IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22941 of 2010(P)
1. DINESH.A.S, KAMALA BHAVAN HOUSE,
... Petitioner
2. ATHIRA.C.S, CHANDANATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
3. JOHN PETER, MUNDAN HOUSE,
4. BINOY M.GEORGE, MYALIPUTHENPURAYIL
5. ASHA S NAIR, MALAYATTIL HOUSE,
6. NAZIYA BASHEER, PUTHIYEDATH HOUSE,
7. RENJITHA.P.B., PARASSERIYIL HOUSE,
8. NEENA.A.G., PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE,
9. DIVYA.A.K, ANGARAPPILLIYIL HOUSE,
10. ASWATHY JOHN, KUDILILTHOTTATHIL HOUSE,
11. AJITHA.M.A., MANAKKAPADY HOUSE,
12. JYOTHY JOY, ELAMBLASSERIL HOUSE,
13. ASHITHA SURENDRAN,
14. SALINI MOHANAN, PATTANAMADATHIL,
15. PRAKASH.P.T.,
16. MANUMOL.E.V, ELAVANAKANDATHIL HOUSE,
17. REMYA.P.R.,
18. LINDA PAUL, KIZHAKKENPARAMBIL HOUSE,
19. RIYAPRABHA.K,
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICE,
3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF
4. RAKHI MOHAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.BOSE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :27/07/2010
O R D E R
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