Dismissed

Dr. Ellendula Srinivas, v. The State of a.P., rep.by its Prl., Secretary

Telangana HC12 Jun 2007WP/6594/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of the petitioner's claim to be treated as an in-service candidate for P.G. Medical Course admission. The High Court held that because the petitioner was initially appointed on a contract basis, he did not meet the definition of an in-service candidate under relevant regulations and rules, even after regularization.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; no order as to costs.

Dr. Ellendula Srinivas, Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶3

Writ Petition No.6594 of 2007

¶4

Dated: June 12, 2007

¶5

Between:

¶6

Dr. Ellendrula Srinivas, S/o. E. Venkatesham, Aged 43 years, Occ: Civil Asst. Surgeon/Medical Officer, Upgraded Primary Health Centre, Nanganoor, Medak District.

¶7

… Petitioner

¶8

And

¶9

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Medical Education Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad, and others.

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

Order:

¶12

Petitioner, a Civil Assistant Surgeon / Medical Officer, has filed this Writ Petition seeking Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not considering his claim as in-service doctor for the

¶13

purpose of admission into P.G. Medical Course for the academic year 2007-08 as arbitrary and illegal.

¶14

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is stated that petitioner was appointed as Civil Assistant Surgeon / Medical Officer on contract basis in Government service in the year 2002 by following regular selection process. Pursuant to the notification issued by Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada for admission into P.G. Medical Courses for the academic year 2007-08, petitioner appeared in the entrance test and was declared successful. His grievance is that though he was appointed in the year 2002 and has been discharging duties, the service rendered by him is not being taken into account for the purpose of calculating rural/tribal service and he is not being treated as an in-service candidate for the purpose of admission into the said course.

¶15

3. Admissions to P.G. Medical Courses are governed by the regulations framed by Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada. Under the said regulations, definition of in-service candidates eligible under service quota is given in Explanation 1 to Regulation 5.10.3, which reads as under:

¶16

“Inservice candidate means a candidate who has put in

¶17

(a) 2 years of continuous regular tribal service (or)

¶18

(b) 3 years of continuous regular rural service (or)

¶19

(c) 6 years of continuous regular service.”

¶20

4. As per the said regulations, in-service candidate means a candidate who has put in two years of continuous regular tribal service or three years of continuous regular rural service or six years of continuous regular service.

¶21

5. Petitioner was initially appointed on contract basis in the year 2002 and he was regularly appointed on 07-02-2007. In that view of the matter, he does not fall under the definition of ‘in-service candidate’ either under the regulations referred above or under the rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.272 dated 10-07-2006 in exercise of powers under Sections 3 to 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fees) Act, 1993. Hence, no relief as sought for can be granted.

¶22

6. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶23

JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY.

¶24

June 12, 2007 MRR

Dr. Ellendula Srinivas, v. The State of a.P., rep.by its Prl., Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Ellendula Srinivas, v. The State of a.P., rep.by its Prl., Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Islamia Educational society, Opp Sikh Gurudwara Vs Ap State council for Higher Education, rep.by its

Konga RAghupathi Rao Vs Devireddy Dibbareddy

Rabindranath Tagore Educational Society, Plot No.218, Vs A.P. State Council for Higher Education, rep. by its

Naresh Kumar Suhalka, Vs The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

Janipireddy Subba Rao, Vs The Deputy Registrar of Coopertive Societies

M.Hari Prasad Vs Govt of Ap.