LAWS(MPH)-2010-11-56

SAJID KHAN Vs. STATE OF M P

Decided On November 22, 2010
SAJID KHAN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M.P Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REGARD being had to the similar controversy involved in these bunch of cases, they have heard analogously together with the consent of the parties and a common order is being passed in the matter. Facts of writ petition No. 10550/10 are narrated as under:

(2.) THE petitioners before this Court, who are qualified "General Nurse Midwife" holding a valid diploma and who are registered with Mahakaushal Nurse Registration Council, have filed this present petition being aggrieved by an advertisement dated 26.07.2010 by which applications have been invited for the post of Staff Nurse, governed under the Recruitment Rules known as M.P. Public Health and Family Welfare Department, Class-Ill, Nurse Service Recruitment Rules 1989 and schedule 8 appended to the aforesaid rules provides for qualifications for the post of Staff Nurses/Warden/Public Health Nurse. THE petitioners have further stated that the aforesaid rules do not provide that the posts of Staff Nurses/Warden/Public Health Nurse are exclusively reserved for women candidates only. THE petitioners' contention is that all the petitioners are holding qualifications as per the recruitment Rules, 1989 and therefore, the advertisement issued by the respondents dated 26.07.2010 (Annexure P-10) is bad in law.

(3.) A reply has been filed in the matter and the stand of the respondents/ State is that the petitioners cannot be appointed on the post of Staff Nurse as a policy decision has been taken by the State Government on 18.06.2010 to appoint the women alone exclusively on the post of Staff Nurse. The respondents have also stated that as per the recruitment rules, only Female Staff Nurses can be appointed and the petitioners as they are males, cannot be appointed on the post of Staff Nurse. It has also been stated that as per the policy decision as contained Annexure R-2 dated 18.06.2010, the candidates, who possess a 10+2 certificate to their credit with science subject are entitled to be considered and, therefore, those candidates, who are otherwise qualified as per the provisions of the Recruitments of 1989 and who are not having 10+2 qualification to their credit with science, are not entitled for appointment. The respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.