Sunita Pandey & Another vs Union of India & Others

K.N. Pandey, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Jyotsna Srivastava for respondent no.1 and the learned standing counsel. No notice is issued to the respondent no.4 in view of the order which is being passed.

By this petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 30/11/2009, Annexure1 to the writ petition by which the Chief Medical Officer has allowed to continue 14 contract Doctors. The petitioners were earlier engaged as Contract Doctors and their term was to continue up to 31/3/2010. The Chief Medical Officer had passed an order on 01/11/2009 by which the tenure of all Contract Doctors was terminated. The order further stipulated that fresh engagement shall be made within one week. The petitioner came to this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 64171/2009 challenging the order dated 01/11/2009. The writ petition was disposed of on 30/11/2009 setting aside the order dated 01/11/2009 with the following direction:

"We have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and perused the record. Even in case that contract of appointment of some of appointee to discontinue before 31.3.2010 the respondents were obliged to lay down the criteria for discontinuance of the contract appointee and to take a decision for discontinuation of the contract appointee who were excess during the post sanctioned. There were no justification to discontinue all the contract appointee whose tenure is to continue till 31.3.2010.

In view of the above, the order impugned cancelling the contract of the petitioners along with other 20 appointees is set aside. It will be open for the respondent to law down the criteria to take a decision for terminating the contract appointee of doctors who are in excess of the sanctioned post within 15 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order."

Petitioners'' grievance is that this Court passed the order dated 30/11/2009 settingaside the order dated 01/11/2009 which order was also communicated by an application to the Chief Medical Officer. The Chief Medical Officer has completed the interview on 30/11/2009 and allowed to continue only 14 persons discontinuing the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in fact the Doctors on contract basis are engaged in pursuance of the Government Order dated 25/5/2007 for a period of one year and under paragraph 3 of the Government Order, there is a Selection Committee contemplated for appointing the Contract Doctors. He submits that the exercise which was conducted by the Chief Medical Officer on 30/11/2009 was not done by the Committee constituted by the Government Order, but was done by the Chief Medical Officer himself.

Learned standing counsel submits that the exercise for discontinuing certain Contract Doctors became necessary because the posts which were earlier 21 were reduced to 15 for the year 20092010.

We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

There cannot be any dispute that in view of the number of posts which was reduced an exercise was to be undertaken for discontinuing certain Contract Doctors who were in excess of the post.

Learned standing counsel submits that the said exercise was done by holding interview on 30/11/2009. It is further submitted by learned standing counsel that initially appointment was made in the year 2008 by the Committee but the extension for the next year was made by the Chief Medical Officer.

Be that as it may, in view of the fact that petitioners have raised the issue that petitioners have not been fairly considered for extension, ends of justice be served in directing the Committee headed by the District Magistrate to consider the claim of all the Contract Doctors who were working on 01/11/2009 and to take a decision with regard to continuance of contract equal to the posts available. Looking to the nature of job and the case of Contract Doctors, we provide that the said exercise be completed on or before 31/12/2009. We, provide that the status quo as existing today with regard to the functioning of the Contract Doctors, be allowed to continue till the decision is taken by the Committee as directed above.

Disposed of.