AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice L. Narasimha Reddy:
The applicants were appointed as Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM) between 1992 and 2007 in the Directorate General of Health Services, Rural Health Training Centre, Government of India, the respondent No.4 herein. They were subsequently promoted to the post of Lady Health Visitor (LHV) on 09.01.2018 (applicant Nos. 1 & 2) and 05.07.2019 (applicant Nos. 3 to 5). However, through Office Order dated 19.10.2020, the respondents have reverted the applicants to the post of ANM with effect from the dates mentioned against their names. The reason stated therein is that the Recruitment Rules were not finalized as yet. The O.A. is filed challenging the impugned Office Order dated 19.10.2020.
We heard Mr. M D Jangra, learned counsel for applicants and Mrs. Sumedha Sharma, learned counsel for respondents, through video conferencing.
It is a matter of record that the applicants have initially been appointed as ANM and thereafter, promoted to the post of LHV on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). The impugned Office Order dated 19.10.2020 reads:-
“Office Order On the recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held on 08.07.2020 and subsequent meeting of DPC held on 27.09.2020 the following are hereby reverted to their original post of ANM from Lady Health Visitor (LHV) with effect from the dates mentioned against their names due to non-finalization of Recruitment Rules as per Draft R/R.
| Sl, No. | Name of the employee | Date of promotion to the post of LHV | Date of reverted on the post of ANM |
| 1. | Smt. Neelam Sharma, LHV | 09.01.2018 | 09.01.2018 |
| 2. | Smt. Santra Devi, LHV | 09.01.2018 | 09.01.2018 |
| 3. | Smt. Neelam Devi, LHV | 05.07.2019 | 05.07.2019 |
| 4. | Smt. Manju Bhalla, LHV | 05.07.2019 | 05.07.2019 |
| 5. | Smt. Namita, LHV | 05.07.2019 | 05.07.2019 |
From a perusal of this, it is evident that the only reason mentioned for reversion of the applicants is that the Recruitment Rules were not finalized. Even if it is true, it hardly constitutes any basis for reverting the applicants since no notice was issued to them before they were reverted.
We, therefore, allow the O.A. and set aside the impugned Office Order dated 19.10.2020. We leave it open to the respondents to take steps in accordance with law.
With this, the M.As. shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.