Allowed

Dr.K.Brahmaiah v. Union of India

Andhra Pradesh HC24 Aug 2022WP/26831/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed of two writ petitions filed by in-service Telangana medical officers. It set aside the restrictive portion of a 2022 Government Order that prohibited them from participating in NEET PG admissions, referencing prior orders allowing Telangana doctors to compete. The University was directed to allow petitioner registration.

What did the court decide?

G.O.Ms.No.206 dated 11.08.2022 is set aside; the University is directed to allow petitioners to get registration for participation in the counselling process.

Dr.K.Brahmaiah Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶2

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶3

¶4

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU

¶5

WRIT PETITION Nos.26827 & 26831 OF 2022

¶6

(Through physical mode)

¶7

W.P.No.26827 of 2022

¶8

Dr. R. Suresh Babu, S/o R. Dhakya Nayak, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Medical Officer, PHC Vatvarlapally, R/o H.No.3-49, Banjara Veedhi, Lingal, Mahabubnagar, Telangana-509 401, and others.

¶9

..Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

Union of India, rep., by its Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, 4^th Floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001 and others.

¶12

…Respondents

¶13

W.P.No.26831 of 2022

¶14

Dr. K. Brahmaiah, S/o Kotaiah, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Medical Officer, R/o NB-15, Bungalows Area, Karimnagar, Telangana-505211, and others.

¶15

..Petitioners

¶16

Versus

¶17

Union of India, rep., by its Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, 4^th Floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001 and others.

¶18

…Respondents

¶19

Counsel for the petitioners : Mr. P. Thirumala Rao

¶20

Counsel for respondent No.2 : GP for Medical, Health & Family Welfare

¶21

HCJ & DVSSS,J W.P.No.26827 & 26831 of 2022

¶22

¶23

COMMON ORDER (ORAL) Dt:24.08.2022

¶24

(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

¶25

The writ petitioners in W.P.No.26827 of 2022, who are In-service Government Medical Officers and have been in continuous regular service of the State Government of Telangana, and the writ petitioners in W.P.No.26831 of 2022, who are also In-service Government Medical Officers (Singareni Colleries) and have been in continuous regular service in the State Government of Telangana, intend to participate in NEET PG admission process. However, their participation has been prohibited by the State of Andhra Pradesh by amending Rule 3 Sub-rule (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Colleges (Admission into Post Graduate Medical Courses) Rules, 1997, vide G.O.Ms.No.206, dated 11.08.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition seeking a direction to nullify the action of the State of Andhra Pradesh and consequent action of the 4^th respondent in issuing notification dated 12.08.2022 to the extent of prohibiting the in-service candidates belonging to and serving in the State of Telangana from participating in the registration and counselling process of NEET PG admissions, on the ground that the petitioners have been deprived of equal opportunity in availing seats in NEET PG courses for the academic year 2022-2023.

¶26

This Court had an occasion to consider similar challenge made in W.P.Nos.30946 of 2021 and 1420 of 2022 in relation to previous year’s NEET PG admissions. By common order dated 01.02.2022, this Court allowed those writ petitions holding as under:

¶27

“…In view of the above discussion, the impugned amendment vide G.O.Ms.No.150, dated 11.12.2021 restricting consideration of eligibility of Doctors serving only in the State of

¶28

HCJ & DVSSS,J W.P.No.26827 & 26831 of 2022

¶29

¶30

Andhra Pradesh, is in violation of Section 95 of the 2014 Act. Therefore, we have no hesitation in setting aside the amendment to the extent it restricts such consideration to the Doctors serving only in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Resultantly, the petitioners who are serving in the State of Telangana are also entitled to be considered as in-service local or in-service non-local candidates under the respective quota for which they have applied. Consequent upon setting aside the impugned amendment vide G.O.Ms.No.150 dated 11.12.2021 to the extent indicated above, the resultant Notification dated 23.12.2021 issued vide Notification No.1236/EA2/PG/2021 shall also stand set aside to the same extent.”

¶31

The present impugned G.O.Ms.No.206, dated 11.08.2022 would similarly restrict the benefit of service eligibility criteria of in-service Medical Officers, only to the Medical Officers serving in Andhra Pradesh Medical & Health Services/APVVP/AP Insurance Medical Services/ University of Health Sciences in relation to NEET PG admissions. Similar restriction put in the previous year’s NEET PG admission has been set aside by us in the above referred writ petitions viz., W.P.Nos.30946 of 2021 and 1420 of 2022.

¶32

In view of the orders passed in W.P.Nos.30946 of 2021 and 1420 of 2022, similar part of the present G.O.Ms.No.206, dated 11.08.2022 is hereby set aside. It is made clear that we have neither considered nor decided the validity of the remaining part of G.O.Ms.No.206, dated 11.08.2022. As a consequence of quashment of the above stated part of the G.O., the 4^th respondent-University shall allow the petitioners to get registration for participation in the counselling process.

¶33

HCJ & DVSSS,J W.P.No.26827 & 26831 of 2022

¶34

¶35

Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No order as to

¶36

costs. All the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

¶37

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J

¶38

Nn/Ksp

¶39

HCJ & DVSSS,J W.P.No.26827 & 26831 of 2022

¶40

¶41

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶42

¶43

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU

¶44

W.P.Nos.26827 & 26831 of 2022

¶45

(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

¶46

Dt:24.08.2022

¶47

Nn/Ksp

Dr.K.Brahmaiah v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.K.Brahmaiah v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P Vs Syed Nooruddin Ahamed

Mundru Madhusudhana Rao, Vs Kallom Suryaprakash

M/s Rathna Indane Gas, Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Blackburn Fuels Private Limited Vs Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer

Tigiripalli Bosubabu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr R.SureshBabu Vs Union of India