Disposed

Smt. N.Nalini Singh v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principle

Telangana HC28 Feb 2014WP/12999/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition was filed regarding the petitioner's eligibility for permanent regularization as a nurse. The court observed that though the petitioner exceeded the age limit, her appointment letter allowed service extension. The court remitted her case for consideration for contract extension based on performance rather than issuing a writ of certiorari.

What did the court decide?

Case remitted for consideration for extension of services on contract basis based on performance report.

Smt. N.Nalini Singh Vs The Government of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.12999 of 2013

¶4

ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶5

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to orders dated

¶6

16-08-2012 in O.A.No.8290 of 2011 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) and set aside the same by holding as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh on the basis of representation dated 16-11-2010 by relaxing the age by taking past service for the post of Permanent Nurse on par with others.

¶7

2. In pursuance of the notification No.1/2006, dated 30-08-2006 the petitioner was appointed as ANM purely on temporary basis as per the proceedings in Rc.No.43/E4/ 2006, dated 29-02-2008, wherein it is clearly mentioned that her appointment was purely temporarily on contractual basis initially for a period of 1 year from her date of joining at her respective Health Centre during the project tenure of (2005-2010) and that her contract period of services may be extended for further years during the project tenure of 2005-2010 basing on her performance of services obtained from the Drawing and Disbursing Officers of the Health Centre concerned and also liable for termination at any time without assigning any reasons therefor.

¶8

3. Accordingly, she joined as ANM on contract basis on

¶9

01-03-2008. When she made a representation to regularize her services, the same was rejected on the ground that she was age barred. Thereafter notification No.2/2010 dated 16-11-2010 was issued inviting applications for the posts of Staff Nurses, on permanent basis. The upper age limit was prescribed as 38 years as on 01-07-2010 and there is no relaxation for the contract Staff Nurses. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed O.A.No.8290 of 2011 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the material on record came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for the selection under Notification No.2/2010 and accordingly, dismissed the said O.A. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶10

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that her age as on the date of entry into the service in the year 2005 has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of regular recruitment under Notification No.2/2010 and that there was two years lapse on the part of the Government and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order.

¶11

5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Services-I contended that in Notification No.02/2010 there was no relaxation of age for the contract Staff Nurses and the maximum age that can be possessed by the applicant is 38 years as on the cut of date; that as the petitioner was aged more than 38 years she is not eligible for the recruitment process in pursuance of the said notification and hence, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the O.A. filed by the petitioner.

¶12

6. As rightly contended by learned Government Pleader for Services-I it is clear that no relaxation of age was given to the

¶13

contract Staff Nurses in pursuance of Notification No.2/2010. As per that notification, the maximum age limit of a candidate was prescribed for 38 years as on 01-07-2010. Admittedly, the petitioner was aged more than 38 years as on the cut of date. Therefore, she could not be eligible for the said recruitment and hence, the Tribunal has rightly rejected her case. But, however, as seen from the appointment order in Rc.No.43/E4/2006 dated 2902-2008 issued by the District Medical and Health Officer, Srikakulam it is made clear that her contract period of services may be extended for further years during the project tenure of 2005-2010 basing on her performance of services obtained from the drawing and Disbursing Officers of the Health Centre concerned. So, in view of the terms of contract entered between the District Medical and Health Officer and the petitioner, if the scheme is available at present, her case may be considered for extention of her services on contract basis as per the scheme after calling for the report from the Drawing and Disbursing Officers of the Health Centre concerned with regard to her performance.

¶14

7. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶16

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶17

_______________ JUSTICE ANIS

¶18

February 28, 2014

¶19

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶21

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.12999 of 2013

¶23

February 28, 2014

¶24

Smt. N.Nalini Singh v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principle

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. N.Nalini Singh v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principle

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 Prl.Secretary to Government, Vs S.Nageswara Rao

A.Narasimha Vs The Union of India., rep.by its Secretary to Govt.

Banka Palankaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G.V. Krishna Kumar, Vs The Special Officer

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Vs D. Sukanya

K.Krishna Singh, Vs Additional Director General of Police (Administration)