Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a temporary Multipurpose Hospital Worker employed under the Chief Minister's Comprehensive Health Insurance Scheme in a Government Medical College Hospital, filed two writ petitions before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. In W.P.(MD)No.4288 of 2021, he sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint him as Dialysis Technician Grade-II in one of the posts identified by the first respondent in G.O.(D)No.817 dated 14.09.2020. In W.P.(MD)No.13880 of 2021, he sought a writ of certiorari and mandamus to quash Notification No.01/MRB/2021 dated 06.02.2021 issued by the Medical Service Recruitment Board and to direct the respondents to conduct a special test for recruitment to the post of Dialysis Technician Grade-II. The petitioner had completed his Higher Secondary Examination in 2009, obtained a one-year certificate course in Dialysis Technology from Madurai Medical College, and worked at Apollo Hospital Madurai from 2012 to 2015. He was appointed as a Multipurpose Hospital Worker under the Chief Minister's Comprehensive Health Insurance Scheme from 23.09.2015 to 30.06.2016, and after termination, again from 02.07.2016 to 30.04.2017, and subsequently from 02.05.2020 to 30.04.2021. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he provided dialysis services to affected patients. The Government issued G.O.(D)No.817 dated 14.09.2020 sanctioning 292 posts of Dialysis Technician for one year at a consolidated pay of Rs.20,000 per month in Government Medical College Hospitals. The Medical Service Recruitment Board issued Notification No.01/MRB/2021 dated 06.02.2021 for Grade II Dialysis Technician posts. The petitioner applied but was not shortlisted for certificate verification held on 04.08.2021. The selection procedure assigned 20% weightage to SSLC marks, 30% to HSC marks, and 50% to marks obtained in the certificate course in Dialysis Technology, with no interview. The petitioner contended that this selection procedure was illegal, absurd, and suffered from non-application of mind. The respondents argued that the relief sought had become infructuous because the selection process and appointments had already been completed. The court found that the petitioner's appointment was clearly temporary and did not offer priority consideration for future posts. It also found that the selection procedure was based solely on academic and technical qualification marks as stated in the notification, and that the challenge to the weightage system lacked merit. The provided judgment extract ends before the final operative order, but the court's analysis indicated that the petitioner's claims were unfounded and the writ petitions may have become infructuous.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Temporary Contractual Appointment - Right to Regularization or Appointment - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The petitioner was appointed as a Multipurpose Hospital Worker under the Chief Minister's Comprehensive Health Insurance Scheme on a temporary contract basis; the appointment order explicitly stated that the appointment was temporary and offered no priority consideration for future posts. The court found that the terms of appointment clearly negate any claim for appointment as Dialysis Technician Grade-II under G.O.(D)No.817 dated 14.09.2020. Held that a temporary contract appointee cannot claim priority consideration for future government posts (Paras 3, 9-10). B) Administrative Law - Selection Procedure - Weightage System - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The selection for Dialysis Technician Grade-II under Notification No.01/MRB/2021 dated 06.02.2021 adopted a weightage system of 20% SSLC marks, 30% HSC marks, and 50% certificate course marks, with no oral test or interview. The petitioner challenged this system as illegal and absurd, but the court found the claim unfounded and lacking merit because the notification clearly stated that selection would be based solely on academic and technical qualification marks, in accordance with reservation and communal rotation rules. Held that the weightage-based selection procedure is not illegal or arbitrary (Paras 5, 11). C) Writ Jurisdiction - Infructuous Relief - Completed Recruitment Process - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The respondents contended that the relief sought had become infructuous because the notification was issued in 2021 and the certificate verification and subsequent appointments had already been completed. The court considered that the petitioner could not seek to set aside the notification at that stage, and the challenge to the selection procedure lacked merit. Held that a writ petition challenging a completed recruitment process may be dismissed as infructuous (Paras 6, 11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a temporary contract worker under the Chief Minister's Comprehensive Health Insurance Scheme is entitled to appointment as Dialysis Technician Grade-II in posts sanctioned by G.O.(D)No.817 dated 14.09.2020; whether the selection procedure and weightage system in Notification No.01/MRB/2021 dated 06.02.2021 is illegal, arbitrary, or suffers from non-application of mind; whether the writ petitions have become infructuous due to completion of the selection process.
Law Points
- Temporary contractual appointees under CMCHIS have no right to priority consideration for future posts
- Selection based solely on academic and technical qualification marks is permissible
- Weightage system of 20% SSLC
- 30% HSC and 50% certificate course marks is not illegal or arbitrary
- No oral test or interview is prescribed for Dialysis Technician Grade-II selection
- Writ relief may become infructuous after completion of selection process
