Dismissed

Mahendra Singh Son of Shri Ghisa Ram Panwar v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Aug 2019SAW/459/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular Nurse Grade-II employees challenging exclusion from NHM Bridge Programme. Court held State's choice to sponsor contractual employees is valid discretion and does not amount to discrimination or arbitrariness. Special appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed; the appellants' grievance regarding discrimination and arbitrary treatment is rejected.

Mahendra Singh Son of Shri Ghisa Ram… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.459/2019

¶3

Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Ghisa Ram Panwar, aged about 37 years, R/o Copper Khetri Nagar, Quarter No.F-45, III A, District Jhunjhunu, presently working at J.L.N. Hospital, Ajmer (Raj.)

¶4

Harkesh Meena S/o Shri Ramji Lal Meena, aged about 40 years, R/o Village Binegairaniya Tehsil Hindon, District Karoli (Raj.) presently working at Community Health Centre At Toda Bhim, Karoli.

¶5

Munesh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Laxman Ram Meena, aged about 31 years, R/o Village Jodhpura Post Manderu, Tehsil Todabhim, District Karoli (Raj.) Presently working at CHC, Todabhim, Karoli (Raj.).

¶6

Daleep Kumar Pirgavt S/o Shri Vasudev Pirgavt, aged about 29 years, R/o Village Post Sahawa, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu (Raj.) presently working at P.B.M. Hospital, Bikaner (Raj.)

¶7

----Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Rajasthan, through the Principal Health Secretary, Department of Medical and Health, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶10

The Mission Director, National Health Mission, Rajasthan, Medical, Health and Family Welfare Department, Swasthya, Bhawan, Tilak Mark, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶11

The Director R.C.H., Medical, Health and Family Welfare Department, Swasthaya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Manju Jain For Respondent(s) :

¶14

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Judgment

(2 of 3)

[SAW-459/2019]

16/08/2019

1. The defect No.3 is overruled.

¶20

2. The appellants’ grievance is that though they were regularly recruited as Nurse Grade-II employees working with the State of Rajasthan for a number of years, they have been deprived of opportunity of attending the Bridge Programme advertised by the State. The learned Single Judge rejected their claim of discrimination and arbitrary treatment holding that the mere circumstance that the appellants were regular employees as opposed to the fact that the scheme afforded the chance to contractual employees did not amount to arbitrariness or discrimination.

¶21

3. The learned counsel for the appellants drew attention of the court to the terms of the scheme; which inter alia states that : (1) “The course is open to regular and contractual employees. It is open to others who fulfill the eligibility criteria.” (2) “State may call for applications from in service candidates (Regular and/or contractual as decided by the State) for the bridge programme.”

¶22

4. It is submitted that the preference for contractual employees, is wholly arbitrary as inter alia between the appellants and other regularly appointed Nurses having work of experience in the public health system, the latter are better qualified – after attending the Bridge Course, to serve the public.

¶23

5. The scheme i.e. the Bridge Course, is a part of of the Central Government’s initiative under the National Health Mission (NHM). The State through the Director Reproductive Child Health (RCH) issued the advertisement calling for applications from contractual employees. The appellants’ argument is that permanent employees are better qualified and have experience, perhaps is valid. At the same time, the Bridge Course is a part of the scheme devised by the Central Government. It leaves the choice of the candidates who are to be trained in Bridge Course of the State; it could be regular employees or even neither of them. In other words, discretion between to choose which class of employees or individuals to undergo the training is entirely upto the State depending upon the exigencies of its requirement and peculiarities of each State. In the present instance, it has chosen to sponsor to only contractual employees. The exercise of such

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[SAW-459/2019]

¶26

choice per se does not amount to discrimination against regular employees in Nurse Grade-II category.

¶27

6. This court concurs with the opinion of the Single Judge and finds no reasons to interfere with it.

¶28

7. The appeal is dismissed.

¶29

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶30

(S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ

¶31

Anil Goyal/Jyoti/2

Mahendra Singh Son of Shri Ghisa Ram Panwar v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Singh Son of Shri Ghisa Ram Panwar v. the State of Rajasthan

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

Rajesh Kumar Lakhera S/O Sh. Om Prakash Lakhera Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Shri Babu Lal Somani Vs the Ito

Health and Educational Care Society Vs State of Rajasthan