The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a significant judgment, has quashed the termination of Smt. Phoolwati Prajapati, an Accredited Social Health Activist (ASHA) worker, stressing that community-based preferences in appointments cannot override merit and minimum qualifications. The ruling, delivered by Justice Vivek Jain in Writ Petition No. 20052 of 2024, has underscored the importance of merit-based selection processes even when preferential policies are in place.
Background of the Case
Smt. Phoolwati Prajapati was appointed as an ASHA worker on March 24, 2023, by the Block Medical Officer. However, her appointment was abruptly terminated by an order dated July 1, 2024, issued in compliance with a directive from the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Sidhi, dated June 21, 2024. The termination was based on a state policy that gives preference to candidates from Scheduled Tribes (ST) or Scheduled Castes (SC) if their population exceeds 50% in a village. In this case, the population of the ST community in the village exceeded this threshold, leading to the termination of Smt. Prajapati, who belongs to the SC community.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue revolved around whether the preference policy for ASHA worker appointments, based on community population, could justify the termination of an existing appointment where the appointee possessed higher qualifications than available candidates from the preferred community. Smt. Prajapati, a Class XII pass, was the most qualified candidate among the applicants, while the sole ST candidate, Manisha Kol, was only Class VIII pass. According to the state policy, the minimum educational qualification required for the post was Class X.
Courtโs Analysis and Decision
Justice Vivek Jain, after examining the case, held that the termination of Smt. Prajapati was unjustified. The Court noted that while state policy allows for community-based preference, this preference is conditional upon the candidates meeting minimum educational qualifications. Since the ST candidate did not possess the requisite qualifications, the preference policy could not be applied to override the appointment of a more qualified candidate.
The Court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Secy., A.P. Public Service Commission v. Y.V.V.R. Srinivasulu, (2003) 5 SCC 341, emphasizing that the term โpreferenceโ should not be interpreted as an absolute rule overriding merit and qualifications. The judgment further clarified that preference could only be applied in situations where candidates are otherwise equally qualified, which was not the case here.
The Court observed, โPreference can be granted only in the event the other things are equal. Once minimum educational qualification was Class-X pass, then the preference could be operated only if the candidate of the ST category was also at least Class-X pass. The preference envisaged under the rules cannot mean an absolute en bloc preference akin to reservation.โ
The High Court quashed the termination order dated July 1, 2024, and reinstated Smt. Phoolwati Prajapati to her position as an ASHA worker.
Also Read
Parties and Representation
– Petitioner: Smt. Phoolwati Prajapati
– Respondents: The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
– Counsel for Petitioner: Shri Yadvendra Dwivedi
– Counsel for Respondents: Shri Kamal Nath Nayak, Panel Lawyer for the State
