AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjeev Kumar, J
1) The issue raised in this petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court dated 19.12.2018 passed in SWP No.1059/2018.
2) SWP No.1059/2018 was a petition filed by the petitioners herein seeking a direction to the respondents to relieve them so as to enable them to have admission in six months certificate course/Bridge programme in Community Health for Nurses (BPCHN) for the sessions July, 2017, through IGNOU. The plea of the respondents that due to shortage of Nurses in different health institutions, it is not possible for the respondents to relieve the petitioners to permit them to under six months course aforesaid without compromising the health care, was accepted by this Court. The writ petition was dismissed while observing as under:
"While in employment in the Government, the petitioners have no scope for seeking admission for undergoing any course unless they are authorized for the same by the competent authority. Admittedly, the petitioners on their own have applied for seeking admission to six months Bridge Programme and on selection have approached for relieving them.
No mandamus can be issued to direct the respondents to relieve the petitioners for undergoing the Bridge Programme Course, which admission is admittedly sought without authorization. As per the principles of law, the in-service employee can only seek permission for undergoing higher studies or courses after seeking permission from employer or competent authority. It is for the employer on consideration to authorize or to decline keeping in view the need. Merely because the petitioners on their own have competed the process of Bridge Programme Course cannot form a ground for grant of writ in view of stand taken by the respondents. Rules on the subject for undergoing further studies/courses is governed by the leave rules/CSR. There is proper procedure for applying and undergoing the higher studies/courses and procedure envisaged, requires the employee to seek permission before even applying for undergoing such courses. The object of the scheme of law is to ensure that the services of the employees are extracted for the purpose for which they have been appointed. Since the petitioners have on their own without any authorization from the competent authority applied for undergoing the course, the period of which course is also over. No direction can be issued to respondents to relieve the petitioners to undergo the course.
3) In the instant case, same petitioners have called in question the notification issued by NHM inviting applications, inter-alia, from Staff Nurses (open market) to the exclusion of in-service Staff Nurses, for admission to Bridge Programme in Community Health (six months certificate course) for Ayervedic Graduates/Staff Nurses. The impugned advertisement notification has been assailed, primarily, on the ground that exclusion of the Staff Nurses of NHM is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
4) The plea of the petitioners is resisted by the respondents on the same grounds as had been taken by them while opposing SWP No.1059/2018. It is contended by the respondents that the Staff Nurses working in NHM are already well-trained and, therefore, their relieving for undergoing six months Bridge Programme in Community Health (six months certificate course) cannot be permitted without compromising health care in the institutions they are serving. It is, thus, submitted that keeping in view the foresaid aspect, the Mission Director, NHM, while issuing impugned advertisement notification, specifically provided that in-service Staff Nurses would not be eligible to apply for the course.
5) The reasons given by the respondents to exclude the in-service Staff Nurses of NHM are reasonable and have nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The impugned condition in the advertisement notification holding the in-service Staff Nurses ineligible to apply, thus, cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
6) That apart, as noted above, the issued involved in this petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court rendered in SWP No.1059/2018 and, therefore, second view in the matter is not warranted.
7) For the aforesaid reasons, this petition is found to be without merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.