Wp(C) 259/2011
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 259 of 2011 Petitioners : 1. Sri Jatin Boruah, S/o- Late Golap Boruah, Village- Kacharigaon, P.O. & P.S.- Sootea, Dist.- Sontipur (Assam). 2. Sri Mukul Gogoi, S/o- Sri Tulan Gogoi, Village- Sechasatra, P.O. & P.S.- Jamugurihat, Dist.- Sonitpur (Assam). 3. Sri Sunil Pathak, S/o- Sri R.B. Pathak, Village- Tourist Lodge Complex, (Tezpur), P.O. & P.S.- Tezpur, Dist.- Sonitpur (Assam). 4. Sri Prasanta Neog, S/o- Late Umakanta Neog, Village- Bebejia, P.O.- Sohal Sonari, Dist.- Sonitpur (Assam). 5. Sri Pradip Rabha, S/o- Sri Moniram Rabha, Village- Mongoldoi Gaon (PWD Colony), P.O. & P.S.- Mongoldoi, Dist- Darrang (Assam). 6. Sri Sourav Jyoti Tamuli, S/o- Sri Dulal Tamuli, Village- Dhaning Gorkakharia Gaon, P.O.- Haflodihing, P.S.- Gourisagar, Dist.- Sivasagar (Assam). 7. Ms. Mallika Kachari, D/o- Sri Narayan Kachari, Village- Andherijuli, P.O.- Rani, Dist.- Karmup (Assam). W.P(C) No. 259 of 2011 Page 1 of 1 W.P(C) No. 2274 of 2011 2 By Advocates : Mr.A.K. Hussain, Mr. B.Hussain, Mr. A.S. Ahmed. Respondents : 1. State of Assam, Represented by its Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Health and Family Welfare Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6. 2. Managing Director, National Rural Health Mission, Assam, Sixmile, Guwahati. 3. Joint Director of Health Services, Sonitpur, Tezpur, Assam. 4. Deputy Commissioner Cum Chairman, District Health Society, Sonitpur, Near Tezpur College, Sonitpur, Tezpur, Assam. 5. District Programme Manager, National Rural Health Mission, Sonitpur, Tezpur, Assam. 6. Manager, Dirring Tea Estate, P.O.- Pavoi, P.S.- Balisang, Dist.- Sontipur (Assam). 7. Manger, Kacharigaon Tea Estate, P.O.- Rangapara, Dist.- Sonitpur (Assam). 8. Manager, Durrung Tea Estate, P.O.- Bindukuri, Dist- Sontipur, (Assam). 9. Manager, Hirajuli Tea Estate, P.O.- Dhekiajuli, Dist.- Sontipur (Assam). 10. Manager Arun Tea Estate, P.O.- Dhekiajuli, Dist.- Sontipur (Assam). 11. Manager, Shyamguri Tea Estate, P.O.- Dhekiajuli, Dist.- Sontipur (Assam). W.P(C) No. 259 of 2011 Page 2 of 2 W.P(C) No. 2274 of 2011 3 12. Manager, Narayanpur Tea Estate, P.O.- Dhekiajuli, Dist.- Sonitpur (Assam). By Advocates : Ms. A.Verma, SC, Health, Mr. K.Agarwal, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 2274 of 2011 Petitioner : Sri Gunajit Kalita, Son of Prabhat Kalita, Vill.: Haribhanga, P.O.- Haribhanga, P.S.- Tihu, Dist.: Nalbari (Assam). By Advocates : Mr. A.K.Hussain, Mr. B.Hussain, Mr. A.S. Ahmed. Respondents : 1. The State of Assam represented by its Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Health and Family Welfare Department, Dispur, Guwahati- 06. 2. Managing Director, National Rural Health Mission, Assam, Sixmile, Guwahati. 3. Joint Director of Health Service, Sonitpur, Tezpur, Assam. 4. Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman, District Health Society, Sonitpur near Tezpur College, Sonitpur, Tezpur, Assam. 5. District Programme Manager, National Rural Health Mission, Sonitpur, Tezpur, Assam. 6. Manager, Singri Tea Estate, P.O.- Dhekiajuli, P.S.- Dhekiajuli, Dist.:- Sonitpur, Assam. W.P(C) No. 259 of 2011 Page 3 of 3 W.P(C) No. 2274 of 2011 4 By Advocates : Ms. A.Verma, SC, Health. Mr. K.Agarwal, B E F O R E THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN. Date of hearing : 30-04-2012 Date of Judgment : 22-08-2012. J U D G M E N T AND O R D E R(CAV) Facts and reliefs sought for being identical, W.P.(C) No.259/2011 and W.P.(C) No.2274/2011 were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order. 2. The petitioners in both the writ petitions were selected for appointment as Laboratory Technician pursuant to the advertisement dated 24-06-2010 and were given appointment orders, posting them in different Tea Estates, the managers of which have been arrayed as respondents 6 to 12 in W.P.(C) No.259/2011 and respondent No.6 in W.P.(C) No.2274/2011. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have not been allowed to join in their respective places of posting by the Tea Estate Managers. Aggrieved, they have filed the above two writ petitions for appropriate directions. 4. The District Health Society, Sonitpur under the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) issued an advertisement on 24-06-2010 inviting applications for engagement on contractual basis amongst others for the post of Laboratory Technician. The total number of posts of Laboratory Technician W.P(C) No. 259 of 2011 Page 4 of 4 W.P(C) No. 2274 of 2011 5 advertised was twenty and it was stated that the appointees would be placed at Tea Estate Hospitals and Public Health Centres (PHC). Being eligible, the petitioners applied for the said post and also appeared in the interview on 01- 07-2010. Thereafter, the District Health Society, Sonitpur issued separate appointment letters to the petitioners on 29-09-2010. By the said appointment letters, the petitioners were posted at the different Tea Estate Hospitals in Sonitpur district and were asked to report to the Joint Director of Health Services, Sonitpur for signing the contractual agreements and other formalities. 5. Though the petitioners reported before the Joint Director of Health Services, Sonitpur district, they were asked to go to their respective Tea Estates where they were appointed. But as stated above, when they went to their respective Tea Estates, they were not allowed to join by the Estate managers. Though the District Health Society wrote to the Estate managers to allow the petitioners to join, the same had no impact on the Estate managers. Representations submitted by the petitioners did not yield any result, compelling the petitioners to approach this Court. 6. The NRHM (respondent No.2) in their affidavit dated 10-05-2011 stated that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was entered into between the District Health Society, Sonitpur district and the management of each of the Tea Estates who were willing to implement the Public Private Partnership (PPP) Scheme. Respondents 6 to 12 in W.P.(C) No.259/2011 and respondent No.6 in W.P.(C) No.2274/2011 were signatories to such MOUs. According to the MOUs, the member Tea Estates were entitled to receive Rs.10,00,000/- (rupees ten lakhs) only per annum to be provided by the W.P(C) No. 259 of 2011 Page 5 of 5 W.P(C) No. 2274 of 2011 6 NRHM for the fulfillment of the objectives of the PPP Scheme. It is stated that pursuant to the MOUs, the respondent estates had already received Rs.10,00,000/- each. It was further agreed upon between the District Health Society and the Tea Estates that the salary of the newly appointed medical and paramedical staff would be borne by the NRHM. The respondent No.2 has stated that the Tea Estate managements had shown various reasons expressing their inability to accommodate the selected Laboratory Technicians which have been found to be untenable. However, it has been stated that the District Health Society was trying to resolve the matter and in this connection, negotiation was going on with the Tea Estates with the hope that the deadlock could be broken very soon. 7. The managers of the Tea Estates in their separate but identical affidavits have taken the stand that the Tea Estate Hospitals do not have facilities for laboratory investigation. The Tea Estates were not consulted by the District Health Society while issuing the advertisement and also while making the appointments. While admitting that the respondent Tea Estates were in partnership with the NRHM under the PPP Scheme, they have contended that they were kept totally in the dark in the process of selection and appointment of the petitioners. They have stated that because of various difficulties faced by the Tea Estates in accommodating their staff, the petitioners were not allowed to join. They have also contended that it is the prerogative of the garden management as employeer to make assessment of any additional man power requirement for better health care in the Tea Estate Hospitals and thereafter make appointments, if necessary, which cannot be compromised by accommodating the persons selected and appointed by the District Health Society unilaterally behind their back. W.P(C) No. 259 of 2011 Page 6 of 6 W.P(C) No. 2274 of 2011 7 8. Heard Mr. A.K.Hussain, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. A.Verma, learned Standing Counsel, Health Department and Mr. K. Agarwal, learned Counsel for respondent the Tea Estates. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were selected and appointed following a due selection process and there is no objection from any quarter regarding the merit of their selection. If there are any differences between the NRHM authorities and the Tea Estates, those should be sorted out by the two and the petitioners should not be made to suffer. Contending that there is no good ground in not allowing the petitioners to join in their respective places of posting, Learned Counsel for the petitioners therefore prays for necessary direction to the respondents to allow the petitioners to join. 10. Learned Standing Counsel for the Health Department while supporting the claim of the petitioners, has argued that the stand of the respondent Tea Estates is most unreasonable. According to her, the Tea Estates had taken the benefits under the MOUs including financial assistance and therefore they cannot now turn around and restrain the petitioners from joining their respective places of posting. Such action would be in violation of the MOUs, she submits.