The Crisis of Accountability in NHM Uttar Pradesh: 535 Vacancies and a Defied Judicial Mandate

The National Health Mission (NHM) in Uttar Pradesh, managed by the State Programme Management Unit (SPMU), is currently under fire for significant mismanagement and a lack of transparency in its recruitment processes. Despite clear judicial directives and available budget, hundreds of health professional positions remain unfilled, directly impacting the state’s healthcare delivery system.

---

The Role of SPMU: A Pillar of Health Governance

The SPMU serves as the central coordination hub for NHM activities in Uttar Pradesh. Its mandate includes:

• Administrative Oversight: Managing the recruitment, training, and deployment of health personnel.
• Financial Management: Allocating budgets for schemes like the 15th Finance Commission.
• Policy Implementation: Ensuring maternal and child health programs are executed across all districts.

However, recent grievances suggest that the SPMU is failing in its core duty to ensure a fair and complete recruitment cycle.

---

The Core Discrepancy: Where are the 535 Lab Technicians?

In November 2022 (Ref: 642/SPMU/NHM/2022-23/6200), NHM Uttar Pradesh advertised 1,305 Lab Technician posts under the 15th Finance Commission. These roles are critical for Block Public Health Units (BPHU) and District Level Quality Labs.

The Financial Paradox:

The government allocated ₹20.32 crore for the honorarium of these technicians. Yet, records show that salary funds are only being distributed for 770 personnel (620 for BPHU and 150 for District Labs).

This leaves 535 sanctioned posts vacant, even though a qualified waiting list exists and the budget has been earmarked.

---

Judicial Intervention Ignored

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has previously directed the NHM to consider the representations of candidates on the waiting list. The logic is clear:

1. Multiple Selections: Many candidates were selected for 3 or 4 different posts across various notifications.
2. Vacant Seats: Since a candidate can only join one post, the remaining seats they occupied automatically become vacant.
3. The Waiting List: According to established norms, these vacancies must be filled by the next eligible candidates in the waiting list.

Despite these directions, the SPMU closed grievance GOVUP/E/2025/0003947 on January 28, 2025, with a dismissive remark stating the “recruitment process has ended,” providing no explanation for the unfilled sanctioned posts.

---

The Human and Systemic Impact

The refusal to move the waiting list has led to:

• Allegations of Corruption: Candidates and activists, including Yogi M. P. Singh, have raised concerns about large-scale irregularities and “harassment by officials.”
• Healthcare Gaps: With 535 lab technician positions empty, diagnostic services in rural and block levels are significantly weakened.
• Lack of “Right to Reason”: As noted in the grievance, the administration is failing the constitutional principle that administrative actions must be backed by clear, logical reasoning.

---

Conclusion: A Call for Transparency

The closure of this grievance without addressing the discrepancy between “advertised posts” and “actual appointments” highlights a systemic failure in the SPMU. If the budget exists and the candidates are ready, the refusal to fill these 535 seats is not just a bureaucratic lapse—it is a disservice to the public health of Uttar Pradesh.

The recent closure of grievance Ref. No. 60000250008530 marks a significant flashpoint in the ongoing struggle for transparency within the National Health Mission (NHM), Uttar Pradesh. Despite documented evidence of administrative gaps, the complaints regarding recruitment irregularities have been largely overlooked by the State Programme Management Unit (SPMU).

---

1. The “Multiple Selection” Loophole

A primary grievance highlighted by candidates is the failure of the SPMU to manage overlapping selections.

• The Issue: Several high-ranking candidates appeared on selection lists for up to four different posts.
• The Consequence: These candidates naturally joined only one position, leaving the other three “selected” slots vacant.
• The Neglect: Instead of immediately pulling from the waiting list to fill these critical gaps, the SPMU has treated the recruitment cycle as “completed,” effectively “killing” the vacant seats.

2. Disregard for Judicial and Constitutional Mandates

The candidates have pointed to a total lack of compliance with the “Right to Reason.” * High Court Directive: The Allahabad High Court directed the NHM to consider the representations of waiting list candidates.

• Administrative Silence: In its response dated January 28, 2025, the SPMU provided no legal or logical justification for why 535 posts remain empty despite the budget being allocated.
• Constitutional Breach: By failing to provide a reasoned order, the SPMU stands in violation of the principles of good governance and administrative accountability.

3. The Financial Discrepancy: A Paper Trail of Neglect

The financial records expose the extent of the mismanagement. The table below illustrates the gap between the official recruitment notification and the actual financial implementation:

Category	Sanctioned Posts (Nov 2022)	Posts Funded/Filled (July 2024)	Unfilled/Overlooked Vacancies
BPHU Lab Technicians	1,155 (Combined)	620	535
District Quality Labs	150	150	0
Total Honorarium Budget	₹20.32 Crore	(Covers only 770 posts)	Budget Underutilized

---

4. Allegations of Systemic Harassment

Beyond the technicalities of the waiting list, candidates have reported a culture of harassment and opacity. When seekers of information or employment approach the SPMU, they are met with:

• Unsatisfactory remarks on official grievance portals.
• A lack of communication regarding the status of waitlisted candidates.
• Arbitrary closure of complaints (as seen in the Jan 2025 status update).

5. Why the Waiting List Candidates are Aggrieved

The candidates argue that the SPMU’s claim that the “recruitment process has ended” is a factual error. In any standard government recruitment, a process is only “ended” once all advertised and sanctioned posts are filled or the waiting list is exhausted. Here, both the posts and the candidates exist, yet the SPMU has chosen to stall the process.

---

Conclusion: The Need for an Independent Inquiry

The oversight of these irregularities suggests a deeper systemic issue within the SPMU. By ignoring the 535 vacant posts, the NHM is not only depriving qualified candidates of employment but also depriving the citizens of Uttar Pradesh of essential diagnostic services at the block level.

The decision by the Mission Director (NHM Uttar Pradesh) to overlook the specific directions of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad represents a serious breach of administrative accountability. When a high court directs an authority to “consider a representation,” it is not a mere suggestion; it is a legal mandate to apply a judicial mind to the facts and pass a speaking order.

By summarily closing the grievance on January 28, 2025, without addressing the 535 vacant posts, the Mission Director has bypassed both legal and ethical obligations.

---

1. Defiance of the High Court Mandate

The High Court’s direction was intended to ensure that the recruitment process reached its logical conclusion. The Mission Director’s failure to comply manifests in several ways:

• Lack of a “Speaking Order”: Under administrative law, an official must provide a reasoned explanation when rejecting a representation. Simply stating “recruitment has ended” does not qualify as a legal consideration.
• Contempt of Process: By ignoring the fact that candidates are available on the waiting list while posts remain empty, the office of the Mission Director has effectively nullified the court’s intent to provide relief to the aggrieved candidates.

2. The Hierarchy of Mismanagement

The SPMU (State Programme Management Unit) operates under the leadership of the Mission Director. The failure to fill these vacancies suggests a breakdown in the organizational flow:

• Policy vs. Execution: While the Government of India and the 15th Finance Commission provided the ₹20.32 crore budget, the execution at the Mission Director level failed to translate these funds into actual appointments for the 535 waitlisted technicians.
• Administrative Oversight: The Mission Director is responsible for ensuring that SPMU managers do not provide “unsatisfactory remarks” to legitimate grievances filed through the CM Helpline and the IGRS portal.

3. Legal Implications of “Overlooking” Representations

When a Mission Director overlooks a court-ordered representation, it opens the door for:

1. Contempt of Court Proceedings: Candidates can file a Contempt Petition in the High Court, as the direction to “consider representation” has been willfully ignored or handled superficially.
2. Writ of Mandamus: The court can be asked to issue a specific command (Mandamus) forcing the NHM to fill the 535 vacancies from the waiting list, given that the budget and the need (BPHU units) are established facts.

4. Summary of the Ignored Facts

Fact Presented to Mission Director	The Administrative Response/Action
1,305 posts were advertised.	Only 770 posts were accounted for in the budget allocation.
Candidates are on the waiting list.	Declared the process “ended” without exhausting the list.
Candidates selected for multiple posts.	No system implemented to “free up” the declined seats for the waiting list.
High Court Direction issued.	Grievance closed with generic, non-reasoned remarks.

---

Next Steps for Candidates

The closure of grievance Ref. No. 60000250008530 with “unsatisfactory” status is the final evidence needed to prove administrative apathy.

To address the issues of accountability and non-compliance with judicial orders, it is essential to have the correct contact information for the decision-makers and the official channels for recruitment-related grievances.

The following information is compiled from official records and directories of the National Health Mission (NHM), Uttar Pradesh, as of 2025.

---

Official Contact Directory for NHM Uttar Pradesh

Below are the primary contact points for the State Programme Management Unit (SPMU) and the Mission Director’s office:

Office/Designation	Contact Person	Official Email	Phone / Mobile
Mission Director (NHM)	Mrs. Pinky Jowel	mdupnrhm@gmail.com	8005192544 / 0522-2237595
Dy. General Manager / PIO	Shri S.V.P. Pankaj	jansuchnaadhikariupnhm@gmail.com	7985514847
Principal Secretary (Health)	Dept. Head	psecup.health@gmail.com	9454399666
Recruitment Helpline	SPMU HR Desk	nhmuprecruitment@gmail.com	0522-2630555
NHM General Helpline	Toll-Free	(Complaint Registration)	1800-180-1900

Official Links for Verification and Appeals

If you are pursuing the waiting list vacancies or challenging the “Closed” status of your grievance, use these official portals:

• Official NHM UP Website: https://upnrhm.gov.in
• UP IGRS (Jansunwai) Portal: https://jansunwai.up.nic.in (Use this for filing second appeals if the first response was unsatisfactory).
• NHM UP Results/Updates Page: https://upnrhm.gov.in/Home/Opportunities

---

Important Reference Details

When sending communications or filing an appeal, ensure you cite the following IDs to link your case to the existing records:

• Recruitment Notification Ref: 642/SPMU/NHM/2022-23/6200 (Dated 26.11.2022)
• Your Grievance Registration No: GOVUP/E/2025/0003947
• New RTI Registration Number: NHMIS/R/2025/80080 (Transferred to NHM)
• Budget Reference: SPMU/NHM/15th FC/2024-25/40/2467-2

Recommended Action Strategy

Since the Mission Director has reportedly overlooked the High Court’s direction to consider the representations, the most effective next step is to file a Second Appeal or a Contempt Notice.

1. Email the Mission Director Directly: Use the email mdupnrhm@gmail.com to send a formal PDF letter highlighting that the grievance was closed without a “speaking order” as required by the High Court.
2. Lodge a Complaint via the CM Helpline: Call 1076 (CM Helpline) and specifically mention that the department closed your previous complaint (Ref: 60000250008530) with “unsatisfactory remarks” despite a judicial order.

Would you like me to draft a specific email to the Mission Director that includes the High Court reference and the 535-vacancy discrepancy?