IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2008 / 4TH MAGHA 1929 WA.No. 221 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.34294/2007 DATED 3/12/2007 .................... APPELLANTS: PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------- 1. JOHNSON K.S., JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR GR.II, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, THRIKKAKARA. 2. JOSEPH V.P., JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR GR.II, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, VETTILAPPARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE STATE MISSION DIRECTOR, AROGYAKERALAM, NATIONAL RURAL HEALTH MISSION, NRHM BUILDING, DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 035. 3. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME MANAGER, NRHM, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, N.R.H.M., ERNAKULAM. 4. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME MANAGER, NRHM, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, N.R.H.M., THRISSUR. 5. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. Kss ..2/- ...2.... W.A.NO.221/2008 6. ABRAHAM E.V., BLOCK CO-ORDINATOR, AROGYAKERALAM, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME MANAGER, DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. 7. BIJU SEBASTIAN, -DO- -DO- 8. BIJU MON V., -DO- -DO- 9. SABU P.S., -DO- -DO- 10. KENNADY VARGHESE, -DO- -DO- 11. MUHAMMED P.M., -DO- -DO- 12. RASHEED H.S., -DO- -DO- 13. SATHISH KUMAR C.V., -DO- -DO- 14. SIBI AUGUSTINE, -DO- -DO- 15. MARIAMMA A.R., -DO- -DO- 16. VALSALA C.T., -DO- -DO- 17. SANTHAKUMARI AMMA.R., -DO- -DO- 18. ALLY K.R., BLOCK CO-ORDINATOR, AROGYAKERALAM, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME MANAGER, DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. 19. SANTHOSH S., -DO- -DO- 20. LINCY P.V., -DO- -DO- 21. THANKAMMA A.C., -DO- -DO- 22. BABY N.C., -DO- -DO- 23. BENNY V.J., BLOCK CO-ORDINATOR, AROGYAKERALAM, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME MANAGER, DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, THRISSUR. 24. NALINI P., -DO- -DO- BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SANDESH RAJA BY SRI.M.AJAY,SC,NATIONAL RURAL HEALTH MISSION THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------- W.A.NO.221 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J: The appellants are working in the cadre of Junior Health Inspector Gr-II under respondents 1 to 5. The 2nd respondent , State Mission Director, invited applications for appointment to the post of Block Arogyakeralam Co-ordinator as per Annexure -I notification published in Mathrubhumi daily dated 1.9.2007, which is available at page 56 of the paper book. The appellants were having Masters degree in Social Works. It was one of the qualifications prescribed for the post. Both of them applied pursuant to the said notification. Two methods were provided for appointment. One was by deputation and other was appointment on contract basis. Both of them were not selected for appointment on deputation. They were the only qualified persons available. The 1st appellant was included in the list of persons to be appointed on contract basis. In fact, according to the appellants, none of them applied to be appointed on contract basis. Going by the select lists W.A.NO.221/08 . 2 published as per Exts.P9 and P10, the petitioners found that, for appointment on deputation, the selected candidates were unqualified in terms of the notification. Therefore, the writ petition was filed. 2. The respondents took the stand that qualification of MSW or equivalent, will apply only for appointment on contract basis. For appointment on deputation basis, seniority among the volunteers alone was considered. The learned Single Judge upheld the said contention and dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that the aforementioned notification inviting applications would show that qualification of MSW or equivalent prescribed, will apply for appointment on deputation as well as on contract basis. 4. We find it difficult to accept the said contention. A close reading of the notification shows that applications were invited from persons with MSW etc only for appointment on contract basis. For appointment on deputation, applications were invited only from Health Supervisors or Lady Health Supervisors. The field of choice W.A.NO.221/08 . 3 for appointment by deputation was further enlarged by another notification. The only point that arises for decision is whether the qualifications prescribed such as MSW etc are applicable to deputation also. We are of the definite view that the notification does not indicate that the said qualifications are meant for deputation also. So, the view taken by the learned Single judge is legal and valid. We agree with the reasons and conclusions of the learned Single Judge. In the result, the writ appeal fails and it is dismissed. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl W.A.NO.221/08 . 4