ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2, to consider his representation dated 05.02.2024 and 21.08.2024.

2. The petitioner contends that he was selected as a District Program Coordinator and District Program Assistant at the office of the Deputy Director, Department of Women and Child Development, Chamarajanagara District for the implementation of Pradhan Mantri Mathru Vandana Yojana (henceforth referred to as ‘PMMVY’). He contends that the Union Government had introduced Mission Shakthi Scheme, for the purpose of safety and security of women and for the implementation of various schemes, such as 'Women helpline' 'Beti Bachao Beti Padhao', a District Level Committee was formed, as per the government order dated 01.12.2022. The respondent No.3 had commended the petitioners work in implementation of PMMVY and other schemes.

3. He contends that the respondent No.5 had granted permission to respondent No.2 to appoint persons to 155 posts on contract basis subject to certain conditions specified for implementation of Mission Shakthi. The petitioner contends that the Director of Women and Child Development Department, Bengaluru had also recommended to the District Commission to consider candidates who were already working in the PMMVY at the district level and state level. He contends that in the districts of Ramanagara, Chitradurga, Chikkamagaluru, Kolar, Shivamogga, Davanagere and Gadag, the District Program Coordinators were continued as District Mission Coordinators, respectively as per the order dated 25.10.2023.

4. The petitioner contends that the Member Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority, Chamarajanagara, after considering the submissions, had directed Deputy Director, Chamarajanagara to appoint the petitioner as District Mission Coordinator by considering the earlier post that he held. The petitioner therefore submitted representation dated 05.02.2024 and 21.08.2024 to consider him as District Mission Coordinator and Mission Coordinator under the Mission Shakthi Scheme, as he was working as a District Program Coordinator in the PMMVY from the beginning of the scheme. The petitioner contends that the said representations were not considered. However, the respondent No.1 while inviting applications for the post of District Program Coordinator purposefully prescribed Ph.D qualification, though no norms were fixed when the post was filled in Gadag district and while filling the post at State Hub Empowerment of Women. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for an appropriate direction.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and submitted that similarly placed persons who were granted the benefit have been continued as District Program Coordinator and therefore, the same benefit has to be extended to the petitioner.

6. This writ petition was opposed by the respondents, who inter alia contended that the petitioner was selected for the implementation of the PMMVY as a District Program Coordinator at the office of the Deputy Director, Department of Women and Child Development, Chamarajanagara. However, during his term, he misused his office by claiming travel allowance and failed to perform his duty to the satisfaction of his superiors and also misused the letterhead of the respondent No.1. In that regard, the respondent No.1 had addressed a notice to the petitioner, bringing to his notice his failure to achieve performance as per the target set for providing incentive monetary benefits to improve the health and nutrition of the mother and the child and to provide adequate maternity and post-natal rest under PMMVY scheme. The petitioner purportedly replied to the notice on 18.10.2024, which was not considered to be appropriate and satisfactory. It is contended that after 11 months of contract, the petitioner should get a sanction letter from the respondent No.2 for continuation of his term. However, t