Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition challenging the petitioner’s termination order of appointment as an Accredited Social Health Activist (ASHA) worker, a single-judge bench of Vivek Jain, J., held that since no ST category candidate with the required minimum qualification was available, the principle of preference cannot be applied to override the petitioner’s appointment and quashed the termination order.
In the instant matter, the petitioner was initially appointed as an ASHA worker by an order dated 24-03-2023 from the Block Medical Officer. She has been performing her duties satisfactorily with no adverse remarks on record. The petitioner’s appointment was terminated, vide order dated 01-07-2024, in compliance with the Chief Medical and Health Officer’s directive dated 21-06-2024. Aggrieved by the impugned termination order, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition challenging the same.
The petitioner contended that her termination was improper as it was made without giving her a chance to be heard. It was contended that her appointment was valid under the order dated 24-03-2023, and there are no adverse reports against her performance. It was further contended that the policy was misapplied since she had a higher educational qualification than other available candidates, and the preference rule should have been applied only if candidates of equal qualification were available.
However, the State argued that the termination was justified based on a policy preference that requires giving priority to candidates from the SC or ST community if their population exceeds 50% in a village. The State stated that the village in question had an ST population of 246 (over 50%), whereas the SC population was only 29 and the petitioner, belonging to the SC category, was thus deemed ineligible under this policy as per the Chief Medical and Health Officer’s directive dated 21-06-2024.
The main issue in the instant matter is, whether the petitioner’s termination was lawful given the lack of a hearing before her removal and whether the termination was justified based on the policy stipulations regarding community preference.
The Court found that the petitioner was not provided an opportunity for a hearing before her termination, which is a violation of procedural fairness principles. While examining the merit list, the Court found that the petitioner, who had a Class-XII education, was more qualified than the only available ST candidate with a Class-VIII education and as per the policy, preference is given only when candidates have equal qualifications, which was not the case here.
The Court examined the principle of preference in appointment and referred Secy., A.P. Public Service Commission v. Y.V.V.R. Srinivasulu, (2003) 5 SCC 341, and Chairman Tangedco v. Priyadaarshini,1 where the Supreme Court clarified that preference should only apply when candidates are equally qualified. The Court held that the preference for ST candidates applies only when such candidates meet the minimum educational qualifications required for the position. The Court held that the policy of preference cannot override the minimum qualifications necessary for the role.
The Court held that the termination order dated 01-07-2024 was improperly applied as it did not consider the educational qualifications of the candidates and was not consistent with the policy’s requirements. The court quashed the termination order, allowed the petition and restored the petitioner’s appointment as an ASHA worker.
[Phoolwati Prajapati v. State of M.P., WP No. 20052 of 2024, Decided on 21-08-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri Yadvendra Dwivedi, Counsel for the Petitioners
Shri Kamal Nath Nayak, Counsel for the Respondents/State
1. C.A. No. 6470/2021, order dated 27-10-2021
