•^Fl{ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR W.PJS) No.6116of2GGS Petitioner D; . Naval Singh Chande! Versus Rsspondents Stete of Chhattisgarh & others -A . Postfor order on /5> March, 20)7 Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BSLASPUR Writ Petifenfs) No. 6116 of 2006 Petitioner Dr.Naval Singh Chandel, S/o Shri F. N. Chandei, ^ed about 51 years, PresenUy posted as Disirict Tubercuiosis Officer, Distrid Tuberculosis Control, Bilaspur, CIMS, Bi!aspur(ChhatSsgarh). Versus Respondents 1. Stets of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Health and Famity Welfere, D.K.S. Building, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Director, health Servtees, Raipur (CG). 3. Coltector,Bi!3spur(CG). 4. Chief Medicai and health officer, Bilaspur (CG). 5. Dr. Nagina Tandon, Women Assistent Surgeon, District Tuberculosis Controi, Bilaspur (CIMS), Bi'aspur (CG). SB: Hon'bte ^4r. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri, Shri B. D. Guro, AdvocatefGrthe petitioner, Shrs V. V. S. Moortfty, Deputy Advoeate General with Miss Deepali Pandey, Pane! Lawyer for ttie State/respondents No. 1 to 4. Shri P. S. Koshy, Advocate forthe respondent No.5. .ORDER (Passed on this IS"day of March. 20G7) By tfiis petifion the petittoner chaitenges the vah'dity of the impugned order dsted 19.10.2006 (Annexure P/1), passed by the respondent No.3 Collector, Bitaspur, wherein the respondent No.5 Medteal Officer was appointed as District Tubercutosis OfRcsr (for short 'D.T.O.') in ptace of the petitioner. The facts, in nutehel!, are that the petitioner was granted a senior grade pay scafe of Class-1 (Gazetted) Medical Officer Rs.10000-325-15200/- w.e.f. 1.1.2CK)1 ^de order dated 6.7.2006 (Annexure P/8), passed by the Govt. of Chhatti^arh Heaith and Famiiy Wetfare Department. The petitioner ftirther obtained modular fraining in Revised NaHonat 2. Tuberculosis Confro! Programme (for short 'RNTCP'). On the basis of 3. 4. that by order dated 2 April, 2006 (Annexure P/3) the petitioner was assigned the responsibiiity of the District Tuberculosis Officer, Bilaspur. Thereafter, vide order dated 19.10.2006 (Annexure P/1), without assigning any reason, fte respondent No.5, who according to th® petitioner, v/as not granted pay scate of class-1 (Gazetted) Medical Officer, was appointed as D.T.O. The pefitioner has chaltenged th®appointment of the respondent No.5 on the ground that the petitioner was hawng a quaiification as required for being appointed as D.T.O. and fhe respondent No.5 was not havi'ng ttie required qualificatjon as she v.'as getting the pay scate OT class-H Medica! Officer. Leamed counssl appearing for the petitioner would submit that as per ths setup of the officers, issued by the Directorate, Health Services vide letter dated 22.8.20)5 (Annexure P/5) the pay scale of D.T.O. is Rs. 10,OTO -15200/-, which the petittoner was getting and the respondent No.5 was gett'ng a pay scate of Rs. 8000-13KX}/-, Secondly, as per the Nationat Tubercuiosis Programme, the D.T.O. should be on the rank of the Chief District Healtti Officer or ar, equivalent functionar/ who is trained in RNTCP at the centra! levet institutson. The petitioner is having the pay scaie of the Chief District Hsalth Officer and was trained in RhTTCP. The respondent No.5 is not hoiding the rank of equwatent functionary of the Chief District Heaith OfRcer as her pay scale is less then the petitioner. It was further contended that the impugned order was passed by the CoRector. who is not competent to appoint DTO and supersecte the eartier order passed by the State Government in favour of the petitioner. assigning him responsibility of the D.T.O. Per contra, Shri V. V. S. Murthy, learned Deputy Advocate General with Miss Deepali Pandey, Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 4, would submit that the respondent No.5 has specialized in ttie field of tuberculosis. !t is admitted thatthe pay scale of fte respondent .1 Thakur No.S was tess than the petitioner, who has besn granted pay scale of the Chief Disfrict Heaitti OfRcer i.e. Rs. 10000-15200. Learned counss! would further contend that the respondent No.5 had a!so obtained moduiar training in RNTCP. tt was further contended that this is the responsibitity of the officer to appoint a D.T.O. keeping in view over al! performance ofthe officer. ! have heard iearned counsel for ttis parties and perused the documents appended thereto. It is clear from the documente that the basic qualification required for D.T.O. is an officer to ttie rank of the Chief District Health Officer or equivaient fanctionary and trained in RNTCP. The petitioner is, admiftedly, ha\ring the pay scaie of Chief Disfrict l-1eaitti0fficer and this is also the requirement for appointment as D.T.O. Ths submissioh of learned counse! for the respondents No. 1 te 4 is that the respondent No.5 was better quaiified, has no basis. Whsn admitted!y, the petitioner has better quaiification, suitable for the post of D.T.O. Jt is desirabte that the senior ofRcer !ike the pstitioner be assigned ths responsibiiity of D.T.O., as per the scheme. The impugned ordsr was aiso not passed by a competent officer as the order dated 2.4.200S, appoinSng the petifioner on assignment of the D.T.O. was passed by the State Government and the same cannot be superceded by the Coltector. The impugned order dated 19.10.2006, on thiscountisateobad. As a result and forthe discussions made hereinabove, the orderdatsd 19.10.200S (Annexure P/1), assigning the responsibility of D.T.O. tothe respondent No.5, without a^igning any reasons for replaeing the petitionsr, is bad and is accordingly quashed. Thus this petition is aliowed. No order as to coste. Sd/- . _ SarishK.Ag^101" Judge L ?•