶11

Chief Medical and Health Officer, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. Aishwary Diwan, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Ajay Chandra, Advocate For Respondents/State : Ms. Soumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer

¶14

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶15

18.07.2024

¶16

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶17

“ 10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner and after its perusal allow the petition.

¶18

10.2 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly further be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned termination order dated 1.10.2014 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No. 3 Divisional Joint Director Health Services Raipur.

¶19

¶20

10.3 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to reinstate the services of the petitioner as per appointment order (Annexure P-9).

¶21

10.4 Cost of the petition be awarded and 10.5 Any other relief or direction which the Hon’ble Court may deems fit, be also awarded.”

¶22

2. Mr. Aishwary Diwan, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Lab Technician vide order dated 31.07.2014. The petitioner was awarded 08 marks for experience as he had worked under the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Mahasamund on contract for a period of 08 years. He referred to the appointment order issued by the authority dated 14.10.2009 and subsequent orders. He further argued that without affording a due opportunity of hearing and without issuing any show cause notice, the appointment order of the petitioner dated 31.07.2014 was set aside by the Divisional Joint Director, Health Services, Raipur vide order dated 01.10.2014 on the ground that due to mistake 08 marks of experience were awarded to the petitioner. He also argued that Condition No. 19 of the Advertisement clearly states that a maximum of 10 marks would be awarded for experience and 02 marks for each year. He further contended that the petitioner had worked for 04 years on a contract, therefore, 8 marks were awarded and in the merit list, his name was placed at Serial No. 03. He also contended that the petitioner was rightly appointed by the respondents, but wrongly removed from the services.

¶23

3. On the other hand, Ms. Soumya Sharma, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents submitted that the Senior Treatment Supervisor was not treated as an employee of the Health

¶24

¶25

Department, therefore, the marks awarded to the petitioner for experience were withdrawn and thereafter, his position in the merit list was at Serial No. 126. She further submitted that a show cause notice was also issued to the petitioner on 02.09.2014.

¶26

4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record.

¶27

5. Admittedly, the advertisement was issued by the Divisional Joint Director, Health Services, Raipur on 23.01.2014 for various posts including 35 posts of Lab Technician. The petitioner applied as a candidate of the Other Backward Class (OBC). The petitioner was placed at Serial No. 03 in the merit list. It is not in dispute that 08 marks were awarded to the petitioner for experience as he had worked for 04 years as a contractual employee under the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Mahasamund in the post of Senior Treatment Supervisor. Respondent No. 3 vide order dated 01.10.2014 cancelled the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that 08 marks were wrongly awarded to the petitioner for experience as the post of Senior Treatment Supervisor is not a post of the Health Department.

¶28

6. A perusal of the order of contractual appointment dated 14.10.2009 and the subsequent orders would reveal that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Senior Treatment Supervisor by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Mahasamund. The petitioner was appointed as an employee of the Health Department by the State Authorities. The petitioner and other candidates were appointed under the Scheme of the National Tuberculosis Control Program, District Mahasamund and thus, it can safely be held that the petitioner was

¶29

¶30

working under the Health Department and the finding given by respondent No. 3 in this regard appears to be erroneous. The petitioner was on the merit list at Serial No. 03, and by virtue of an erroneous order his services were cancelled, therefore, the order passed by the Divisional Joint Director, Health Services, Raipur/respondent No. 3 dated 01.10.2014 is hereby quashed. The petitioner is reinstated in services, but the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim back wages though he shall be entitled to other consequential benefits.

¶31

7. Consequently, this petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶34

vatti

Bhuwneshwar Patel v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhuwneshwar Patel v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakhan Lal Sahu And Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Vs Coal India Limited And Anr.

Nandlal Patel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

P.C. Raikwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt.gauri Bai Paikra Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Dr.ashok Kumar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.