Dismissed

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, v. Smt.K.Prameela, D/o.F,noch, aged about 57 years

Telangana HC25 Mar 2014WP/30828/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition filed by a healthcare worker challenging the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal's order. The dispute concerned seniority and eligibility for promotion to Nursing Superintendent between two head nurses, involving arguments over recruitment rules, reservation rosters, and inter-se seniority criteria under State Rules. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's deci

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.30828 of 2013

¶3

O R D E R: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C. Bhanu)

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order dated 12.06.2013, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal), in O.A.No.4049 of 2012.

¶5

2. The first respondent herein was initially appointed as a Nurse on 19.10.1975 and thereafter, promoted as Head Nurse on 05.01.2008. The second petitioner herein communicated the provisional seniority list of Head Nurses working in Zone-II vide order in Rc.No.9727/E2B/2010 dated 01.06.2010, wherein the name of the first respondent was shown at S.No.6. Thereafter, the second petitioner herein again communicated another provisional seniority list of Head Nurses working in Zone-II vide order in Rc.No.3685/E2B/2012 dated 17.04.2012 and directed to furnish their objections. In the said list, the name of the first respondent herein was shown at S.No.3, whereas the second respondent herein was shown at S.No.2. According to the first respondent, she is senior to the second respondent and the second petitioner wrongly prepared the seniority list dated 17.04.2012 and as such, she filed the Original Application seeking to quash the proceedings Rc.No.2685/E2B/2012 dated 17.04.2012 and the proceedings Rc.No.22415/E1A/2011-3 dated 19.05.2012 issued by the second petitioner as illegal and arbitrary.

¶6

3. In the said Original Application, the petitioners and the second respondent herein filed counter stating that in the

¶7

promotions, the rule of reservation will apply, and as such the second respondent was promoted at roster point No.8 and the first respondent was promoted against roster point No.9 (OC). The first respondent is not eligible for promotion as Nursing Superintendent Grade-II as she is junior to the second respondent and hence, prayed to dismiss the Original Application.

¶8

4. To the said counter, the first respondent herein filed a reply affidavit stating that she was appointed as Head Nurse on 05.01.2008, whereas the second respondent herein was appointed on 10.01.2008. Her date of birth is 20.05.1955, where as the date of birth of second respondent is 15.09.1971 and as such, she is senior to the second respondent. As per Rule 36 (ii) & (iii) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (for short ‘the Rules’), even if the date of commencement of probation in the category of Head Nurse is same, she is senior to the unofficial respondent since she is aged, compared to the second respondent. She stated that Rule 33(b) of the Rules is irrelevant in the present case, since it will apply only to persons, who were selected by direct recruitment, but in respect of promotions, Rule 36 will apply and prayed to quash the proceedings.

¶9

5. The Tribunal after considering the material on record came to the conclusion that Rules 33(b) & 36(1) of the Rules are applicable to the case of the first respondent and allowed the same. Challenging the same, this Writ Petition is filed.

¶10

6. The learned Government Pleader for Services III contended that when the provisional seniority list was called for in the category of Head Nurses, the second respondent herein has not filed any objections and therefore, a final seniority list is

¶11

prepared, which is not under challenge, and that when considering roster point No.8, which is meant for Scheduled Tribes, the post was filled up and therefore, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

¶12

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent herein contended that the first respondent is senior in the category of Head Nurses and that she joined as Head Nurse on 05.01.2008 and the second respondent joined in the post of Head Nurse on 10.01.2008, whereas the probation of the first respondent was declared on 04.01.2009 and probation of the second respondent was declared on 16.01.2009. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly directed the petitioners to promote the first respondent to the post of Nursing Superintendent and that order needs no interference.

¶13

8. Though, it is stated by the learned Government Pleader for Services III that roster point No.8 is reserved for Scheduled Tribe category and by virtue of that roster point, second respondent became senior to the first respondent herein, but, under Rule 36 of the Rules Inter-Se-Seniority where the dates of commencement of probation are same, the scope to the persons in the service shall be determined as follows:

¶14

(i) ……………………………………..

¶15

(ii) In respect of the persons promoted or appointed by transfer (involving promotion) the dates from which they were placed on their probation;

¶16

So, if this Rule is implemented in a strict sense, the second respondent is eligible to be promoted for the next higher post in respect of the placement of the first respondent in the roster point.

¶17

9. Similarly, under Rule 33 of the Rules, a senior to the

¶18

person in a service, class, category or grade shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment, will be determined by the date of his first appointment to such service, class, category or grade. So, admittedly, the first respondent’s probation was declared prior to the declaration of the probation of the second respondent. So, the order of the Tribunal needs no interference.

¶19

10. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶20

11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶21

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶22

_______ JUSTICE ANIS

¶23

Date: 25.03.2014 sr

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, v. Smt.K.Prameela, D/o.F,noch, aged about 57 years

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, v. Smt.K.Prameela, D/o.F,noch, aged about 57 years

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 Union of India, Vs B.N.Singh S/o. Brahmadeo Singh

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Smt. P. Varalaxmi

The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by Principal Vs L. Tirupathi

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Vs Bipul Sikdar

The Municipal Commissioner, Vs K. Chandra Rao, Occ Public Health Workers

Sri Venkateswara Entertainments Ltd. Vs The Authorised Officer