¥ .^k2^-'y") ^ ?-^-^^--' •V9t ^»->A.',<<°<k^-^ \ ••* ^ ^/^ IN THE HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.p. (si NO. ^%^rS / 2009 PETITIONER : Smt. Manorama Banchhor, W/o Shri Jhanendra Kumar Banchhor, aged about 40 years, R/o Industrial Area Transport Nagar, Village-Hathkhoj (Bhilai-3) Distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : / 1) State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, HeaJth Department, Raipur ^ 2) The Joint Director (Nursing) Directorate of Health Services, Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.) ^3) The Chief Medical & Health Officer, ^§\//f'^^ Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) ^^^g^ WRITPETmON U/A 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTESGARH AT BILASPUR 8B : HONi'BLB MR. JUSTICB PRITINKBR DI.WAKBR W.P.(Si.NO. 2373/2009 PBTITIONBR RJBSPONDENTS versus Sint. ManoHima Banchhor State ofC.G. & Others Shri Prafull Bharat, counsel for tlie petitioner, . Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, P.1 for the State/respondents. WRIT PETITION UNDBR ARTICLB 226 OP THE CON8TITUTIQI OF IBIDIA OKDER (14.10.2011) Chatlenge ia tlie present petition is to the order dated 5.02.09 (Anuexure P/1) issued by fhe respondent No,3-Chief Medical & Healfh Officer, Durg; Distdct Durg whercby the petifioner has been infomied fhat her caadidature for fhe post of AiiKiM.ary Nurse-ciixa" Midwife (ANM) has been rejected on fhe ground as she has received fhe ANM traming of 18 months from semi-govemment iristitutioii ie. Kastarba Graui Indore, whereas as per fh-e requirenient she ought to have done fhe same froxa the GoveniHient Traiamg Centre^ 2. Brief facts of tlie case are that on 20*06.08, aa advertisenxent (Aunexure P/10) was issued by t±ie respondent N0.3 mviting applications for fhe post of Aiixiliaiy Niirse-cuia- Midwife (Male & Feinale). As per fhe condition No,2, for the post ofAuxiliaiy Nurse- cum- Midwife, a candidate was required to have 18 monfhs traming from fhe Govemmeut Womea Healfh Worker Trammg Centre. 3. Accordiag to the counsel for flie petitioner^ the petitioner had also appUed for the said post but her candidafrure has been rejected on the groiind that she had uot done her traiaing froni tfaie Govemnient Traiauig Centre and has done the same from fhe Semi- pverainent Centre. Counsel for the petitioner subinits that /?" ...;;.^.^-^' i .^%>;^ ^ subsequent to fiUng ofthe petition, on 10.8.2010 Aanexure P/ 19; has been issued by thie Directorate, Health Seryices clearly raentioxiio.g in it fhat for th.e post of Aiixitlary Nurse-cuni-Midwtfe, a caxididate is required to have 18 nionths toramiag aad ia this letter tfaerc is ao mention of having the said trahiiag from the Govemment Trainmg Centre. He submits that on 25.11,2010, a letter was issued by the Assistaot Director (Nursmg) vide Annexure P/20 directmg fhe respondent N0.3 to take appropriate steps ia view of letter dated 10.08,2010 (Annexiire P/19). Counsel for the petitiouer submits that once the letter dated 10.8.2010 (Annexure P/19) 8r> letter dated 25.11.2010 (Annexure P/20) have been issued, in aU fairaesSy fhe resp. No.3 ought to have considered fhe caiididatare ofthe petitioner and have appomted her as Auxiliaiy Nurse-cum-Midwtfe* He submits fhat even today nuinber of posts of fbe said posts are lyiag vacaat with fhe respondent No.3 aad fherefore there should not be aay probleni ia appoiating her. 4. Shri Chaadresh Shrivastava, State counsel submits fhat pursuaat to the advertiseiaent, entire selection process has been coinpleted aiid therefore the present petition is only for academic iaterest a&d fhe petitioner cannot claini aay appoiatiiient on the post of Auxiliaiy Nurse-cuin-Midwife. He subiaits fhat if in future any such advertisersient is issued fhen fhe petitioner raay apply on the basis of quaUfication possessed by her. State counsel has further argued that the conditions of fhe agreement has not been chaBenged aad therefore the petitioner is not entifled for aoy relief as prayed by her. 5. At this stage, Shri Bharat, subixdts tliat piirpose offiling fhis petition would be served ifdirection is issued to the respondent N0.3 to consider the case ofthe petitioner ia view ofAuuexure P/ 19 & 20. This subnxission m.ade by Shri Bharat is seriously opposed by fbe State counsel on fhe ground fhat as on date., the petitioner has absolutely no nght to be posted on the post of Auxyiaiy Nixrse-cusn- Midwife as per advertiseinent dated 20.6.08. .•tii ^ ^ 6, After heanng counsel for fhe pardes aad fhe Umited submission niade by fhe petitioner for consideration of her case on fhe basis of Annexure P/ 19 & P/ 20, fhis Court is of fhe opinion that it would be for fhe respondent No.3 to consider fhe case of the petitioner m fhe Ught of Annexures P/ 19 & 20 as to whefher she is entitled to be appoiiited as Auxiliary Nurse-cuin- Midwife or not. Wifh fhe above observation fhe petition is disposed of. It is Biade clear fhat this Court has not observed on the nierits of the case aad fhe respondent N0.3 is at Uberty to decide fhe case after considermg aU the facts aad circuxnstaaces offhe case. Sd/- pritinker Diwaker Judge