Dr.Smt.Anita Joshi vs State Of M.P & Others

Petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2019 whereby the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner for absorption in the government service.

While rejecting the representation of the petitioner, the respondents have distinguished the case of the petitioner with the case of Sanjeev Kumar Jain decided by this Court in Writ Petition No.18682/2013 vide order dated 24.02.2015. By the aforesaid order, the claim of other employees appointed in the Bal Niketan Sangh, Indore have also been rejected. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the writ petitions filed by five similarly placed employees came before this Court and the co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 28.02.2020 passed in W.P.No.6284/2019 (Smt.Nisreen Hussain vs. State of M.P & others) and four other connected writ petitions has set aside the impugned order dated 30.11.2019 and directed the respondents to take appropriate decision for absorbing the petitioners in government service within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. The co-ordinate Bench has found that the case of the petitioners stand on the same footing as that of Sanjeev Kumar Jain (supra). The petitioners have also been appointed by open advertisement and by following the due process. Para-12, 13, 14 & 15 of the order dated 28.02.2020 is reproduced below:

12/ In the aforesaid judgment this Court has already held that the State was required to implement the scheme by maintaining uniform policy in identical manner. It has also been held that in terms of Para-47 the similarly situated employees appointed in the Scheme have already been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as State Government employees because as per the Scheme the employees were to be appointed and borne in the State Government cadre. The different manner of appointment of employees in the ICDS Scheme through the Janpad Panchayat in Tendukheda area has been held to be discriminatory because in other areas the appointment was made by the State Government. Same is the position in the present case also, because in the present case instead of directly making the appointment under the ICDS Scheme, the State Government had made the appointment through the Bal Niketan Sangh, Indore and had provided 100% grant to it. Therefore, the case of the petitioners stands on the same footing as that of Sanjeev Kumar Jain (supra). The petitioners have also been appointed by open advertisement and by following the due process. Reliance on the agreement dated 1.4.2009 by the State is also of no consequence as the petitioners were appointed much prior to that.

13/ Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the respondents are not justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioners by the impugned order dated 30.11.2019 on the sole ground that the petitioners were appointed by a non government institute namely Bal Niketan Sangh, Indore, though the other facts and circumstances in the present case are identical to the case of Sanjeev Kumar Jain (supra). Such a different treatment has already been held to be arbitrary in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Jain (supra). In view of this the impugned order dated 30.11.2019 cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. Identical orders in the connected mattes, if any, are also set aside and the respondents are directed to take an appropriate decision for absorbing the petitioners in Government service within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

14/ Writ petitions are accordingly disposed off.

15/ Signed order be kept in the file of WP No.6284/19 and a copy thereof be placed in the file of connected WP Nos. 6283/19, 6279/19, 6296/19 & 6314/19.

In view of the above, the present petition is also disposed of in terms of the order dated 28.02.2020 passed in W.P.No.6284/2019 & four other connected writ petitions and the said order shall apply mutatis mutandis in this petition.