Dismissed

J. Prabhakar S/o Rajasekhar v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, repby PRincipal

Telangana HC12 Jun 2014WP/26980/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Court dismissed a petition challenging the termination of a Compounder's appointment due to less than 40% disability. The Court held that termination without notice was permitted under the specific conditions laid in the appointment order itself.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; no costs awarded; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

J. Prabhakar S/o Rajasekhar Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

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

¶2

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS WRIT PETITION No.26980 of 2005

¶3

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

¶4

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed to declare the order, dated 06.09.2005, in Original Application No.4178 of 2003 with V.M.A No.778 of 2004 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), as arbitrary and illegal and consequently, set aside the same.

¶5

2. Respondent No.1 issued a Notification No. C2-1361/2002 on 17.12.2002 for filling up of backlog vacancies of Handicapped as Special Drive. In pursuance of the said notification, petitioner applied and he was given appointment order for the post of Compounder (Homoeopatic), which is subject to outcome of disability certificate to be issued by the State Appellate Medical Board, Hyderabad.

¶6

3. Initially, petitioner was selected for the post of Compounder (Homoeopatic) basing on the certificate issued by the District Medical Board on 18.07.1998 to that effect he was having 100% disability. Thereafter, in pursuance of the Office Order No.01/E/2003, dated 27.03.2003, the petitioner was appointed as Compounder (Homoeopatic) on temporary basis reserved for Orthopaedically Handicapped disabled backlog vacancy subject to condition that his appointment is liable for termination at any time without any notice and without assigning any reason therefor and subject to clearance of the State Appellate Medical Board, Hyderabad on the degree of disability. Later when the petitioner was sent to State Appellate Medical Board, Hyderabad, to assess the degree of disability, the Medical Board assessed that the petitioner had less than 40% disability. Basing on the report given by the State Appellate

¶7

Medical Board, Hyderabad, the petitioner was removed from service. Challenging the Memo, dated 16.06.2003, petitioner filed Original Application before the Tribunal and the same was dismissed holding that basing on the report given by the State Appellate Medical Board, Hyderabad, the petitioner is not entitled to appointment.

¶8

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein contended that as per the Notification, dated 17.12.2002, it is only the District Medical Board which is the competent authority to assess the disability and accordingly the District Medical Board had given a certificate to the effect that petitioner was suffering from 100% disability; that without giving any opportunity, the services of the petitioner was terminated; that in the Notification, dated 17.12.2002, there is no reference with regard to sending the candidates to the State Appellate Medical Board to assess the disability and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order.

¶9

5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that appointment of petitioner is purely on temporary basis and subject to clearance of State Appellate Medical Board, Hyderabad, with regard to the degree of disability; that when the petitioner was referred to State Appellate Medical Board, Hyderabad, it was assessed that the petitioner was suffering from less than 40% disability and therefore, the Tribunal after considering the material on record, rightly dismissed the Original Application and that order needs no interference by this Court.

¶10

6. Facts are not in dispute. No doubt, as per the notification, it is clear that appointment will be made in case of physically handicapped with regard to percentage of disability by examination by District Medical Board. It is also made clear in the appointment order that after appointment, the candidates will be sent to State Medical Board, for examination. As seen from the appointment order in Memo No.6112/E/2002-1, dated 16.06.2003, it is clear that the petitioner was

¶11

appointed as Compounder (Homoeopathic) on temporary basis in the vacancy reserved for Orthopaedically Handicapped for disability subject to condition that his appointment is liable for termination at any time without any notice and without assigning any reason therefor and subject to clearance of State Appellate Medical Board, Hyderabad, with regard to degree of disability. After issuance of appointment order, petitioner was referred to State Appellate Medical Board, for medical examination. The State Appellate Medical Board assessed the degree of disability and gave a report to that effect that petitioner was suffering from less than 40% disability. Basing on the said report, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled.

¶12

7. No doubt, before cancelling the appointment of the petitioner, no notice was issued to him. But, at the same time, in the appointment order itself it is clearly mentioned that appointment is liable for termination at any time without issuing any notice and without assigning any reason. Petitioner failed to establish that the termination was arbitrary. His services were terminated in terms of his appointment order. This aspect of the case bas been considered by the Tribunal in right perspective and it had not given any illegal or incorrect finding. The findings are based upon proper appreciation of material on record. Therefore, there are no grounds to interference with impugned order.

¶13

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, however, in the circumstances, without costs. Miscellaneous petitioners, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶14

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶15

_______________ JUSTICE ANIS JUNE 12, 2014

¶16

YVL

¶17

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

¶18

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶19

WRIT PETITION No.26980 of 2005

¶20

DATED: 12.06.2014

¶21

YVL

J. Prabhakar S/o Rajasekhar v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, repby PRincipal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J. Prabhakar S/o Rajasekhar v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, repby PRincipal

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 Secunderabad Cantonment Board Vs The Sneha Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.

R. Sathish Chandra Vs M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Limited

M.K. Prasad, Ifs., S/o Late Balakotaiah Vs The Union of India, rep by its Secretary

M. Rama Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Yamavarapu China Bhagya Rao, Vs The General Manager

B. Sreenivasulu, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh