Mitanin removal is invalid without a five-member committee report and concurrence of at least three members.

The petitioner was appointed as a Mitanin Trainer under the Mitanin Programme.

By order dated 26.03.2015, she was removed from the post of Mitanin.

She challenged the removal, contending that the procedure prescribed under the State Health and Family Welfare Department’s circular dated 24.09.2011 had not been followed.

In particular, she argued that no report had been submitted by the requisite five-member committee and that the decision to remove her had not been approved by a majority of the committee.

The respondents opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner had been given sufficient opportunity, including issuance of a show-cause notice and conduct of an enquiry.

However, counsel for the respondents fairly conceded that the decision to remove the petitioner had not been taken by the five-member committee in accordance with the scheme.

Whether the petitioner’s removal order dated 26.03.2015 was invalid for non-compliance with the procedure prescribed under the circular dated 24.09.2011?

Whether removal of a Mitanin could validly be ordered by Respondent No. 3 alone, without a report and decision of the prescribed five-member committee supported by at least three members?

The Court applied the procedure prescribed in the circular dated 24.09.2011 governing removal of Mitanins.

Under the circular, where the work of a Mitanin is found unsatisfactory, the matter must be assessed and reported by a five-member committee presided over by the Block Medical Officer; thereafter, a separate decision regarding removal must be taken, with the concurrence of at least three of the five committee members.

An order of removal passed without compliance with this mandatory procedural requirement is contrary to the governing scheme and liable to be quashed.

The Court found that the circular required two distinct steps: submission of a report by the five-member committee and a subsequent removal decision supported by the concurrence of at least three committee members.

Although the respondents claimed that notice and an enquiry had been provided, it was undisputed that the removal decision had been passed by Respondent No. 3 alone and not by the prescribed committee.

Since the competent authority had not followed the mandatory procedure under the circular, the removal order was legally unsustainable.

The petitioner was granted liberty to submit a representation to the competent authority for payment of salary arrears.

The respondents were also given liberty to initiate a fresh enquiry and take appropriate action strictly in accordance with the circular.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.