® !s~t Wl IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W^fS) No. CT6<:) /2011 PETITIONERS -/" ^ ^i€/ 4~i 'y<(y \.. .^ •* v^ ^ \. ^A- . ^ u<^n .-.' ^ \'1'.-" ..••i^'^y y \- »<-• (1) Dr. Avinash Pradhan, S/o. Late Tulsi Prasad Pradhan, aged about 30 years, R/o. Post - Saldih, Village Sankara (Jonk), Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) 492112 (2) Dr. Gulab Pradhan, S/o. Sampat Pradhan, aged about 28 years, R/o. Post - Jagdishpur, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS s/ .^ •|Mt.l^>i»J (1) State pf Chhattisgarh through its Secretary, Department of Public Health and Fainily Welfare, Medical Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, (C.G.) (2) f Director, AYUSH / Health Service, '' Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (3) Chief Medical & Health Officer, office of Chief Medical 8s Health Officer, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar, (C.G.) (4) District Ayurvedic Officer, offic.e of District Ayuryedic Officer, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) (5) Collector, Bastar, „ Distt. Bastar (CG) Ui;lli-.-]—.l;;E. I—~"";~~"l; yr*'-;' (6) Block Medical Officer, office of Primary Health Centre, Darbha, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) f^ (7) Block Medical Officer, office of Priinary Health Centre, Badekilepal, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF^HHATTISGARH ;8U-ASPUR J" SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA.J. Writ Petition(S) N0.509 of 2011 Petitioners Dr. Avinash Pradhan and another Respondents Versus t State of Chhattisgarhand others Writ Petition(Sl N0.542 of 2011 Petitioners Dr. Yashwant Singh Tomar and another Respondents Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others ",11 FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER ON /'P'.i'UJGUST, 2011 Sd./- ^anindraMohanSteivastava Judge sl~~"^W HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR ~w Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohah Shrivastava. J. F: Writ Petition(S) N0.509 of 2011 Petitioners Dr. Avinash Pradhan and another Respondents Versus i; State of Chhattisgarh and others Writ Petition(Sl N0.542 of2dl1 Petitioners Dr. Yashwant Singh Tomar and another r Versus Resuondehts State of ChhattisgEirh and others *:! (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Present:- " Shri S. P. Kale, counsel for the respective petitioner. Shri A. V. Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. 11; ORDER (Pronounced on /f -08-2011) This order shall govern disposal of Writ ?etition (S) No.509 of 2011 & Writ Petition (S) No.542 of 2011, as commori question of law and fact arises for consideration. 2. By the aforesaidwrit petitions, the petitioners have prayed for a *' direction to the respondent authorities to allow,them to participate in the "AYUSH" counseling for contractual appointment on the post of "Ayurvedic Medical Officer". The petitioners have also prayed for quashing of circular dated 15-07-2010 (Annexure P-3) issued by the'State Government. ^lllU»!llu.jilit,,j|j| ..!;Li:.^.;.;.r:; l:.:i-j.t).^! jieijl pue OtOZ-Zt-l.S 01 dn pouad jeifynj e joi siseq lenpejiuoo uo psturodde 3jaMSjauoii48d eqi 4ioq 'OI.OZ-IO-ZO psiep -ispJo SP!A •j8!|jea si jeAeqoiqM 'uoissiuiiuoo SOIAJSS oiiqnd i|6nojqi uoiioa|8s je|n6ej 11!1 JQ jeeA suo p poued e JQ^ 600Z-01.-61. psiep j9pjo epiA lusLUiuiodde lenpEJtuoo ueAiB Aijeiiujis os|e SBM Z-ON jsuoiigad eqi •jsiijee si j3AS43iL|M 'epeai si UOI.SSIUJIUOQ soiAjes oi.iqnj yBnojq} luauiiuiodde jEjnBej ||!i JQ 600Z-ZI-~1-£°isdn pousd jeyynj e jo^ }uaLU}uioddE lenioejtuoo ueAi6 SBM |,"ON J9uoi}!i9d eqt '(z-d 9Jnx9UUv)600Z-Ol-91. psiep jepjo epi/\ •jeeA auo ^o pdyad e joi (|,-d ajnxauuv) 8002-01.-80 psiep jepjo epiA petuiodde 9j8MLz '? [.•ON sjsuoiijied si|i •aijuii 0} eLui} IUQJJ siseq lenpejtuoo uo peiuiodde os|e ejsm sjsuoi^sd }uw. sqi yei\} eje I.I.QZ i0 Zf9"ON (S) uo!t!}3d }UM SL)} jo uoispsp jo^ Ajessaoeu sioej 341 •t' •papuepo SBM lustuiuioddeienpejiuoo sii| pue penuiiuoo SBM Z'ON jeuoitjiad 941 }eqi pejJSAE ueeq sei|}[ 'p9|y ueaq seq Z-ON jauonned J.Q lueuiiuiodde |enioefluoo p uoisueixs ^o jepjo ou 'qBnoLii 'oiOZ -Zl-lS °t dn psnuiiuoo SBM [.-ON Jeuoiiitsd 941 p lueLuiuiodde |enpEJ(uo3 341 'OI-OZ-LO-ZO P^ep jepjo epjA 'jeilJee si jeAsqoiqM 'UOISSILULUOQ eoiAjes oiiqnd 4BnojL|i tusuituiodde jE|n6ej ||!t JO 600Z-ZI.-I.S 01 dn SBM lusiuiuiodde lenioejiuoo siqj, -(z-d ajnxauuy) 600Z-01.-SI psiep JSpJO epiA psnuiiuoo SEM sjsuofliisd 991 p lusLuiuiodde |en}oefluoo 941 •A|eAip8dsej '|Eduein|/\| 'aiiueo 4l|E9|-j AiiuniuiuoQ pue ejqqea 'aiiuao LJIIESH Ajeuiud ui 4}uoLu jed -/000'91'sy ^o Aje|es paxy e uo jeeA euo jo poued B JOj (i.-d sjnxsuuy) 900Z-01.-90 uosiseq ioej}uoo uo jaoyjo |B3!p3|/\| oipaAjnAvs^'paitiiodde Aiieffiui ejaw zv I'ON sjeuosned sqi ieqi SJE I.I.QZ .1 ^o SOS'ON (S) uoiised lUAA194l P uoisiosp joj Ajesssoeu sioeleqi •£ f ; ^.'^.. '-».<» appointment order clearly stipulated that afterjexpiry of period of one year, their services would automatically come to an end. i 5. The petitioners came to know that the respondents have proceeded to make appointment on the post of Ayurvedic Medical OTficer on contract r: basis, hence, they also made application for;contractual appointment, but II. the respondents are not allowing those contractual appointees, who are appointed after 04-12-2008. A joint representation was made by the petitioners and other contractual appointees vide Annexure P-5 to the State Government to consider their case also for re-appointment on contractual basis. However, the petitioners were not allowed to participate in the counseling for re-appointment on contract basis, despite several representations made. The petitioners have also placed on record notice of counseling dated 26-01-2011 (Annexure A-1), by which, the candidates have been invited for counseling for the purpose of contractual appointment. , I. ; 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners sL(|3mitted that the petitioners, who were continued as Ayurvedie Medical Qfficer on contract basis are entitled for consideration of their candidature for appointment on contractual basis and their candidature could not be denied on the ground that they were appointed during the ban period i.e. after 04-10-2008. Learned counsel submits that memo datecl, 23-09-2010 of the Chief Medical & Health Officer shows that the orde^-imposing ban by the State Government was not within the notice of the Chief Medical & Health Officer resulting in appointment of the petitioners, and itherefore, the Chief Medical & Health Officer recommended the case of the petitioners. Learned •^ -tl^ ^ \- counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the policy decision taken by the State Government vide circular dated 15-07-2010 (Annexure P-3) :1 • is illegal, as the same is arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the provisions of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Cqntract Appointment) Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 2004"), 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to seek any directibn from the Court, as their appointmentswere cleariy illegal. It is submitted that the State Government had issued a circular that on 04-10-2008 to the effect that as Public Service Commission h^d issued an advertisement for appointment on the vacant post of Ayurvedrc Medical Officer, no fresh appointment on contract basis should be made, and those, who are alrpady working, they may be continued for a period of one year or till regular appointment by Public Service Commission, whichever is earlier. H^j submits that in spite of a !'L clear direction by the State Government imposing ban, after 04-10-2008, the petitioners were illegally appointed during ban period and continued. It >.l. ' is further submitted that the State Government had issued circular on 15- ^ . ..' 07-2010, in which, it was clearly.stipulated that those, who have been appointed, after ban was imposed, will not be considered for re- appointment as Ayurvedic Medical Officer on contract basis. Learned State '};: counsel submitted that there is no illegality, arbitrariness in laying down the policy by the State Government vide its circular dated 15-07-2010. t. Learned State counsel also submitted that after the Public Service jl' . ; :•: '.::^ ". Commission selected candidates for regular appointment and s. . .. -. .' appointments were made by the State Government, the State Government ^: having found that the some posts are still lying vacant, it decided to fill-up auiis^xmt^i ^J):' the vacant post on contract basis and to give effect to the policy, circular dated 15-07-2010 was issued. Learned Stat6 counsel raised serious objection to the maintainability of the petitiohs by submitting that the petitioners have though placed on recordji'order dated 04-10-2008, imposing ban on contractual appointment, ithe petiitioners have not challenged the legality and validity of the said order and in the absence of challenge, challenge to Clause 1.5 ofthe CircUl^r dated 15-07-2010 is not maintainable. 8. From the orders, which have been placed on record by the petitioners and it is an admitted position that the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis only for a limited period.Order dated 02-01-2010 (Annexure P-2) reveals that the petitioner N0.1, jn W.P.(S)No.509 of 2011 and Petitioners No.1 & 2 in W.P.(S)No.542 of 2011 were given contractual appointment for a further period up to 31-12-2010 and Condition No.2 of the order clearly stated that after expiry of the period of one year, appointment would automatically come to an qnd. The petitioner No.2 in W.P.(S)No.509 of 2011 has placedon recor^.order dated 15-10-2009, which shows that his contractual appointment was continued till 31-12- 2009. No order extending contractual appointment of petitioner No.2 in W.P.(S)No.509 of 2011 has been placed on record to show that he was continued after 31-12-2009. It is therefore clear that petitioners in the two writ petitions, under any circumstances, had no right to continue beyond perjod of contractual appointment. —' t. • :- ,.• 9. On 04-10-2008, the State Government.ipsued a circular imposing ban on appointment of Ayurvedic Medical Officer on contract basis stating IBIBi!] ''s: ^ that the posts have now been advertisfid by the Public Service Commission. The circular clearly stated thftt those, who are already working, may be continued only for a period, of one year or till regular appointment is made through Public Service Commission, whichever is earlier. This order has been placed on .jrecord by the petitioners themselves. Memo dated 23-09-2010 (Annexure P-6) issued by the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Jagdalpyr, District Bastar, clearly shows that the petitioners were appointed on contract basis after 04-10-2008, as circular of the State Government issued on 04-10-2008 imposing ban was not informed to the Chief Medical & Health Officer. Therefore, it is apparent that the petitioners were appointed, after the ban was imposed by the State Government on 04-10-2008. The petitioners have not challenged the legality and validity of the policy decision taken by the State Government to <j_ impose ban on contractual appointment after 04-10-20Q8. Therefore, apparently, the petitioners' appointment on contractual basis, after the ban was imposed by the State Government, was clearly illegal. 10. After the regular selection was made through Public Service Commission, the State Government proceeded to make regular appointment. However, even after this exercise of making regular appointment, some of the posts still remained vacant. The State Government, therefore, came out with a pqlicy on 15-07-2010 to make contractual appointment on posts, which mained vacant, even after regular appointments were made on the bs^is oi selection made by'the Public Service Commission. Clause 1.5 oftfte Circular dated 15-07-2010 clearly stated that the candidates, those who have been appointed during ban peTiod, will not be considered for re-apjaointment on contract basis. UUialuuililiUintiiii pei< IU91UUJ3AOQ 9}EtS 941 4} je9|0 9pELU OS|B Sl }| •t'QOZ P sa|ny eqi 0} Aiejtuoosi OI.OZ-ZO-91. PS}Bp uoisiosp A3i|0d QIQ Moy 0} se sieflsuoiusp 0}. p9|!E^ sjauojiited sq» JQJ lesunoo peujee"! 'eipui p uoRnigsuoo 84} JO t'1. 9|3!)JV JO uoipe^ui sinijisuoo 0} se os '|BUO!}EJJ! jo ^BJ)iqjB sq o» p.ies eq }OUUBO uo.isiosp 94} ejojejaq) pue |eBs||! eje siusiuiuiodde f yons }B4} uoiiejepisuoo 341 uo poseq si 'siseq IOBJIUOO uo }U9iu}uiodde -8j jo esodjnd 34} JQJ sjsuoiijiad 94} p uoisnioxg 'uoisiosp Aoiiod yons L)tjM punoj sq ueo }|nej ou 'IUSIUUJSAOO eieis 941 Aq pasodiui ueq sqi 6ui}e|0!A A||e69||i paiuiodde SJG oqM aso^i '(uaLuiuiodde-ej joj jopisuoo o\ »ou ua)|B} uasq sey uoisioep 94} j.\ '9002-0 l.-^OOl •'oud p9}Uiodde SJB OL|/V\ 'ssoq) 4}iM lusiufuiodde |enioBJ)uo3 uo Aiued LUIEIO touueo sjsuoiiged 3L|i PUB SSE|O eiejedas e ssiniffsuoo 'pouad ueq jsye psiuiodde eje oyM 'seeiuiodde |en}OBj}uoo JSL|}O pue sjsuoffiied sqi ssneosq 'uoiieuiLuuosip w tinssj IQU saop '}u9LU}U!odde |en}oej}uoo Bw^eui ^o ssodjnd sqt JQJ 'pousd ueq Buunppe}U!oddE SJB OI)M 'seiepipueo asoiQ MO||B o} }ou uoispsp 341 •Bipu| p uoi)nt!}suo3 si)} p Ql/Fl epjW s8}E|oiA jou ^QOZ P ss|ny 9i|t ui PSUIBIUOO SUOISIAOjd 84) 01 AJBJ(UOO pue sojo^ ui Suisq eiuit eqt jo^ MB| Aue j.o eAffBioiA jauuELu Aue ui eq 0} p3}BJ}suouisp useq }ou SEL| 'pejapisuoo eq }ou IJIM 'pousd ueq Buunp petuiodde ueeq eAey oqM 'seiepipueo 94} 'siseq |en}3BJtuoo uo lusLU^uioddB-ej 6uj)|euj p ssodjnd ai<t joj leqt IOSKS 341 o»uojsiosp Aojiod sqi •(ueLuujsAOQ Q}B}Q eqi p suoi}38J!p eq} 0} AJEJ}UOO SEM sjsuoiijtsd 94} ^o tueLUiuiodde aq} }eqi jeeio si }t 'sjojajsyi -sjsuoiiiisd eq} Aq p96us||B43 ueeq }GU OS|B seq ueq BuisodLUi ui lusiuujaAog 3}B\Q 94} }0 UOjpE plBS 94} io A}!P!|BA pue A}!|eB8| eqi '800Z-01-W uo pesodujj SBM ueq 94} }eq} psindsip IQU eAeq sjeuoiiRed 941 -uoisioap Aoiiod e yons 6u!>|B} ui uoiiEUjUuuosip jo sssuuejtiqje 'A)!|eB3||i ou sq 01 sjesdde ejeifi issued a circular dated 28-10-2010 to alt the Collectors and Chief Medical & Health Officer in the State to bring to an end the contractual appointments, which were made. 11. In the result, l do not find any merit in the writ petitions, and therefore, both the writ petition fails and hereby dismissed. ^anmdraMohan Shrivastaya Judge