This Grievance Against UP Health Mission exposes a troubling collision between judicial authority and administrative defiance in Uttar Pradesh. On October 21, 2024, the Allahabad High Court directed the Mission Director of the National Health Mission (NHM), UP, to decide on petitioners’ representation regarding a 17,000+ recruitment drive within two months. Instead of complying, the Mission Director issued a notification on January 17, 2025, unilaterally closing the drive without ever addressing the pending representation. This Grievance Against UP Health Mission, filed under Registration DHLTH/E/2025/0000615, argues that the move amounts to administrative “ultra vires” and potential contempt of court. What follows is a detailed legal breakdown of the timeline, the officials involved, the constitutional and procedural violations at stake, and the contact directory needed to escalate the matter further.

Grievance Against UP Health Mission: When Bureaucracy Defies the High Court in Uttar Pradesh

This Grievance Against UP Health Mission lays bare how, in the landscape of Indian governance, the High Court’s word is meant to be final — in other words, a binding command that ensures the executive does not overstep its bounds. However, a recent saga involving the National Health Mission (NHM), Uttar Pradesh, paints a starkly different picture. Indeed, it is one where administrative notifications are used to bypass judicial mandates, ultimately leaving thousands of healthcare aspirants in the lurch.

Consequently, the case at the heart of this Grievance Against UP Health Mission — Kanhaiya Lal And 6 Others vs. State of U.P. (WRIT – A No. 14572 of 2024) — is no longer just a legal dispute; rather, it has become a symbol of systemic apathy.

---

The Judicial Mandate: A Race Against Time

On October 21, 2024, the Honorable Neeraj Tiwari of the Allahabad High Court issued a clear directive. Specifically, the court ordered the Director of the National Health Mission, UP (Respondent No. 2), to decide on the representation of the petitioners regarding the 17,000+ recruitment drive.

The timeline, moreover, was explicit: two months.

Accordingly, the petitioners acted with due diligence, submitting a certified copy of the order and their representation on October 28, 2024. Therefore, according to the law of the land, the Mission Director was legally obligated to provide a reasoned decision by the end of December 2024.

The Administrative Counter-Strike: Notification vs. Law

Instead of a reasoned decision or a compliance report, however, the Mission Director, Dr. Pinky Jowel, issued a notification (Ref. no. 642/SPMU/NHM/HR/Appt./2024-25/6871) on January 17, 2025. This notification did not address the petitioners’ representation at all. Instead, it unilaterally declared that the recruitment drive stood closed and that no further list of shortlisted candidates would be issued.

This move, in essence, is a classic example of administrative “ultra vires” — that is, acting beyond one’s legal power. By closing the recruitment drive while a court-ordered representation was still pending, the NHM leadership effectively bypassed the High Court’s authority.

Why the Waiting List Matters

Furthermore, this Grievance Against UP Health Mission, filed by Yogi M. P. Singh (Registration: DHLTH/E/2025/0000615), highlights a critical flaw in the state’s logic. After all, the 17,000+ recruitment drive for ANMs, Pharmacists, Lab Technicians, and Staff Nurses was vital for the state’s crumbling health infrastructure.

Generally speaking, standard government practice — at both the Central and State levels — mandates the use of a waiting list to fill vacancies left by candidates who do not join or who resign shortly after. By abolishing the waiting list and closing the drive, then, the NHM is not only wasting taxpayer money spent on the recruitment process but is also actively promoting a “scarcity” that often breeds corruption and “outsourcing” through private agencies.

Event	Date	Status
High Court Order Issued	21/10/2024	Directs decision in 2 months
Representation Submitted	28/10/2024	Official countdown begins
Legal Deadline Expired	28/12/2024	No action taken by MD, NHM
Arbitrary Closure Notification	17/01/2025	Recruitment drive declared closed
Appeal Filed (CPGRAMS)	03/02/2025	Pending with MoHFW

A Crisis of Accountability: Is this “Good Governance”?

Understandably, the complainant’s frustration is palpable. Specifically, when the Central Government’s Ministry of Health closed the initial grievance by stating “Public Health is a State subject,” it felt like a dismissal of responsibility. Yet the National Health Mission is, in fact, a centrally sponsored scheme: the funds are federal, and the guidelines are national. Nevertheless, when the state mission director violates a High Court order, the center chooses to look the other way.

This, in turn, brings us to a larger question: if an IAS officer can ignore a High Court order with impunity, what hope, then, does the common citizen have?

Meanwhile, leaders like Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and Prime Minister Narendra Modi frequently speak of “Minimum Government, Maximum Governance.” On the ground, however, the “governance” seems to consist of bureaucratic walls that even a High Court order cannot penetrate.

The Path Forward for This Grievance Against UP Health Mission: Contempt or Compliance?

Consequently, the petitioners have now moved to a higher stage of grievance — the Appeal (DHLTH/E/A/25/0000277). In summary, the core issues remain:

1. Violation of Article 51A — namely, the fundamental duty to uphold the spirit of the Constitution.
2. Contempt of Court — that is, willful disobedience of the order dated 21.10.2024.
3. Arbitrary Policy Change — specifically, removing the waiting list mid-way through the process.

Additionally, the NHM’s decision to “demote” contractual roles to “outsourced status” further complicates the matter, since it strips healthcare workers of their rights. Ultimately, the state of Uttar Pradesh cannot afford to lose its “Covid Warriors” and qualified health professionals to administrative tyranny.

Altogether, the situation described here paints a troubling picture of “executive overreach,” where the administrative machinery acts as if it is above the judicial branch. After all, when a Mission Director issues a notification that directly contradicts or bypasses a High Court mandate, it isn’t just a procedural error — it is a challenge to the rule of law.

Below, then, is a breakdown of why this “mute spectator” approach by the government is so damaging, along with the specific legal implications involved.

---

1. The Breakdown of the “Check and Balance” System

In a healthy democracy, the Judiciary acts as a check on the Executive. Thus, when the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad ordered a decision within two months, it constituted a binding legal obligation.

By remaining a “mute spectator,” however, the State Government is essentially allowing the Mission Director to exercise Arbitrary Power. In fact, the notification dated 17.01.2025 — which closed the recruitment drive without addressing the pending court-ordered representations — serves as a “fait accompli”: a move designed, in other words, to make the court’s future decision irrelevant by finishing the process prematurely.

2. Contempt of Court: The Legal Consequence

As a result, the Mission Director, Pinky Jowel, and the department are now in a position of Civil Contempt.

• Willful Disobedience: First, the deadline of two months expired in late December.
• Evasive Action: Then, instead of complying, the department issued a new notification to “close” the matter.

Under Indian law, moreover, administrative convenience can never be an excuse for disobeying a court order. If the government remains silent, therefore, the only recourse left for the petitioners is a Contempt Petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — which, notably, can lead to personal liability for the officer involved.

3. The Human Cost of “Administrative Silence”

Meanwhile, the silence of the Chief Minister’s office and the Health Ministry has real-world consequences:

• Loss of Merit: By abolishing the waiting list, for instance, the state is losing qualified candidates (ANMs, Pharmacists, Nurses) who have already passed the screening process.
• Promotion of Corruption: Likewise, closure of official recruitment often leads to “outsourcing” through private contractors, where transparency is lower and exploitation is higher.
• Erosion of Public Trust: Above all, when citizens like Kanhaiya Lal and others follow the law, go to court, and win an order, only to have it ignored, it destroys the faith in Sushasan (Good Governance).

---

Comparison of Judicial Order vs. Administrative Action

Judicial Mandate (21.10.2024)	Administrative Action (17.01.2025)	Conflict Status
Decide representation within 2 months.	Closed the recruitment drive entirely.	Direct Violation
Consider the 03.09.2024 petition.	No mention of the petition in the notice.	Wilful Negligence
Act “In accordance with law.”	Acted “Ultra Vires” (Beyond powers).	Legal Challengeable

---

4. Why the Central Government’s Response was Insufficient (Grievance Against UP Health Mission)

The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) in New Delhi, meanwhile, closed your grievance by calling it a “State Subject.” However, under the National Health Mission (NHM) guidelines, the Central Government provides the bulk of the funding and sets the HR policy framework. (Grievance Against UP Health Mission)

Therefore, by redirecting you back to the very person you are complaining against — namely, the Mission Director — the Central Government has failed in its oversight role. This is precisely why your Appeal (DHLTH/E/A/25/0000277), filed in connection with this Grievance Against UP Health Mission, is the most critical document currently in the system.

To ensure your grievance and subsequent appeal reach the correct desks, below is the structured directory of the authorities concerned with your case. These contacts, specifically, cover both the State Level (where the violation occurred) and the Central Level (where your appeal is currently pending).

---

1. State Authority: National Health Mission, Uttar Pradesh (Grievance Against UP Health Mission)

These are the officials responsible for implementing the High Court order and who, moreover, issued the controversial “Closure Notification.

Designation	Name	Contact Details
Mission Director (NHM)	Dr. Pinky Jowel, IAS	Email: mdupnrhm@gmail.com Web: upnrhm.gov.in
Principal Secretary (Health)	Shri Amit Kumar Ghosh, IAS	Email: prlsecy-hmfw@nic.in
NHM UP Office Address	SPMU-NHM	16, A.P. Sen Road, Charbagh, Lucknow-226001
NHM UP Helpline	Toll-Free	1800-180-1900

---

2. Central Authority: Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (MoHFW) (Grievance Against UP Health Mission)

Since your appeal DHLTH/E/A/25/0000277 is with the subordinate office in New Delhi, these are, accordingly, the nodal officers for oversight.

Role / Name	Designation	Contact Information
Sh. Ashutosh Kumar Agrawal	Under Secretary (NHM)	Phone: 011-23061141 Email: ashutoshk.agrawal@nic.in
Ms. Punya Salila Srivastava	Secretary (H&FW)	Email: secyhfw@nic.in Phone: 011-23061863
Ms. Aradhana Patnaik	AS & MD (NHM-Central)	Email: asmd-mohfw@nic.in Phone: 011-23063618
Shri Jagat Prakash Nadda	Union Health Minister	Email: min-hfm@gov.in

---

3. Key Links & Portal Access (Grievance Against UP Health Mission)

• Grievance Status Tracking: CPGRAMS Portal
• NHM UP Official Recruitment Portal: upnrhm.gov.in/Home/Recruitment
• NHM State Directory (National): nhm.gov.in/New_Update-2022-23/contact_us

Important Note: When sending emails, always mention your Grievance Registration Number (DHLTH/E/2025/0000615) along with the High Court Writ Number (14572 of 2024) in the subject line — this way, the matter is more likely to be flagged as a legal compliance issue.

In short, this Grievance Against UP Health Mission is far from resolved. Until the Mission Director complies with the High Court’s directive and restores the waiting list, thousands of qualified candidates will remain in limbo — and the case will continue to test whether judicial orders truly carry weight against administrative apathy in Uttar Pradesh.