The applicants were the aspirant of the B.Sc. Nursing and wanted to take admission in NINE. As per the advertisement by the respondent regarding the Nursing Officer, they were appointed by back door and not by open competition which is illegal. The applicant sought the complaint that the Fundamental Rights of the applicant. The respondent’s replied that there was no inadequacy in the admission process. The decision was given in the favour of the respondent.
Also Read- Arrears row: Tribunal breather for PGI nurses
FACTS OF THE CASE
The applicants herein are the aspirants for the posts of Nursing Officers, Group B, having applied pursuant to the advertisement dated22.10.2019, inviting online applications for 78 posts, on regular basis, in the PGIMER. The PGIMER runs NINE, which awards degrees in B.Sc. Nursing.
It is submitted that students of NINE are appointed as Nursing Officers in PGIMER through backdoor entry, instead of open competition. 82Nursing officers were promoted as Senior Nursing Officers, thus, those posts with 2 others (84) have also become available, which are sought to be filled up from students of NINE, which is alleged to be illegal and arbitrary. It is claimed that all posts 78+82 should be filled up from open market and till such time the respondents may be restrained from filling up the 84posts from students having passed B.Sc. Nursing Degree of 4-year Course from NINE, run by the PGIMER.
Also Read- Chandigarh: Maternity leave only for two or less kids, rules HC
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
APPLICANTS ARGUMENTS
Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the action of the respondents in offering appointment to their own candidates who pursued B.Sc. Nursing (4 years) Course from NINE(PGIMER), without notifying the vacancies for general public is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India He further submits that neither the students of NINE were working on ad-hoc basis nor on contract basis and as such without even judging their suitability, they cannot be appointed against the public posts. He thus, prayed that pending the O.A. the operation of impugned order, Annexure A-9, relating to offer of appointment to students from NINE(PGIMER), be stayed.
Also Read- Deepika Singh vs Pgi Chandigarh on 29 January, 2021
RESPONDENTS ARGUMENTS
Learned counsel for the respondents sought time to file reply to the M.A as well as O.A. and submitted that staying of the order, Annexure A-9, would amount to allowing of the O.A. itself which is not permissible. He drew attention of the Bench to order dated 18.1.2020, which contains a clear stipulation that the appointment would be subject to final outcome of this O.A. Thus, he submitted that interest of applicants can be taken care of at the time of final decision of the O.A. He also apprised this Court that a conscious decision has been taken by the competent authority to offer appointment against indicated vacancies to candidates of NINE(PGIMER), in view of the exigency of services and also in view of the earlier practice. Thus, he submits that M.A. for stay may be dismissed at this stage and matter be decided finally otherwise it would amount to allowance of the O.A. at the threshold itself.
Also Read- PRAVEEN THOMAS v. PGI CHANDIGARH
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
Considering the factual scenario in this case, I do not find that applicants have been able to make out a case in their favour. The balance of convenience also does not lie in their favour. Moreover, outright stay cannot be granted against individuals, who are not even party before us. In these circumstances, the M.A. for stay is dismissed. However, the question raised by the applicants that the indicated posts should be filled up through open competition, shall be considered at the time of final arguments. Needless to mention that the observations made hereinabove would not have any impact on the ultimate merits of the case.
Also Read- CAT notice to PGI – Chandigarh – The Tribune
CONCLUSION
As per the Court, respondents are granted four weeks’ time to file reply, with copy in advance to other side, who may file replication, if any, within two weeks thereafter.
For case specific advice, please contact Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Lawyers Advocates dealing in service matters of central government in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Zirakpur (Punjab & Haryana Top Expert Service Lawyers of High Court Chandigarh).
More on 99888-17966.
