This Grievance Against NHM UP documents a serious breakdown in accountability inside the National Health Mission, Uttar Pradesh. Specifically, it centers on a recruitment notification that appears to defy a binding Allahabad High Court order, along with a grievance redressal process that closed the matter without ever addressing it. In the sections below, we lay out the timeline, the legal violations involved, and the demands raised in response.

🚨 Grievance Against NHM UP: A Call for Inquiry

The Mission Director of the National Health Mission (NHM), Uttar Pradesh, has sparked a serious controversy. Specifically, critics accuse her of ignoring a High Court order, acting beyond her legal powers, and undermining basic principles of democratic governance. Together, these allegations raise pressing questions about accountability inside one of the state’s largest recruitment drives.

The Core Grievance Against NHM UP: Violation of High Court Directive

The dispute centers on a notification the Mission Director issued on 17th January 2025 (Ref. no. 642/SPMU/NHM/HR/Appt./2024-25/6871). Specifically, it closed the 17000+ contractual recruitment drive (Advertisement No. 642/SPMU/NHM/2022-23/6200, dated 26.11.2022) and stated that “no further list of shortlisted candidates will be issued.”

However, she took this step without first addressing candidates’ prior representations — a step the Allahabad High Court had explicitly required. To understand why this matters, consider the timeline:

• First, in WRIT – A No. 14572 of 2024 (Kanhaiya Lal And 6 Others), dated 21.10.2024, the court ordered NHM to decide the petitioners’ representation dated 03.09.2024 “in accordance with law, maximum within a period of two months.
• Then, the petitioners submitted a further representation on 28th October 2024, reinforcing their original request.
• Yet, despite this clear deadline, the Mission Director issued the closure notification on 17th January 2025 without deciding either representation. As a result, critics say this directly violates the High Court’s binding order.

In short, the sequence of dates alone tells much of the story: a court deadline came and went, and only afterward did the closure notification appear.

Arbitrary Decision-Making and Ultra Vires Authority

Beyond the judicial question, the grievance also raises a second, separate concern: namely, that the Mission Director overstepped her legal authority. (Grievance Against NHM UP)

• Abolishing waiting lists: For instance, by closing the drive and blocking any further shortlist, the notification sets a new precedent — it ends appointments from the waiting list altogether. Yet both state and central governments normally rely on waiting lists to fill residual vacancies, so this departure stands out as unusual.
• Exceeding legal authority (ultra vires): Moreover, critics argue the move exceeds the powers of her office. In effect, they say, she overrode established recruitment norms and thereby superseded the authority of the Government of Uttar Pradesh.

Consequently, the notification raises two distinct legal problems at once: a breach of a specific court order, and a broader overreach of administrative power.

---

Systemic Failure in Grievance Redressal

In addition to the recruitment dispute itself, applicant Yogi M. P. Singh also points to a breakdown in the grievance redressal mechanism (Grievance Ref: PMOPG/E/2025/0008838): (Grievance Against NHM UP)

• Officials marked the case “closed” on 05/02/2025, without resolving the underlying issue.
• Specifically, the Chief Medical Officer of Sant Kabir Nagar, a district-level officer, gave the reason: “उक्त प्रकरण राज्य स्तर का होने के कारण अधोहस्ताक्षरी स्तर से निस्तारण संभव नहीं है” (the matter is state-level, so it cannot be resolved at this level).
• In other words, officials sent a complaint about the NHM Mission Director — a state-level authority — down to a district officer who had no power to act on it. Naturally, that officer could do little more than confirm the obvious: the matter was outside their reach. Singh calls the resulting closure “a kind of corruption in working of government.” As a result, applicants get no resolution, and consequently, many young jobseekers feel cheated by the process.

Overall, this pattern suggests the failure was not incidental but systemic — a complaint routed to the wrong level was always destined to close without action. In this way, the grievance redressal failure compounds the original Grievance Against NHM UP, rather than resolving it.

A Call for Accountability and Vigilance Investigation

Taken together, the article frames the episode as a serious threat to the rule of law. Therefore, it lists three demands: (Grievance Against NHM UP)

1. Cancel the notification — first, the arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional order issued on 17th January 2025 should be withdrawn.
2. Order a formal inquiry — second, officials should urgently investigate the alleged violation of law and restore accountability.
3. Launch a vigilance investigation — finally, a vigilance team should examine the corruption angle in this centrally sponsored scheme.

Ultimately, the article characterizes the Mission Director’s decision as more than an administrative lapse. Instead, it calls the decision a wilful disregard for the judiciary. That disregard, the article argues, therefore demands the immediate attention of the highest levels of the Uttar Pradesh government.

📝 Summary of Key Violations and Core Issue (For Immediate Submission)

Subject: Urgent Appeal Against Arbitrary Closure of NHM UP Recruitment and Violation of Allahabad High Court Order (Grievance Ref: PMOPG/E/2025/0008838)

This section summarizes the grave violations committed by the Mission Director, National Health Mission (NHM), Uttar Pradesh. Altogether, the matter concerns the 17000+ recruitment drive and needs immediate action at the highest state level.

I. Judicial Contempt / Violation

Initially, the Allahabad High Court ordered NHM to comply, but the Mission Director did not. Specifically, in WRIT – A No. 14572 of 2024 (dated 21.10.2024), the court directed Respondent No. 2 (NHM Director) to decide the petitioners’ representation within two months. Instead, the Mission Director closed the recruitment drive on 17.01.2025 without deciding the pending representations (dated 03.09.2024 and 28.10.2024).

II. Arbitrary Authority (Ultra Vires) (Grievance Against NHM UP)

Meanwhile, the Mission Director exceeded her legal powers by abolishing established appointment procedures. The notification (Ref. no. 642/SPMU/NHM/HR/Appt./2024-25/6871, dated 17.01.2025) closed the drive and declared that no further shortlist would be issued. Consequently, this arbitrarily blocks appointments from the waiting list — a practice both Central and State governments consistently follow — and, critics say, oversteps the authority of the Government of Uttar Pradesh.

III. Undermining Governance / Corruption (Grievance Against NHM UP)

Furthermore, critics allege the decision promotes corruption and fosters lawlessness. Because officials took the decision without legal backing or judicial compliance, the article treats it as an arbitrary act that raises suspicions of corruption in the recruitment drive. Therefore, it calls for a vigilance team to investigate the matter fully.

IV. Failure of Grievance Redressal

Similarly, officials mishandled and dismissed a state-level matter by routing it to a subordinate district authority. They closed Grievance PMOPG/E/2025/0008838 on 05.02.2025, based on the District Medical Officer’s remark that the issue was “state level” and could not be resolved at their level. Consequently, this reflects a systemic failure: officials transferred a Director-level issue to a powerless subordinate, effectively denying the applicant justice.

Key Demand

1. Immediately cancel the arbitrary notification dated 17.01.2025.
2. Order a High-Level Enquiry into the violation of the High Court order and the alleged corruption or abuse of power by the Mission Director.

In conclusion, both demands point toward the same goal: resolving this Grievance Against NHM UP and restoring confidence that recruitment decisions, once challenged in court, cannot simply be closed by administrative fiat.

Related: Ancestral Properties Controversy: Legal Rights Explained