IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 22941 of 2010(P) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. DINESH.A.S, KAMALA BHAVAN HOUSE, MATHIRAPPILLY, KOTHAMANGALAM COLLEGE P.O. 2. ATHIRA.C.S, CHANDANATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUTHOLAPURAM P.O., ELANJI-686 665. 3. JOHN PETER, MUNDAN HOUSE, KUMARAPURAM P.O., MORAKALA-683 565. 4. BINOY M.GEORGE, MYALIPUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, MANGALATHNADA, N.MAZHUVANNOOR P.O. 5. ASHA S NAIR, MALAYATTIL HOUSE, NELLAD P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. 6. NAZIYA BASHEER, PUTHIYEDATH HOUSE, KEZHAKKEKARA, MUVATTUPUZHA. 7. RENJITHA.P.B., PARASSERIYIL HOUSE, EAST VAZHAPPILLY P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. 8. NEENA.A.G., PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, ITR ROAD, MARKET P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. 9. DIVYA.A.K, ANGARAPPILLIYIL HOUSE, PANGOD P.O., ERNAKULAM. 10. ASWATHY JOHN, KUDILILTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, KAKKAD P.O., PIRAVOM (VIA), ERNAKULAM-686 664. 11. AJITHA.M.A., MANAKKAPADY HOUSE, METHALA P.O., KURUMPAMPADY, PERUMBAVOOR. 12. JYOTHY JOY, ELAMBLASSERIL HOUSE, MULANTHURUTHY P.O., ALIYAMKUNNU. WP(C).No. 22941 of 2010 13. ASHITHA SURENDRAN, CHEMMADITHUNDI HOUSE, SAFTHAR HASHMI LANE, VYTTILA P.O. 14. SALINI MOHANAN, PATTANAMADATHIL, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, RANDAS P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. 15. PRAKASH.P.T., PARAPPURATH HOUSE, KANINADU P.O., VADAVUKODE, ERNAKULAM. 16. MANUMOL.E.V, ELAVANAKANDATHIL HOUSE, PULIKKAMALI P.O., MULATHURUTHY VIA, PAMBRA. 17. REMYA.P.R., PANDYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, POOTHOTTA P.O., ERNAKULAM. 18. LINDA PAUL, KIZHAKKENPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOTTAPPADY P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM. 19. RIYAPRABHA.K, KARIVELIPARAMBIL HOUSE, ALUVA ROAD, KURUMASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH, ERNAKULAM. 4. RAKHI MOHAN, KANNAMKAREZHATH HOUSE, POOTHOTTA, ERNAKULAM-682 307. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2010 ALONG WITH WPC Nos. 22967 & 23485 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C) Nos.22941, 22967 & 23485 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 27th day of July 2010 J U D G M E N T Issue raised in these writ petitions are common and therefore these writ petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this judgment. 2. W.P.(C)No.22941 of 2010 is taken as the leading case. 3. Petitioners have undergone Diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery. At that time, they had executed bonds, a copy of which is Ext.P1. Clause 11 of the Bond relied on by the petitioners reads as under :- “The bounden shall after passing the final examination referred to in the clause 4 supra, be bound to serve the Government in conformity with the service rules therein force for a minimum period of 5 (five) years after training if required by the Government within one year from the date of passing the final examination.” W.P.(C) Nos.22941, 22967 & 23485 of 2010 -: 2 :- 4. According to the petitioners, on completion of the training, by Ext.P2 order dated 3.4.2007 issued by the District Medical Officer, they were appointed on contract basis under the National Rural Health Mission Scheme. Although the initial period of appointment was one year, they were allowed to continue. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are still continuing in service even as on date. 5. The grievance of the petitioners is that now by Ext.P4 order of the DMO, another set of persons with Diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery are sought to be appointed under Rule 9(a)(1) of KS & SSR. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners is that under Clause 11 of Ext.P1 bond, they are entitled to be offered appointment under the Director of Health Services. It is stated that appointment by Exts.P2 and P3 is under the NRHM and therefore, overlooking their claims another batch could not have been appointed. 6. The learned Government Pleader has obtained W.P.(C) Nos.22941, 22967 & 23485 of 2010 -: 3 :- instructions in the matter. According to the learned Government Pleader petitioners have no right to claim appointment. It is contended that Clause 11 of Ext.P1 bond is only a provision enabling the government to call upon those who have undergone training to work for the period mentioned therein, but does not create any right in favour of any one of the bounden to claim appointment on the strength of Clause 11. It is stated that irrespective of the above, petitioners were given employment under Exts.P2 and P3 and that as they are about to complete the term of their employment, another batch is sought to be inducted on the same terms and conditions. 7. I have considered the submissions made. 8. In my view Clause 11 of the bond relied on by the petitioners only enables the government to call upon the bounden to work for the period mentioned therein if the government so chooses and that too within one year from the date of passing the final examination. Therefore, this W.P.(C) Nos.22941, 22967 & 23485 of 2010 -: 4 :- does not oblige the government to offer appointment to any one of the bounden and for that reason I am not persuaded to think that the petitioners have any right under Clause 11 of the bond to claim employment. 9. That apart, it is undisputed that either under DHS or under NRHM, petitioners have worked for almost three years and the attempt of the respondents is to offer provisional appointment to another batch of similar such claimants. Since the petitioners have no right whatsoever to insist that they should be appointed either under NRHM or DHS, it is always open to the respondents to appoint any one of the qualified candidates whom they deem fit and the petitioners cannot require this Court to prevent the District Medical Officer from making such appointments. 10. It is now contended that the petitioners have represented for their engagement. If any such representations have made, it is directed that it will be open to the District Medical Officer concerned to consider the W.P.(C) Nos.22941, 22967 & 23485 of 2010 -: 5 :- representations and pass appropriate orders in the matter. Writ petition therefore merits only dismissal and I do so. W.P.(C) Nos.22967& 23485 of 2010 Issues raised in these writ petitions are similar. For the aforesaid reasons, these writ petitions are also dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Jvt