Disposed

Kshamta Sharma v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC13 Aug 2021CWPOA/5998/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

B.Sc. Nursing and GNM candidates were held eligible for advertised Female Health Worker posts, subject to category-wise merit. The court rejected the State’s changed stand and directed the Staff Selection Commission to declare results including these candidates and recommend successful candidates for appointment within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

SSC directed to declare results treating B.Sc. Nursing and GNM candidates as eligible and recommend successful candidates for Female Health Worker appointments within four weeks.

Kshamta Sharma Vs State of Hp — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

REPORTABLE/NON-REPORTABLE

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA ON THE 13^th DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN,

¶6

¶7

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3238 OF 2019 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2019 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3467 OF 2019 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3468 OF 2019 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3905 OF 2019 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3908 OF 2019 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3911 OF 2019 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3913 OF 2019 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3914 OF 2019 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3915 OF 2019 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3921 OF 2019 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3922 OF 2019 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3927 OF 2019 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3932 OF 2019 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3933 OF 2019 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1423 OF 2020

¶8

CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL APPLICATION) NO. 5998 OF 2020 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3476 OF 2021 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3238 OF 2019

¶9

Between:-

¶10

1. THE STATE OF H.P. THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HEALTH) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HP, SHIMLA-2, HP.

¶11

2. THE DIRECTOR,

¶12

¶13

HEALTH SERVICES HP, SHIMLA-9. ….PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SH. AJAY VAIDYA, SR. ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)

¶15

AND

¶16

1. GAYATRI DEVI D/O SH. UMA KANT, R/O VILL. DHARJAROL, P.O. JAROL, TEHSIL THUNAG, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

¶17

2. ANKITA D/O SH. KULDEEP CHAND R/O NEAR DAV COLLEGE, WARD NO.8 TEHSIL & DISTT. KANGRA, H.P.

¶18

3. DIPIKA CHAUHAN D/O SH. SURESH KUMAR R/O V.P.O. HANOH, TEHSIL BHORANJ, DISTT. HAMIRPUR, H.P.

¶19

4. POONAM D/O SH. HEM RAJ, R/O VPO MAHADEV, TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTT. MANDI, H.P.

¶20

5. RUPALI DOGRA D/O SH. OMPAL DOGRA, R/O VPO BEEHAN BIHAN UPARLI, TEHSIL DEHRA, DISTT. KANGRA, H.P.

¶21

6. MEENA KUMARI D/O SH. RAMESH CHAND, R/O VILL. MIHARA, P.O. MARHANA, TEHSIL GHUMARWIN, DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P. ..RESPONDENTS

¶22

(SH. YOGESH KUMAR CHANDEL, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO 5 SH. ANGREZ KAPOOR, ADVOCATE FOR R-7)

¶23

¶24

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2019

¶25

. 1. THE STATE OF H.P. THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HEALTH) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HP, SHIMLA-2, H.P.

¶26

2. THE DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, H.P. SHIMLA-9

¶27

…. PETITIONER

¶28

(BY SH. AJAY VAIDYA, SR. ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)

¶29

VERSUS

¶30

1. MEENAKSHI D/O SH.VEER SINGH, R/O VILL. BHERI, P.O. BANDI, TEHSIL KANGRA, BHERI (320), DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.

¶31

2. ANJNA KUMAR D/O SH. KIKAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILL. ALHI, P.O. NALOH, TEHSIL SIHUNTA, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.

¶32

…RESPONDENTS

¶33

. 3. H.P. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION,

¶34

. HAMIRPUR, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY.

¶35

…PROFORMA RESPONDENT

¶36

(SH. NARESH KAUL, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 MR. ANGREZ KAPOOR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)

¶37

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3467 OF 2019

¶38

Between:-

¶39

1. THE STATE OF HP THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HEALTH) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HP, SHIMLA-2, HP.

¶40

2. THE DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES HP, SHIMLA-9. …....PETITIONERS (BY SH. AJAY VAIDYA, SR. ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL) AND

¶41

MANISHA PAL

¶42

¶43

W/O SH. JITENDER KUMAR R/O VILL. & P.O. KAPAHRA, TEHSIL GHUMARWIN DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P.

¶44

….....RESPONDENTS

¶45

HP STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, HAMIRPUR, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY.

¶46

..PROFORMA RESPONDENT

¶47

(MR. RAKESH KUMAR DOGRA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 MR. ANGREZ KAPOOR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶48

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3468 OF 2019

¶49

. 1. THE STATE OF H.P. THROUGH

¶50

. ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HEALTH)

¶51

. TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HP, SHIMLA-2, H.P.

¶52

. 2 THE DIRECTOR,

¶53

. HEALTH SERVICES, H.P.

¶54

. SHIMLA-9

¶55

…. PETITIONERS

¶56

(BY SH. AJAY VAIDYA, SR. ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL) AND

¶57

1. KAVITA SHARMA, D/O SH. DARSHAN KUMAR, R/O VILL. THER, P.O. KUKHER, TEHSIL NURPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.

¶58

…RESPONDENT

¶59

2. H.P. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, HAMIRPUR, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY.

¶60

…PROFORMA RESPONDENT

¶61

(SH. NARESH KAUL, ADVOCATE FOR R-1

¶62

MR. ANGREZ KAPOOR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶63

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3905 OF 2019

¶64

Between:-

¶65

1. THE STATE OF H.P. THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HEALTH) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF H.P, SHIMLA HP

¶66

2. THE DIRECTOR,

¶67

¶68

HEALTH SERVICES HP, SHIMLA-9.

¶69

…..PETITIONERS

¶70

(BY MR. AJAY VAIDYA, SR. ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)

¶71

AND

¶72

1. HEMA DEVI D/O SH. AMAR CHAND W/O SH. ARUN SEN, R/O VILLAGE & PO GUTKAR, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

¶73

2. NISHA DEVI D/O SH. YOG RAJ, R/O VILLAGE KARLWHAN, PO BHARGAON, DISTRICT MANDI, HP, PIN CODE 175003.

¶74

3. TRIPTI THAKUR D/O SH. PREM SINGH, R/O VILLAGE & PO DRAHAL, TEHSIL JOGINDER NAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

¶75

4. REETA DEVI D/O SH. PRAKASH CHAND, R/O VILLAGE & PO SAMRAHAN, TEHSIL KOTLI, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P. PIN CODE 175 003.

¶76

5. JAI PREETI SHARMA D/O SH. SHER CHAND SHARMA, R/O VILLAGE & PO BALOH, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT MANDI, HP, PIN CODE 175002

¶77

….RESPONDENTS

¶78

(SH. SURINDER PRAKASH SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR 1, 3 & 5 MR. ANGREZ KAPOOR, ADVOCATE FOR R-6)

¶79

¶80

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3908 OF 2012

¶81

Between :

¶82

. 1. THE STATE OF H.P. . THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY(HEALTH) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HP, SHIMLA-2, H.P.

¶83

2. THE DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES H.P. SHIMLA-9

¶84

…PETITIONERS

¶85

(BY MR. AJAY VAIDYA, SR. ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL) AND

¶86

1. POONAM D/O SH. MAN SINGH, R/O VPO KALAHOD, TEHSIL SUNDER NAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

¶87

2. BHARTI THAKUR D/O SH. ROOP LAL DADWAL, R/O VPO MATOKHAR, TEHSIL SARKAGHAT, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

¶88

3. SEEMA KUMARI D/O SH. JASPAL SINGH, R/O VPO THANA, P.O. GOPALPUR, TEHSIL SARKAGHAT, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

¶89

…RESPONDENTS

¶90

. 4. H.P. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, . HAMIRPUR, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY.

¶91

…PROFORMA RESPONDENT

¶92

(SH. YOGESH KUMAR CHANDEL, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3 MR. ANGREZ KAPOOR, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

¶93

CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 3911 of 2019

¶94

Between:

¶95

1. STATE OF H.P. THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HEALTH) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,

¶96

¶97

SHIMLA-2.

¶98

2. THE DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, H.P. SHIMLA-9.

¶99

…..PETITIONERS

¶100

(SH. AJAY VAIDYA, SR. ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)

¶101

AND

¶102

1. DEEPIKA D/O SH. SOHAN SINGH R/O VILLAGE MARI, POST OFFICE, DHURKHARI, TEHSIL BALDWARA, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

¶103

2. SHASHI KUMARI D/O SH. PRATAP SINGH, R/O VILLAGE LUHARD POST OFFICE, BHARGAON, TEHSIL KOTLI, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

¶104

3. VARSHA KUMARI D/O SH. INDER SINGH, R/O VILLAGE BHOUR, POST OFFICE, KANAID, TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

¶105

….RESPONDENTS.

¶106

4. H.P. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, HAMIRPUR, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY.

¶107

..PROFORMA RESPONDENT.

¶108

(SH. DEVENDER K. SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO 3. SH. ANGREZ KAPOOR, ADVOCATE, FOR R-4)

¶109

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3913 OF 2019

¶110

Between:

¶111

THE STATE OF H.P. THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HEALTH) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2.

¶112

THE DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, H.P. SHIMLA-9.

¶113

…..PETITIONERS

¶114

¶115

(SH. AJAY VAIDYA, SR. ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)

¶116

AND

¶117

1. VARSHA BHANDARI D/O SH. BELI RAM, R/O VILL. BHALTHER, P.O. PANARSA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

¶118

2. RAKSHA DEVI D/O SH. PARMA NAND, R/O TYPE-2 QTR. NO. 201, BSNL COLONY ROPA, P.O. BHOJPUR, TEHSIL SUNDER NAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

¶119

3. NIRMLA KUMARI W/O SH. ANOOP, R/O H. NO. 20/8 VILL. ROPA, P.O. BHOJPUR, TEHSIL SUNDER NAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

¶120

4. GUMATI DEVI W/O SH. THAKUR DASS, R/O VPO BLAT, TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

¶121

5. SEEMA DEVI W/O SH. PRAVEEN, R/O VILLAGE SILIKHAD, P.O. KUFRI, TEHSIL PADHAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

¶122

6. PUJA DEVI D/O SH. NAND LAL SAINI, R/O HOUSE NO. 366/5, SAIN MUHALLA, P.O. MANDI, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

¶123

7. VANDANA D/O SH. HARI OM, R/O WARD NO.7, HOUSE NO. 38, VPO MEHATPUR, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT UNA, H.P.

¶124

8. SHANTA KUMARI W/O SH. RAHUL PATIAL, R/O VPO NABAHI, (GORI GHULANU), TEHSIL SARKAGHAT, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

¶125

¶126

9. RENU CHANDEL W/O SH. SURENDER KUMAR, R/O VILL. BHATER, P.O. TARKWARI, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, H.P.

¶127

10. NISHA KUMARI D/O SH. RANJEET SINGH, R/O VPO DHIRWIN, PAINJWIN, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, H.P.

¶128

11. DEEPIKA D/O SH. JAGDISH CHAND, R/O VILLAGE BHOL KHAS, P.O. LARTH, TEHSIL JAWALI, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.

¶129

12. CHANDNI KUMARI D/O SH. SRI KANTH, R/O VPO BALDHAR, TEHSIL NAGROTA BAGWAN, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.

¶130

13. JYOTI D/O SH. SHANKAR DASS, R/O VILLAGE PATTA, P.O. UPPERLI BAHLI, TEHSIL SUNDER NAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

¶131

14. SUNITA DEVI W/O SH. TARA CHAND, R/O VPO BATH, TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

¶132

15. BIMLA DEVI D/O SH. RAM NATH, R/O VPO GOHAR, TEHSIL CHACHYOT, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

¶133

16. ANJALI THAKUR D/O SH. PARKASH THAKUR, R/O VPO PANDOH, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

¶134

17. HIMANSHU D/O SH. HEM CHAND,

¶135

R/O VILLAGE NASLOH, P.O. REHARDHAR,

¶136

¶137

TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

¶138

18. LATA DEVI W/O SH. BHUMESH CHAND, R/O VILLAGE MAGLANA, P.O.KUFRI, TEHSIL PADHAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

¶139

…RESPONDENTS.

¶140

19. H.P.STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, HAMIRPUR, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY.

¶141

..PROFORMA RESPONDENT.

¶142

(SH. YOGESH KUMAR CHANDEL, ADVOCATE FOR R 1 TO 18. SH. ANGREZ KAPOOR, ADVOCATE FOR R-19.)

¶143

CIVIL WRIT PETITION. 3914 OF 2019

¶144

Between:

¶145

1. THE STATE OF H.P. THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HEALTH) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2.

¶146

2. THE DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, H.P. SHIMLA-9.

¶147

…..PETITIONERS

¶148

(SH. AJAY VAIDYA, SR. ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)

¶149

AND

¶150

1. PRATIBHA THAKUR D/O SH. BHAG CHAND THAKUR, R/O WARD NO. 3, VILLAGE KAPRI, P.O. DHARA, TEHSIL BHUNTER, DISTRICT KULLU, H.P.

¶151

BHANU PRIYA

¶152

D/O SH. TARA CHAND AND WIFE OF SH. PYARE LAL,

¶153

¶154

R/O VILLAGE RATOCHA, P.O. DHARA, TEHSIL BHUNTER, DISTRICT KULLU, H.P.

¶155

….RESPONDENTS.

¶156

3. H.P.STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, HAMIRPUR, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY.

¶157

…PROFORMA RESPONDENT.

¶158

(SH. SURENDER PRAKASH SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR R 1 & 2. SH. ANGREZ KAPOOR, ADVOCATE, FOR R-3.)

¶159

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3915 OF 2019

¶160

Between:

¶161

1. THE STATE OF H.P. THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HEALTH) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2.

¶162

2. THE DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, H.P. SHIMLA-9.

¶163

…..PETITIONERS

¶164

(SH. AJAY VAIDYA, SR. ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL) AND

¶165

1. RENU BALA D/O SH. HANS RAJ, R/O VILLAGE GHAMEERPUR, P.O. NANDPUR, TEHSIL DEHRA, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.

¶166

2. KIRNA DEVI D/O SH. HARI RAM, R/O VILL. BHON KATLI, P.O. KALAHOD, TEHSIL SUNDER NAGAR, DISTT. MANDI, H.P.

¶167

3. VEENA KUMARI D/O SH. BHAGAT RAM, R/O VPO MAHADEV, TEHSIL SUNDER NAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

¶168

¶169

4. PRIYANKA KUMARI D/O SH. MILKHI RAM, R/O VILLAGE PUNDER, P.O. DAIN, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT HAMIRPUR.

¶170

….RESPONDENTS.

¶171

5. H.P. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, HAMIRPUR, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY.

¶172

…PROFORMA RESPONDENT.

¶173

(SH. YOGESH KUMAR CHANDEL, ADVOCATE FOR R 1 TO 4.

¶174

SH. ANGREZ KAPOOR, ADVOCATE, FOR R-5.)

¶175

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3921 OF 2019

¶176

Between:

¶177

1. THE STATE OF H.P. THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HEALTH) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2.

¶178

THE DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, H.P. SHIMLA-9.

¶179

…..PETITIONERS

¶180

(SH. AJAY VAIDYA, SR. ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)

¶181

AND

¶182

1. AMRITANJALI D/O SH. CHAMAN LAL SHARMA, R/O WARD NO.2, P.O. JOGINDER NAGAR, TEHSIL J. NAGAR, DISTT. MANDI, H.P.

¶183

2. SANTOSH KUMARI D/O SH. PURAN CHAND, R/O ADDRESS VILLAGE LAHAR BANSDEHRA, P.O. DUGHA, TEHSIL AND DISTT. HAMIRPUR, H.P.

¶184

3. KAMNA DEVI D/O SH. SWAROOP CHAND, R/O VILLAGE SAINTHAL, P.O. SAINTHAL,

¶185

¶186

TEHSIL AND DISTT. MANDI, H.P.

¶187

4. MEENA DEVI D/O SH. PARAS RAM, R/O VILLAGE KUTNASS, P.O. KATWACHI, TEHSIL NIHRI, DISTT. MANDI, H.P.

¶188

5. TANUJA D/O SH. VIRENDER SINGH, R/O VILLAGE GARADE, P.O. AND TEHSIL NICHAR, DISTT. KINNAUR, H.P.

¶189

6. NISHA KUMARI D/O SH. CHET RAM, R/O VILLAGE SADEHARA, P.O. SIDHYANI, TEHSIL BALH, DISTT. MANDI, H.P.

¶190

7. GEETA DEVI W/O SH. GOPAL, R/O VILLAGE SAMKAL, P.O. UPPER BEHLI, TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTT. MANDI, H.P.

¶191

8. RUPA, D/O SH. SUNDER LAL R/O VILLAGE DOUNDHI, P.O. NAGCHALA, TEHSIL BALH, DISTT. MANDI, H.P.

¶192

9. PREETIKA D/O SH. RAMESH KUMAR, R/O VPO SLAPPER COLONY, TEHSIL SUNDER NAGAR, DISTT. MANDI, H.P.

¶193

….RESPONDENTS

¶194

10. H.P. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, HAMIRPUR, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY.

¶195

…PROFORMA RESPONDENT

¶196

(SH. YOGESH KUMAR CHANDEL, ADVOCATE, FOR R-1,2, 4 TO 7, SH. PAWAN K. SHARMA, ADVOCATE, FOR R-9 AND SH. ANGREZ KAPOOR, ADVOCATE, FOR R-10)

¶197

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3922 OF 2019

¶198

Between:

¶199

¶200

1. THE STATE OF H.P. THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HEALTH) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2.

¶201

2. THE DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, H.P. SHIMLA-9.

¶202

…..PETITIONERS

¶203

(SH. AJAY VAIDYA, SR. ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)

¶204

AND

¶205

SHALINI THAKUR D/O SH. SANOKH SINGH THAKUR, R/O VILLAGE POLI, P.O. THURAN, TEHSIL JHANDUTTA, DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P.

¶206

….RESPONDENT.

¶207

H.P.STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, HAMIRPUR, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY.

¶208

…PROFORMA RESPONDENT.

¶209

(SH. RAKESH KUMAR DOGRA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1, SH. ANGREZ KAPOOR, ADVOCATE, FOR R-2)

¶210

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3927 OF 2012

¶211

Between:

¶212

. 1. THE STATE OF H.P. THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY(HEALTH) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HP, SHIMLA-2, H.P.

¶213

2. THE DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES H.P. SHIMLA-9

¶214

…PETITIONERS

¶215

(SH. AJAY VAIDYA, SR. ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)

¶216

¶217

AND

¶218

1. SAPNA KUMARI D/O SH. ROSHAN LAL, R/O VILL. PANJAIL KALLAN, TEHSIL SADAR PANJEL KALAN (2)), DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P.

¶219

2. NITIKA SHARMA D/O SH. SHYAM LAL R/O VILLAGE BALWAR, P.O. JUKHALA TEHSIL SADAR, DISTT. BILASPUR, H.P.

¶220

3. SMRITI DEVI D/O SH. SATYA PAL, R/O VPO SAYAR DOBHA, TEHSIL SADAR DISTRICT BILASPUR, H.P. …RESPONDENTS

¶221

. 4. H.P. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, . HAMIRPUR, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY.

¶222

…PROFORMA RESPONDENT

¶223

(SH. SURENDER VERMA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3 MR. ANGREZ KAPOOR, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

¶224

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3932 OF 2019

¶225

Between:-

¶226

1. THE STATE OF H.P. THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HEALTH) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF H.P-2 SHIMLA HP

¶227

2. THE DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES HP, SHIMLA-9.

¶228

…..PETITIONERS

¶229

(BY MR. AJAY VAIDYA, SR. ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL) AND

¶230

1. SARITA KUMARI D/O SH. JAI CHAND, ADDRESS VILLAGE BHOUR, PO KANAID, TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI H.P.

¶231

¶232

2. H.P. STATE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, HAMIRPUR, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY

¶233

….RESPONDENTS

¶234

( SH. YOGESH KUMAR CHANDEL, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND MR. ANGREZ KAPOOR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶235

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3933 OF 2019

¶236

Between:-

¶237

1. THE STATE OF H.P. THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HEALTH) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF H.P-2 SHIMLA HP

¶238

2. THE DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES HP, SHIMLA-9.

¶239

…..PETITIONERS

¶240

(BY MR. AJAY VAIDYA, SR. ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)

¶241

AND

¶242

1. NEHA SHARMA D/O SH. HANS RAJ SHARMA, R/O VILLAGE THAMBA, PO DURGELLA, TEHSIL SHAHPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.

¶243

2. PREETI MOGU W/O SH. VIKRAM SINGH, R/O VPO REHLU, TEHSIL SHAHPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.

¶244

3. NIDHI SHARMA D/O SH. MADAN LAL SHARMA R/O VPO NAGROTA SURIAN TEHSIL JAWALI, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.

¶245

4. PRIYA CHAUDHARY D/O SH. RAJESH KUMAR R/O VPO RAJIANA, TEHSIL NAGROTA BHAGWAN,

¶246

¶247

DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.

¶248

5. NEHA CHAUDHARY W/O SH. VIKAS BAHRI (D/O BHAGWANT SINGH) R/O VILL. SUNEHAR, P.O. JAWALI, TEHSIL JAWALI, DISTRICT, KANGRA, H.P.

¶249

6. NANDNI W/O SH. VANEET KUMAR (D/O SH. JARM SINGH) R/O VPO CHARI, TEHSIL SHAHPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.

¶250

7. AMRITA W/O SH. RAVI KUMAR R/O VILLAGE HATLI BALLA, PO DRAMAN, TEHSIL SIHUNTA, DISTRICT CHAMBA, H.P.

¶251

8. ARTI DEVI D/O SH. SHUBHASH CHAND R/O VILL. KARDIAL, P.O. PHARIAN, TEHSIL JAWLI, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.

¶252

9. INDU BALA D/O SH. KARAM CHAND R/O VILL. THARU, PO & TEHSIL NAGROTA BAGWAN, DISTRICTKANGRA, HP.

¶253

10. SHALINI THAKUR W/O SH. VINAY PARMAR (D/O SH. BANBIR THAKUR) R/O MANGHER, PO BODA VIA BHAWARNA, SUB TEHSIL BHAWARNA TEHSIL PALAMPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, HP.

¶254

11. ARTI DEVI D/O SH. DURGA PARSAD R/O HOUSE NO.286 SESSION ROAD KOTWALI BAZAR DHARAMSHALA, DISTRICT KANGRA, HP.

¶255

¶256

12.	EKTA KAUNDAL
	D/O SH. AJEET SINGH
	R/O VILL. KHURD BANDI, P.O. NAGANPATT, TEHSIL DHARAMSHALA DISTRICT KANGRA, HP.
13.	SNEH LATA
	W/O SH. TILAK RAJ
	R/O VILL. JHULLAR,
	P.O. & TEHSIL SHAHPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.
14.	POOJA DEVI W/O SH. SACHIN KUMAR (D/o Sh. RAMESH CHAND) R/O VPO SUNANPUR, TEHSIL SUJANPUR, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, H.P.
	….RESPONDENTS.
15.	H.P. STATE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION,
	HAMIRPUR, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
	….PROFORMA RESPONDENT
	(SH. NARESH KAUL, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-14 AND MR. ANGREZ KAPOOR, ADVOCATE FOR R-15)

¶257

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1423/2020

¶258

Between:MEENA KUMARI, W/O RAVINDER KUMAR, R/O WARD NO. 1, VILLAGE- HATHLOON, POST OFFICE HATLI, TEHSIL- BANGANA, DISTRICT- UNA, H.P. (BY MS. SUMAN THAKUR, ADVOCATE)

¶259

………PETITIONER

¶260

AND

¶261

1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS SECRETARY(HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HEALTH, SHIMLA, H.P.

¶262

2. THE DIRECTOR, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DIRECTORATE,

¶263

¶264

SHIMLA-9 H.P.

¶265

3. HIMACHAL PRADESH STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, HAMIRPUR,THROUGH ITS SECRETARIAT, HAMIRPUR, DISTT. HAMIRPUR (H.P.)

¶266

……...RESPONDENTS

¶267

(MR. AJAY VAIDYA, SR. ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL) CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL APPLICATION) NO. 5998 OF 2020

¶268

1. KASHAMTA SHARMA W/O SH. ANIL AWASTHI, R/O ARLA, TEHSIL PALAMPUR, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.

¶269

2. SITA DEVI W/O SH. BIDHI CHAND R/O VPO TOURKHOLA, TEHSIL SANDHOL, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

¶270

3. NEELAM KUMARI W/O SH. ANIL SHARMA, R/O VILLAGE KRUST, PO-CHOCKI JAMWALAN TEHSIL & DISTT. HAMIRPUR, H.P.

¶271

4. NIDHI MISHRA W/O SH. MUKESH SHARMA, R/O VPO GHAROH, TEHSIL DHARAMSHALA, DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.

¶272

5. BANTI DEVI W/O SH. SUMAN KUMAR, R/O VILL. BHALANA, P.O. REE TEHSIL SUJANPUR, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, H.P.

¶273

6. KAMLESH KUMARI D/O SH. BRIJ LAL R/O VILL. JHINJKARI P.O. MAIR TEHSIL & DISTT. HAMIRPUR, H.P.

¶274

7. ASHA KUMARI W/O SH. NARENDER KUMAR, R/O VILL. MAHRI, P.O. DHURKHRI TEHSIL SARKAGHAT, DISTT. MANDI, H.P.

¶275

¶276

8. SANTOSH THAKUR W/O SH. BHARAT KUMAR R/O HOUSE NO. 385/5, SAIN MUHALLA MANDI, SADAR, DISTT. MANDI, H.P.

¶277

9. SAVITRA DEVI W/O SH. SURINDER JEET, R/O VILL. THATTA, P.O. DEORI, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTT. MANDI, H.P. ..PETITIONERS

¶278

(BY SH. MADAN THAKUR, ADVOCATE)

¶279

AND

¶280

1. STATE OF H.P. THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HEALTH) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF H.P. SHIMLA-2.

¶281

2. THE DIRECTOR, HEALTH SERVICES, H.P. SHIMLA.

¶282

3. H.P. STAFF COMMISSION-HAMIRPUR, DISTT. HAMIRPUR, H.P. THROUGH IT SECRETARY.

¶283

4. RAKSHA DEVI D/O SH. PARMA NAND, R/O TYPE-2, QTR NO. 201, BSNL COLONY-ROPA, P.O. BHOJPUR, TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTT. MANDI, H.P.

¶284

5. NIRMLA KUMARI W/O SH. ANOOP, H.NO. 20/08, VILL. ROPA, P.O. BHOJPUR, TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

¶285

6. GUMATI DEVI W/O SH. THAKAR DASS, V.P.O. BALT, TEHSIL BALH DISTRICT MANDI, H.P,

¶286

7. RENU CHANDEL W/O SH. SURENDER KUMAR, VILL. BHATER, P.O. TARKWARI TEHSIL & DISTT, HAMIRPUR, H.P.

¶287

¶288

PIN CODE-176045.

¶289

8. LATA DEVI W/O SH. BHUMESH CHAND, VILL. MAGLANA, P.O. KUFRI TEHSIL PADHAR, DISTT. MANDI, H.P.

¶290

...RESPONDENTS

¶291

(BY MR. AJAY VAIDYA, SR. ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR R-1 & 2, MR. ANGREZ KAPOOR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 AND MR. YOGESH KUMAR CHANDEL, ADVOCATE FOR R-4 TO R-8)

¶292

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3476 OF 2021

¶293

Between:-

¶294

1. BIMLA DEVI W/O SH. DINESH KUMAR R/O VILLAGE TANOTA, POST OFFICE CHOWAI, TEHSIL ANI, DISTRICT KULLU, HIMACHAL PRADESH.

¶295

2. PRIYANKA KUMARI D/O OF VINOD KUMAR, R/O VILLAGE BARGAON, POST OFFICE BIR, TESHIL AND DISTRICT MANDI HIMACHAL PRADESH.

¶296

…..PETITIONERS (BY MR. KULWANT SINGH GILL, ADVOCATE) AND

¶297

1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY (HEALTH) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2.

¶298

2. DIRECTOR HEALTH SERVICES, HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-9.

¶299

3. HIMACHAL PRADESH STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, HAMIRPUR, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH ITS SECRETARY.

¶300

¶301

….RESPONDENTS

¶302

(SH. AJAY VAIDYA, SR. ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR R-1 AND R-2 AND MR. ANGREZ KAPOOR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)

¶303

RESERVED ON: 02.08.2021

¶304

DECIDED ON: 13.08.2021

¶305

These petitions are coming on for orders this day, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya , delivered the following:

¶306

O R D E R

¶307

All these writ petitions involve common question of law and facts, therefore, are being disposed of by this common judgment.

¶308

The Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission (for short ’SSC’) issued Advertisement No. 33-2/2017, (for short advertisement) dated 16.09.2017 inviting online applications from eligible candidates for the different category of posts including 205 posts of Female Health Worker (on contract basis) in the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Himachal Pradesh against Post Code 651.

¶309

Prescribed minimum educational and other qualifications for the post of Female Health Worker was as under: -

¶310

i. Should be a Matric with Science/Higher Secondary Part-1 pass or its equivalent from a recognized Board/Institution.

¶311

ii. Should possess one and half years training certificate as Female Health Worker from a recognized Institute.

¶312

¶313

In response to the Advertisement, many such candidates applied for the post of Female Health Worker, who did not possess requisite one & half year training certificate as Female Health Worker. They instead were equipped either with a decree in B.Sc. Nursing or Diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery (in short ‘GNM’).

¶314

It is worth noticing at this stage that prior to issuance of advertisement, there were a large number of precedents by way of judgments passed by this Court whereby the courses of B.Sc. Nursing or GNM were held to be higher in qualification than one & half year certificate course for the Female Health Worker. In CWP No. 7164 of 2012 , titled as Kiran Gautam vs. State of H.P. and another , decided on 6^th December, 2012, this Court while deciding the identical issue held as under:-

¶315

“…..There is no dispute that the petitioner has passed nursing and midwife course which contains those requirements required for the selection to the post of Female Health Worker and she is in fact better qualified to hold that post…...”

¶316

Similarly, in CWP No. 4515 of 2014 titled as Chandni Jaswal

¶317

vs. State of H.P and others decided on 30^th June, 2014 while deciding the identical controversy it was held as under:-

¶318

“……...It is not in dispute that the petitioner has obtained three years’ diploma in GNM (General Nursing and Midwifery). GNM is higher qualification. Since the petitioner is in

¶319

¶320

possession of higher qualification, she is fully eligible for the post of Female Health Worker…..”

¶321

These judgments were followed in number of subsequent cases and a few of these are CWP No. 4628 of 2014 titled as Kiran Bala vs. State of H.P and another , decided on 03.07.2014, CWP No. 4630 of 2014 titled as Sunita Devi vs. State of H.P , decided on 03.07.2014, CWP No. 4440 of 2014 titled as Pooja Sharma vs. State of H.P. and another , decided on 31.07.2014 and CWP No. 4445 of 2014 titled as Apsara Kumari vs. State of H.P and another decided on 31.07.2014.

¶322

It is equally worth noticing that in all these judgments, neither the employer department nor the recruiting agency (SSC), had disputed the fact that the courses in B.Sc Nursing or GNM were higher in qualification than one & half year certificate course for Female Health Worker. These judgments attained finality and the petitioners therein were appointed as Female Health Workers.

¶323

Understandably, in this background, candidate with B.Sc. Nursing or GNM submitted their applications in response to advertisement. Some of them qualified written test and also participated in evaluation process/counselling.

¶324

Number of the candidates with B.Sc Nursing or GNM, by way of different Original Applications, approached the erstwhile H.P. State

¶325

¶326

Administrative Tribunal on the premise that they had qualified the written examination held by the SCC in pursuance to the advertisement and had also participated in the subsequent evaluation process but were apprehensive that their candidature might be rejected on the ground that they were not possessing one-&-half year certificate course for the Female Health Worker. These petitions came to be registered as O.A.(M)Nos. 800, 840, 801, 2834, 411, 384, 457, 422, 500, 495, 434, 1142, 1145, 627, 526 of 2019. All these Original Applications were allowed by the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal vide separate orders by holding as under: -

¶327

“ 5 . However, the learned counsel for the applicants submits that the respective cases of the applicants are squarely covered under the judgments dated 6^th December, 2012, Annexure A-5, in CWP No. 7164 of 2012-G, Kiran Gautam Versus State of HP and another , and 30.06.2014, Annexure A-6, in CWP No. 4515 of 2014-A, Chandni Jaswal Versus State of H.P. & Anr., rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, and order dated 21^st November, 2016 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 6089 of 2016, Ruchi Rani Versus State of Himachal Pradesh .

¶328

6. The learned Additional Advocate General/Standing Counsel state on behalf of the respondents that subject to verification of records, if it is found that the applicants are similarly situate as the petitioners/applicant in the aforesaid Writ Petitions/OA, their cases shall be considered accordingly.

¶329

7. In view of the above, the original application is disposed of in terms of the aforementioned judgments/order with a direction to the respondents/competent authority(s) that subject to the above

¶330

¶331

verification and on finding the applicants to be similarly situate as above, benefit of the said judgments/order, if the same have attained finality/implemented, shall also be extended to them as per law, within twenty days from today, after affording an opportunity of being heard to them .”

¶332

It goes without saying that in all these orders, the Ld. Tribunal specifically recorded the stand of the State to the effect that the candidature of the applicants in OAs, would be considered in accordance with judicial precedents, noticed in the orders and in case it was found that the said applicants were similarly situated as the petitioners in cases noticed as the precedents, their cases would be considered accordingly.

¶333

In all the above noted judgments/orders either passed by this Court or the Ld. Tribunal, the State had categorically admitted that the qualification of B.Sc. Nursing or GNM was higher than the one & half year training certificate as Female Health Worker. In addition, it had also not refused to grant benefit of appointment to the post of Female Health Worker to those persons who had higher qualification of B.Sc. Nursing or GNM. The State, however, in its wisdom has subsequently assailed the above noted orders passed by the Ld. Tribunal by way of CWP Nos. 3238, 3466, 3467, 3468, 3905, 3908, 3911, 3913, 3914, 3915, 3921, 3922, 3927, 3932 and 3933 of 2019, which are presently being considered.

¶334

¶335

Another writ petition being CWP No. 3476 of 2021 titled Bimla Devi and another vs. State of H.P and others also came to be filed before this Court on 18.10.2021 on the same grounds as raised by the petitioners in Original Applications, noted above, before the Ld. Tribunal.

¶336

Some of the candidates possessing one & half year training certificate as Female Health Worker, who had applied in pursuance to the advertisement, also filed separate Original Application (M) No. 800 of 2018 before the Ld. Tribunal, on the premise that only those candidates who possess essential qualification as per Advertisement were eligible to be considered for the post of Female Health Worker and not the candidates having B.Sc. Nursing or GNM as qualification. As a matter of fact, challenge was laid to the action of SSC whereby the applications of the candidates only with B.Sc. Nursing or GNM were accepted. Accordingly, the prayers were made in the said Original Application. After closure of the Tribunal, the Original Application (M) No. 800 of 2018 stood transferred to this Court and has been registered as CWPOA No. 5598 of 2020 . Another CWP No. 1423 of 2020 came to be filed before this Court titled Meena Kumari vs. State of H.P and others with almost same cause of action and reliefs as in CWPOA No. 5598 of 2020. An additional challenge in this petition was to a Notification dated 10.04.2020 issued by the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Himachal Pradesh seeking to employ persons

¶337

¶338

against the different cadres including that of Female Health Worker on outsource basis.

¶339

Now the questions that commonly arise for determination in all above noted petitions are as under: -

¶340

i) Whether the State, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is justified in changing its stand?

¶341

ii) Whether the candidates with B.Sc Nursing or GNM as qualification are entitled to be considered for the post of Female Health Worker in pursuance to the Advertisement ?

¶342

As noticed above, the State in the writ petitions filed against the orders of Ld. Tribunal has taken the stand that candidates possessing B.Sc. Nursing or GNM are eligible for the post of Staff Nurse. The categories of Female Health Worker and Staff Nurse are altogether different having separate Recruitment and Promotion Rules, seniority and different channels of promotion. Even the nature of duties performed by both the categories are different. The role of Multipurpose Health Worker (Female) is on the preventive side by providing preventive services at the grass root level of the Health Sub Centres, whereas the role of the Staff Nurses primarily is on treatment side having postings at the minimum level of Primary Health Centres.

¶343

State has also placed on record communication dated 04.9.2019 addressed by the Additional Chief Secretary Health, Government of

¶344

¶345

Himachal Pradesh to the Director, Health Services conveying its decision to the effect that the judgment in Kiran Gautam’s case was not examined in consultation with the Law Department. Since the judgment in Kiran Gautam’s case had already been implemented along with some other identical cases, therefore, those could not be agitated at a belated stage. The persons who had already been granted appointment by implementing the judgment in Kiran Gautam’s case would have a strong case to agitate in the Court. However, the Department was of the opinion that other cases decided by Ld. Tribunal were liable to be agitated in view of law laid down in Jyoti K.K . vs. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 5 SCC 596 and in Civil Appeal Nos. 11853-11854 of 2018 titled as Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others etc. vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and others etc . 16. It appears that the decision of the State, to change its stand was based upon its understanding of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jyoti K.K . vs. Kerala Public Service Commission, (2010) 5 SCC 596 and in Civil Appeal Nos. 11853-11854 of 2018 titled as Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others etc . vs. Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and others etc . It is, however, not coming forth either from the contents of the petitions filed by the State or communication dated 04.09.2019 relied upon by it as to whether there was any conscious consideration on the applicability of the ratio of aforesaid judgments to the facts of the cases in hand? Such an

¶346

¶347

exercise, in our view, does not appear to have taken place. We are constrained to observe so because there is no utterance from State on the binding effect of various judgments passed by this Court on the same subject and in the identical fact situations. The State also appears to have not considered that as a model employer, should it have adopted different stances for different set of people in the similar circumstances and also the legal implication of its earlier concessions/ admissions made before the court/ tribunal.

¶348

In Jyoti K.K . vs Kerala Public Service Commission (2015) 5 SCC 596, Rule10(a) (ii) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules 1956 was considered which reads as under:-

¶349

“ 10 . (a) (ii) Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules or in the Special Rules, the qualifications recognized by executive orders or standing orders of Government as equivalent to a qualification specified for a post in the Special Rules and such of those higher qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post .”

¶350

(emphasis supplied)

¶351

Their Lordships in paras 7 and 8 of the judgment passed in Jyoti K.K . were pleased to hold as under: -

¶352

“7. It is no doubt true, as stated by the High Court that when a qualification has been set out under the relevant Rules, the same cannot be in any manner whittled down and a different qualification

¶353

¶354

cannot be adopted. The High Court is also justified in stating that the higher qualification must clearly indicate or presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualification prescribed for that post in order to attract that part of the Rule to the effect that such of those higher qualifications which presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post shall also be sufficient for the post. If a person has acquired higher qualifications in the same Faculty, such qualifications can certainly be stated to presuppose the acquisition of the lower qualifications prescribed for the post. In this case it may not be necessary to seek far.”

¶355

“8. Under the relevant Rules, for the post of Assistant Engineer, degree in Electrical Engineering of Kerala University or other equivalent qualification recognised or equivalent thereto has been prescribed. For a higher post when a direct recruitment has to be held, the qualification that has to be obtained, obviously gives an indication that such qualification is definitely higher qualification than what is prescribed for the lower post, namely, the post of SubEngineer. In that view of the matter the qualification of degree in Electrical Engineering presupposes the acquisition of the lower qualification of diploma in that subject prescribed for the post, shall be considered to be sufficient for that post.”

¶356

It was thus noted by their Lordships that there was no exclusion of candidates who possessed a higher qualification.

¶357

In Zahoor Ahmad’s case, Hon’ble Supreme Court after taking into consideration the facts of that case and also the judgments passed on the issue has held that the higher qualification in the said case did not include the lower qualification and as such, the persons with higher qualification

¶358

¶359

were held not eligible for the post to which the specific requirement or lower qualification was there.

¶360

In the facts of the present case, the State though has made submissions that nature of duties for the cadre of Nurses as well as Female Health Workers is different, but it has no-where been said that the nature of duties enjoined upon the Nurses does not include the nature of duties of Female Health Workers or in other words the curriculum of B.Sc Nursing or GNM did not include that of one & half years certificate course for the Female Health Worker. There is nothing on record to show that any special training is imparted to Female Health Workers. Even in Jyoti K.K , it was held that the higher qualification which pre-supposes the acquisition of lower qualification could not be excluded from consideration. Though the findings to this effect by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was based on a specific rule of Public Service Commission concerned, yet its application in the facts of present cases cannot be said to be untenable. We have also given our due consideration to the extracts of office manual prescribing duties of Female Health Worker as well as the Nurses and we have not been able to satisfy ourselves as to on what count, the State envisages that duties of Nurses will not include the duties of Female Health Workers.

¶361

Another important fact, which for the reasons best known to the State, has not been brought to our notice is that the Recruitment and

¶362

¶363

Promotion Rules for the post of Staff Nurse (Class-III Non-Gazetted) framed by the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Himachal Pradesh prescribes method of recruitment to the said post by different modes including 45% by direct recruitment, 45% by direct recruitment on batchwise basis and 10% by promotion. The feeder cadre eligible for the promotion is of Female Health Worker subject to possessing of educational qualification as prescribed for direct recruitment against Column No. 7(a)(i) of R&P rules for staff nurses with five years regular service or regular combined with continuous ad-hoc service rendered, if any, in the grade. Notably, Column No. 7(a) (I) of above noted rules prescribes essential qualification as 10+2 preferably with Science from the recognized Board of School Education. Thus, a Female Health Worker having passed 10+2 examination from a recognized Board of School Education and having served as Female Health Worker for five years as regular employee or regular combined with continuous ad-hoc service is eligible to be promoted as Staff Nurse. Thus, it is clear that if a Female Health Worker without having undergone 1½ year certificate course and only with 10+2 and five years experience at her back, can be promoted as Staff Nurse, then how it lies in the mouth of the State to say that the nature of duties for both the cadres is different.

¶364

¶365

Almost an identical proposition has been considered and decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Puneet Sharma and others vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and another etc . 2021(5) Scale 468 . In that case, the question was whether a degree in Electrical Engineering/Electrical and Electronics Engineering was technically higher qualification than a Diploma in that discipline and, whether the degree holder were eligible for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) under the relevant recruitment rules. By taking into consideration various judgments pronounced by the Apex Court on the issue or related thereto including in Jyoti K.K and Zahoor Ahmed’s cases, their Lordships have been pleased to hold that the degree holder though had higher qualification, their qualification included the lower prescribed qualification for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) and thus were entitled to participate and to be considered for appointment on the said post. In Puneet Sharma’s case also, the Junior Engineer (Electrical) was entitled to be promoted as Assistant Engineer as one of the feeder categories to the quota of promotional post. In para 32 of the said judgment, it has been held as under: -

¶366

“32. The latter (2) conclusively establishes that what the rule making authority undoubtedly had in mind was that degree holders too could compete for the position of JEs as individuals holding equivalent or higher qualifications. If such interpretation were not

¶367

¶368

given, there would be no meaning in the 5% sub-quota set apart for those who were degree holders before joining as Junior Engineers - in terms of the recruitment rules as existing.”

¶369

On analysis, we find that the facts involved in the bunch of

¶370

cases under consideration before this Court substantially resembles the facts in Puneet Sharma’s case, therefore, applying the ratio of said judgment, we have no hesitation to hold that the candidates with B.Sc Nursing or GNM have to succeed and are eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Female Health Worker advertised vide Advertisement No. 33-2/2017 dated 16.9.2017 by the SSC, in case they find place in merit list of candidates against their respective category. It is also held that State is not justified in changing its stand in the given facts of the case. Questions i) and ii) framed herein above are answered accordingly.

¶371

We deem it necessary to observe that the proposition “higher qualification will include lower qualification” cannot be applied universally as an indefeasible rule, it will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each individual case.

¶372

Accordingly, Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3238, 3466, 3467, 3468, 3905, 3908, 3911, 3913, 3914, 3915, 3921, 3922, 3927, 3932 and 3933 of 2019, 3476 of 2021 and CWPOA 5598 of 2020 are dismissed. In view of dismissal of these petitions and also the directions, we propose to issue

¶373

¶374

hereinafter; prayers made in CWP No. 1423 of 2020 and CWP No. 3476 of 2021 have been rendered infructuous.

¶375

We accordingly direct the Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission to declare the result of successful candidates in pursuance to Advertisement No. 33-2/2017 by considering the candidates, with B.Sc. Nursing or GNM, as eligible for the post of Female Health Worker in the Department of Health and Family Welfare in addition to the candidates having essential qualifications as per advertisement. We further direct the SSC to make recommendations to the Government of Himachal Pradesh for appointment to the post of Female Health Workers in respect of successful candidates within a period of four weeks from today.

¶376

All the above noted petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any, with no orders as to costs.

¶377

( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ) Judge

¶378

August , 2021 ( Satyen Vaidya ) (naveen) Judge

Kshamta Sharma v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kshamta Sharma v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dev Singh Negi Vs State of Hp

Sharda Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

Povinder Kumar Vs Hrtc and Anr.

Nikita Verma Vs State of Hp and Others

Urmila Sharma Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Bimla Devi and Another Vs State of Hp and Others