AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—By this petition the petitioner challenges the validity of the impugned order dated 19-10-2006 (Annexure P-l), passed by the respondent No. 3 Collector, Bilaspur, wherein the respondent No. 5 Medical Officer was appointed as District Tuberculosis Officer (for short ''DTO'') in place of the petitioner.
The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was granted a senior grade pay scale of Class I (Gazetted) Medical Officer Rs. 10000-325-15200/- w.e.f. 1-1-2001 vide order dated 6-7-2006 (Annexure P-8), passed by the Govt, of Chhattisgarh Health and Family Welfare Department. The petitioner further obtained modular training in Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme (for short ''RNTCP''). On the basis of that by order dated 2nd April, 2006 (Annexure P-3) the petitioner was assigned the responsibility of the District Tuberculosis Officer, Bilaspur. Thereafter, vide order dated 19-10-2006 (Annexure P-l), without assigning any reason, the respondent No. 5, who according to the petitioner, was not granted pay scale of Class I (Gazetted) Medical Officer, was appointed as DTO.
The petitioner has challenged the appointment of the respondent No. 5 on the ground that the petitioner was having a qualification as required for being appointed as DTO and the respondent No. 5 was not having the required qualification as she was getting the pay scale of Class II Medical Officer.
Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that as per the setup of the officers, issued by the Directorate, Health Services vide letter dated 22-8-2005 (Annexure P-5) the pay scale of DTO is Rs. 10,000-15,200, which the petitioner was getting and the respondent No. 5 was getting a pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/-. Secondly, as per the National Tuberculosis Programme, the DTO should be on the rank of the Chief Health Officer or an equivalent functionary who is trained in RNTCP at the central level institution. The petitioner is having the pay scale of the Chief District Health Officer and was trained in RNTCP. The respondent No. 5 is not holding the rank of equivalent functionary of the Chief District Health Officer as her pay scale is less than the petitioner. It was further contended that the impugned order was passed by the Collector, who is not competent to appoint DTO and supersede the earlier order passed by the State Government in favour of the petitioner, assigning him responsibility of the DTO.
Per contra, Shri V.V.S. Murthy, learned Deputy Advocate General with Miss Deepali Pandey, Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, would submit that the respondent No. 5 has specialized in the field of tuberculosis. It is admitted that the pay scale of the respondent No. 5 was less than the petitioner, who has been granted pay scale of the Chief District Health Officer, i.e., Rs. 100000-15200. Learned Counsel would further contend that the respondent No. 5 had also obtained modular training in RNTCP. It was further contended that this is the responsibility of the officer to appoint a DTO keeping in view over all performance of the officer.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto. It is clear from the documents that the basic qualification required for DTO is an officer to the rank of the Chief District Health Officer or equivalent functionary and trained in RNTCP. The petitioner is, admittedly, having the pay scale of Chief District Health Officer and this is also the requirement for appointment as DTO. The submission of learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 is that the respondent No. 5 was better qualified, has no basis. When admittedly, the petitioner has better qualification, suitable for the post of DTO it is desirable that the senior officer like the petitioner be assigned the responsibility of DTO as per the scheme.
The impugned order was also not passed by a Competent Officer as the order dated 2-4-2006, appointing the petitioner on assignment of the DTO was passed by the State Government and the same cannot be superseded by the Collector. The impugned order dated 19-10-2006, on this count is also bad.
As a result and for the discussions made hereinabove, the order dated 19-10-2006 (Annexure P-1), assigning the responsibility of DTO to the respondent No. 5, without assigning any reasons for replacing the petitioner, is bad and is accordingly quashed.
Thus this petition is allowed. No order as to costs.