IN THE HON'BLE HIGHLCOUJRT OF CHHATTISGAKH ATNIJASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS .s^^<f/ V N %? W. P.fSlNo. U^3A /2010 ; Smt. Sulochana Jaiswal, aged about 40 years, wife of Shri S.L. Jaiswal, Occupation- Clinical Biochemistry Technicianjndira Gandhi District Hospital, Korba Distt. Korba (C.G.) ,VERSUS , "^'_.' .'• - _. - . '• \ • 1, State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary for Health Department, Secretariat D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2'. Director Health Services, Old Nursing Hostel, D.K.S. Bhawan Rgdpur (C.G.) 3.^ Chief Medical Officer, District Hpspital, Korba Distt.- Korba (C.G.) ^"-;..'' _ 4. Civil Surgeon cum Hospital Superintendent, District Hospital Korba (C.G.) 5. Block Medical Officer, Primaiy Health Centre Korba, Distt.- Korba (C.G.) WRnLP%TITIQN UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA .*'-".••' />.-^-'\v0' .^y^.^'y ^.c^<^ 6ii... JUL -U^A.'I?'"-'*^* TTX... A ni r».-^ik.w ntTa.'ii-ffci.*-^— —,..—. (^> Petitioner HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 1439 of2010 Smt. Sulochana Jaiswal Versus Respondent State of Chhattisgarh & others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri Abhay Kumar Tiwri, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 5th Day of April, 2010) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 19.03.2010 (Annexure- P/9) whereby the petitioner has been directed to join Primary Health Centre, Korba on her original substantive post. 2. The indisputable facts in brief, relevant for decision of this case, is that the petitioner was appointed as Auxiliary Nursing Midwife (for short 'ANM') by the order dated 05.12.1987 (Annexure- P/1). Thereafter she was sent for training for the post of Clinical Biochemistry Technician (for short 'CBT') by order dated 02.11.2001 (Annexure- P/2). After completion of the training she was posted on the post of CBT by order dated 13.08.2004. Thereafter she had been continuing on the said post. By the impugned order dated 19.03.2010 (Annexure- P/9), the petitioner has been sent back to the original post of ANM on the same place. Thus, this amounts to reversal from the post of CBT. 3. Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the impugned order amounts to reversal therefore it is punitive and basic principles of natural justice has to be compli'ed with. 4; On consideration of submission of Mr. Tiwari and on perusal of order dated 13.08.2004 (Annexure- P/4) it is evident that the petitioner was ^ only transferred and assigned the duty of CBT for some time and thereafter, she continued on the said post. However, by order dated 19.03.2010 (Annexure- P/9) the additional duty of CBT was withdrawn and she was sent back to the original post of ANM at Primary Health Centre, Korba. 5. The contention of learned counsel that she was promoted to the post of CBT is contrary to the facts on record in fact the petitioner was never promoted to the post of CBT but she was only assigned the duty of CBT by order dated 13.08.2004 (Annexure P/4), temporarily. Mere assigning duty of higher post does not confer any right on the petitioner to continue on higher post. The employee continues on the original substantive post till the employee is properly considered and promoted in accordance with the selectiori process and law, to the higher post. This is not the case, here. 6. Thus, in the case on hand, since the petitioner was assigned the duty and responsibility of CBT on temporary basis, she doesnot have right to continue on the higher post where she was never promoted in accordance with law. 7. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition is bereft of merit and is accordingly dismissed. i' _ ~ ---~—- SatishK.Agnihotri Arun 1