Maharashtra Rajya Rbsk Doctors And Karmachari Sanghatna v. National Rural Health Organisation Through Commissioner And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4059 OF 2017 Maharashtra Rajya RBSK Doctors and Karmachari Sanghatna & Anr.
... Petitioners V/s.
National Rural Health Organisation & Ors.
... Respondents Ms. Gayatri Singh a/w Kranti L.C. for the Petitioners. Ms. Rupali Shinde, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.
DATE : 26th APRIL, 2017.
FINAL ORDER :
Leave to delete Petitioner No.1. Deletion to be carried out forthwith.
We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides. There is no dispute that Petitioner No.2 has filed a representation dated 26.04.2016 to the C.E.O. Zilla Parishad, Pune, praying for accommodation in the light of certain vacancies available. By the said representation, the Petitioner No.2 submits 1/4
that her grievance would be redressed if the said representation is considered.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner has pointed out from page 65 Annexure-Q containing 31 names alongwith their designations, current postings, expected transfer locations and the distances between the current postings and expected transfer locations. It is, therefore, submitted that each of these candidates mentioned in Annexure-Q would desire to make a similar representation to the concerned authorities as like the representation put forth by Petitioner No.2.
Learned A.G.P. points out that such representations if made, are to be considered by the concerned authorities under whom the said hospital/dispensary is functioning. It is clarified that Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 would not be the competent authorities to consider such representations as they are the highest authorities of the concerned establishment.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that this Petition can be disposed of by granting liberty to Petitioner No.2 2/4
and the 31 candidates mentioned in Annexure-Q to make applications/ representations to the concerned officers of the individual establishment at the local places and upon making such representations, they could be considered by the said authorities. Considering the innocuous prayer of the Petitioner as recorded above, this Petition is disposed of with liberty as under : a) Petitioner No.2 as well as the 31 candidates mentioned in Annexure-Q will be at liberty to make individual representation to the concerned C.E.O. of the Zilla Parishad of the respective districts where these candidates are working under the rural hospitals or public medical centres and like dispensaries. b) If such representations are individually made within a period of three weeks from today, the concerned C.E.O. of the respective Zilla Parishad would consider such representations in accordance with the rule/policy/ scheme applicable within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of such representations.
3/4
c) Learned A.G.P. shall forward a copy of this order. d) Each of these candidates when make a representation would annex a copy of this order of representation for the appraisal of the concerned C.E.O. of the respective Zilla Parishad.
Parties to act on the basis of an authenticated copy of this order.
(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) 4/4