Minakshi Rani @APPELLANT@Hash State And Ors

Vide Advertisement Notification No. DIP/J-5015/10 dated 31.07.2010, District Health Society, Kathua invited applications for 76 posts in the District including the posts of Female Multipurpose Health Workers/ANM for different sub-centers of the District. As per the Advertisement Notification, the qualification prescribed for the post was 'Diploma from J&K State Medical Faculty and recognized institution (one and half year course)'. The last date of submission of application forms was fixed as 14.08.2010. The terms of appointment, which was contractual in nature, as enumerated in the Advertisement Notification were to the following effect:-

"Contractual Terms:

Must be the resident of J&K State.

Imp Note:- For the post of FMPHW/ANM the criteria for selection is village specific and for rest of the posts the candidates from the particular block shall be considered.

Contract will be offered by the District Health Society, Kathua.

Initial contract will be for the period of 1 year, co-terminus on 31st March, 2011 and renewable for the period of one year based on performance and continuation of the scheme.

Some Experience of working with Government system will be in added advantage.

Remuneration as mentioned is all-inclusive.

Age limit up to 40 years for all positions except for Sister Tutor & Public Health Nurse for which it is 62 years."

The candidates shall be short listed in the ratio of 1:5 against each post."

The petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 and other candidates of the adjoining villages submitted their application forms to be appointed as FMPHW for the sub-centers in their village or in the adjoining villages. The petitioner as also respondent No. 5 were considered for sub-center Rajwalta. On the basis of overall merit, respondent No. 5 was selected and consequently, appointed as FMPHW/ANM for sub-center Rajwalta. It may be noted that both the petitioner and respondent No. 5 do not belong to the village where sub-center Rajwalta is located and both are the residents of different villages, which are, of course, adjoining to the village where the sub-center in question is located.

The petitioner is aggrieved and has challenged the selection and appointment of respondent No. 5 as FMPHW/ANM in the sub-center Rajwalta on the ground that the respondents, in the Advertisement Notification, had clearly provided that the selection of FMPHW/ANM shall be village specific and, therefore, the respondents could not have changed the criteria midway and considered the candidates from the adjoining villages. It is also contended that even if the change of selection criteria is held permissible, respondent No. 5, who was a resident of an adjoining village separated by a distance, which is far more than the distance of the village of the petitioner from the sub-center in question, should have been preferred for employment.

The respondents have filed their reply, in which the stand taken is that though in the Advertisement Notification, the criteria for making selection to the post of FMPHW/ANM was village specific but due to the non-availability of candidates in many villages where the sub-centers were located, the same was extended to the adjoining villages situated within a radius of 7 kms from the locality of the sub-center. It is, thus, claimed that the villages where both the petitioner and respondent No. 5 are residing fall within the radius of 7 kms from the village Rajwalta and were, thus, considered. It is only because of the better merit, the respondent No. 5 came to be selected for sub-center Rajwalta.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot raise a grievance with regard to the change of selection criteria as the petitioner herself is the beneficiary of the changed criteria. Had the criteria not been varied/changed, neither the petitioner nor respondent No. 5 could have been eligible for consideration so far as the post of FMPHW/ANM in sub-center Rajwalta is concerned and the only eligible candidates belonging to village Rajwalta could have been considered.

In that view of the matter, it is difficult for this Court to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the change of criteria midway has adversely affected her chances of selection. Rather, the change in selection criteria has only allowed the petitioner to be considered for the post for which the petitioner was otherwise not eligible in terms of Contractual Term No. 2 of the Advertisement Notification.

For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

Before parting, it may be appropriate to point out that the manner in which the respondents have changed the selection criteria insofar as the post of FMPHW/ANM is concerned, cannot be appreciated. As noted above, in the Advertisement Notification, the respondents have very specifically indicated that for the post of FMPHW/ANM, the criteria for selection would be village specific and if the same was to be changed, it could have been done only by way of corrigendum, which was required to be published. The selection criteria, which is placed on record has admittedly not been published. The respondents need to be vigilant and careful else the selection made on the basis of unpublished criteria, which is changed midway may be vitiated in law and such care is required to be taken to avoid the unnecessary litigation. I hope the respondents take note of what is stated above and be careful in future.

With these observations, the writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.