Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed an order withdrawing the contractual appointment of a staff nurse, noting that it would be “harsh and oppressive to terminate her services” after more than three years, particularly when no fraud or misrepresentation was attributed to her.
Allowing a writ petition by Kajal Mehra, a staff nurse with the Department of Medical Education, a single bench of Justice Sandeep Sharma on December 12 set aside the Himachal Pradesh Director of Health Services’s August 31, 2024, order to withdraw her contractual appointment on the ground that she was ineligible for selection against the 2011 batch.
The petitioner was appointed on a contract basis under the OBC-BPL category pursuant to counselling conducted in March 2022 for 89 staff nurse posts, of which three were reserved for OBC-BPL candidates.
She joined service at Dr Rajendra Prasad Government Medical College, Tanda, on March 16, 2022. After nearly two years, her appointment was withdrawn on the grounds that she had “acquired the requisite qualification in December 2014”, and thus could not have been considered for the 2011 batch.
Earlier, the high court had quashed a similar withdrawal order dated March 28, 2024, on the ground of “violation of principles of natural justice,” and granted liberty to the state to issue a show-cause notice and proceed afresh. Following this, the fresh withdrawal order was challenged in the present petition.
The court observed that “no loss was caused to the public exchequer as the post was vacant and there was no competing candidate who could claim to have been wronged. Also, the petitioner discharged her duties against a sanctioned post and served the public, drawing salary for work actually rendered”.
Acknowledging that the petitioner “technically ought not to have been considered for a post earmarked for the 2011 batch,” the court said, “Once she was appointed and served for over three years, and was otherwise eligible, terminating her services at this stage would be unjust.”
The court also rejected the state’s contention about an ongoing inquiry against the selection committee, holding that “it has no bearing on the petitioner’s continuation”.
Relying on the Supreme Court judgments, including Vikas Pratap Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Anmol Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Jharkhand, the high court allowed the petition and directed that “any prayer for regularisation be considered in accordance with law.”
The pending applications were also disposed of.
Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
