Chhaya Tulshiram Jangle v. The State Of Maharashtra Through The Commissioner And Others

2024:BHC-AUG:1668-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 50 WRIT PETITION NO. 793 OF 2024 CHHAYA TULSHIRAM JANGLE ....Petitioner

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS .....Respondent .....

Mr. Shelke Avishkar S., Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. R. S. Wani, AGP for the Respondents -State Mr. Bondar Uttam Bajirao, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4

CORAM

: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

DATE : 23rd January, 2024 ORDER:

1.

The Petitioner is before us for the reason that her claim for appointment as Community Health Officer (CHO), which is a contractual appointment under the Ayushman Bharat Programme, is not being considered for the sub-centre in the Latur District for the reason that she was earlier appointed as such C.H.O. at Helas P.H.C., Patoda, Taluka Mantha District Jalna. She is at Serial No.4 in the merit list amongst 14 selected candidates for the available 20 posts. 2.

The contention of the learned Advocate for the Petitioner is that the advertisement dated 09.12.2022, did not mention any exclusion clause on the ground that a candidate working as C.H.O. in any other centre in any other district, would be disqualified for

competing with the candidates for the post mentioned in the advertisement. Moreover, the Petitioner resigned on 06.03.2023 as C.H.O. from sub centre Helas. Her resignation was accepted on the same day. Out of 36 months of her contractual employment, she had completed 28 months. She has compensated by paying amounts for the remaining 8 months proportionately and an order to that effect has been passed by the Zilla Parishad. She was compelled to resign due to circumstances as she got married and her in-laws were residing at Latur. She was working at sub-centre Helas. An intra district transfer was not granted. Though she resigned after the advertisement, the counseling session took place on 10.03.2023 which is after the acceptance of her resignation.

3.

The learned Advocate for the Zilla Parishad has vehemently opposed this Petition contending that the conduct of a candidate like the Petitioner would amount to candidates taking frog-leaps. A candidate selected at one centre leaps to another centre only for her/his convenience. Tomorrow, if the husband of the Petitioner gets transferred to any other district, the Petitioner would again quit the contractual engagement and take a frog-leap to another place by participating in a selection process at the said place. This not only defeats the claims of other candidates, but also amounts to compelling the State Authorities/Local Bodies to spend amounts for re-advertising

the posts and once again carrying out the selection process. He, therefore, prays that this Petition deserves to be dismissed. 4.

It is, by now well settled and trite that the rules pertaining to the selection and appointment in any process cannot be altered, more so, to the detriment of any candidate after the advertisement has already been published and the selection process has commenced. There is no condition introduced in the advertisement dated 09.12.2022 which could disqualify the petitioner for the reason now being cited as a ground for not entertaining her claim.

5.

We are pointed out a judgment dated 29.07.2022 delivered by this Court at Nagpur in Writ Petition No. 6765 of 2019 ( Dr. Punam Gangadharrao Ingale & others Vs. The Commissioner (Health Service) and Mission Director, National Health Mission and others ), wherein a similar view was taken by the Court that the disqualification clause cannot be introduced de hors the advertisement. 6.

In view of the above, this Petition is partly allowed. 7.

The claim of the Petitioner would be considered by the Zilla Parishad purely for the reason that there was no disqualification clause in the advertisement.

8.

The Zilla Parishad as well as the State Government are at liberty to introduce such an exclusion clause in the advertisement itself

so that the candidates desirous of applying would be put to notice that they would not eligible, if they are already working as C.H.O. at a centre elsewhere.

9.

Consequentially, the impugned communication dated 16.01.2024 placed on record in Civil Application St. No. 2698/2024, stands quashed and set aside.

10.

Since the contentions in the civil application have been considered while deciding this Petition, the Civil Application stands disposed off.

( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) JPChavan