High Court · 2012

2. The writ petitioner was appointed as Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM) in th e department of Health, Government of Assam on 09.07.1973. For promotion to the post of Lady Health Visitor (LHV) she was required to undergo Rural Health Train ing which she underwent from 04.08.1995 to 15.02.1996 and accordingly vide order dated 22.09.1997, she was given promotion as Lady Health Visitor.

3. In spite of above, she was directed to be reverted to the post of ANM on the ground that she had not passed in the training. She challenged the said ord er by way of writ petition.

4. Since the respondents did not dispute that the writ petitioner had compl eted the training and plea of her having not passed the training was found to be untenable, the order of reversion was held to be unsustainable. Learned Single I have duly considered the rival submissions advanced by the parties. Th Judge observed as under : (cid:28)6. e respondents have not disputed the fact that the petitioner on being selected h ad undergone training from 04.08.1995 to 15.02.1996 at Rural Health Training Cen tre, Chabua. According to them the order of promotion dated 22.09.1997 vis-à-vis the petitioner was passed on the wrong assumption that she had successfully com pleted the training. They seek to assert that the communication dated 15.02.1996 releasing the petitioner and other trainees after completion of 6 months of tra ining did not signify that the petitioner had passed the related examination.

7. A bare perusal of the aforementioned communication does not support the above plea. True it is, that the said document does not indicate in clear terms, the result of the candidates named therein, but there is no hint therein that a ny one or more of the said candidates had not successfully completed the trainin g. On the other hand, it discloses that the trainees after completion of 6 month s Health Supervisor Training, had been released to proceed to their original pos ts. The W.T. message dated 07.05.1997 (Annexure-C to the writ petition), from th e Joint Director of Health Services, Dhubri, states in clear terms that the peti tioner had passed the Lady Health Visitor’s training from Chabua, in the year 19 96. The order of promotion was passed thereafter reiterating in unambiguous term s that the petitioner along with the other candidates had successfully completed the LHV training. The letter dated 24.03.1998 addressed by the Assistant Health Officer, In-charge Rural Health Training Centre, Chabua to the Addl. Senior Gov t. Advocate discloses that no pass certificate had been issued to the candidates participating in the training. The letter requiring the petitioner to produce s uch a certificate in the above premise discloses a predetermined mind. Noticeabl y the letter dated 24.03.1998, is subsequent to the impugned order dated 09.02.1 998 from the Director of Health Services (FW) Assam. The records of the instant proceeding reveal that the final hearing of the petition had commenced on 12.06. 2006. This assumes importance in view of the fact that the order dated 26.06.1=2 006, in subsequent thereto. While it is inconceivable that an appointment in pub lic post can possibly be made on wrong assumptions, the records maintained at th e Rural Health Training Centre, Chabua, which in the facts and circumstances of the case might have thrown some light on the controversy, have not been produced . The learned State counsel in spite of opportunities granted earlier, has faile d to produce the same. In the above view of the matter, considering the attendan t facts and materials on record in their entirety, I am inclined to hold that th e impugned decision dated 20.01.1998/09.02.1998 reverting the petitioner from th e post of Lady Health Visitor’s to that of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife is unsustaina ble in law and on facts. It is no longer res integra that all State actions have to be fair, non arbitrary and transparent to sustain the demand of their consti tutional imperatives to be valid. The impugned action fails to satisfy the same.

8. In the above view of the matter, the orders dated 22.01.1998, 09.02.1998 and 19.02.1998 are hereby set aside. The petitioner, as a result would be const rued to be continuing in the post of Lady Health Visitor pursuant to her promoti on order dated 22.09.1997 (Annexure-B to the writ petition). Needless to say, th e petitioner shall also be entitled to the consequential service benefits. The p etition stands allowed in the above terms. No costs. (cid:29)

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. mination, the writ petitioner had failed in the training. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that as per result of the exa

7. We are unable to accept the submission. Learned Single Judge has gone in to this aspect and found that the document showing that the writ petitioner has not passed in the training itself was doubtful in view of W.T. Message dated 07. 05.1997 (Annexure-C to the writ petition) from the Joint Director of Health Serv ices stating that the writ petitioner had passed the LHV training and on that ba sis the order of promotion was passed. Plea that promotion was granted by mistak e was found to be misconceived. The finding recorded by learned Single Judge is based on a public document and no explanation having been furnished as to how th e said WT message came to be issued in favour of the appellant and how she was g iven promotion, there is no ground to interfere with the view taken by learned S ingle Judge. The appeal is dismissed.