Smt. Nirmala Patel vs State of M.P. and Others

R.S. Jha, J.—With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the orders dated 22.11.2011 and 24.11.2011 by which the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Auxiliary Nurse & Midwifes on contractual basis has been cancelled.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an advertisement was issued in the year 2009 for recruitment on the vacant posts of Auxiliary Nurse & Midwifes on contract basis. In response to the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioner participated in the process of recruitment. The petitioner was duly appointed vide order dated 14.6.2011 and an agreement was duly executed. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to agreements which is marked as Annexure-P-4. However, subsequently by the impugned order the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that she has been appointed in excess of the sanctioned posts. Learned counsel further submits that after execution of the agreement the petitioner till the date of termination of her services has performed the duties of the posts of Auxiliary Nurse & Midwifes and for the aforesaid period she is entitled to salary and in case, in future vacancies, the petitioner should be given preference in the process of appointment.

On the other hand, learned Government Advocate while opposing the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner submitted that Chief Medical and Health Officer after appointment of Auxiliary Nurse & Midwifes made demand for budget so that selected candidate can be paid salary. Thereupon, vide communication dated 22.11.2011 the Chief Medical & Health Officer was informed that only 134 posts of Auxiliary Nurse & Midwifes were sanctioned and 254 appointments have been made, therefore, the appointments made beyond 134 posts are illegal. Accordingly, by the impugned orders the appointment of the petitioner were cancelled.

I have considered the respective submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that pursuant to the order of appointment the petitioner has performed the duties of the posts of Auxiliary Nurse & Midwifes. If the petitioner was given appointment by mistake committed by respondents, she cannot be denied the salary for the period for which she rendered her services as the same would amount to putting premium on the fault committed by respondents themselves.

Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner is entitled to salary for the period for which she has rendered her services. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondents shall make payment of salary to the petitioner for the period for which she rendered her services expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. Needless to state, in case, in future, if vacancies of the post of Auxiliary Nurse & Midwifes arise, the petitioner would be at liberty to participate in the process of selection and the respondents shall take into account the fact that the petitioner was duly selected in the previous selection. With the aforesaid directions the writ petition stands disposed of.