Petition under Articre 226 0I the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ or direction particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the 1st respondent in imprementing the orders of this Hon,bre court in w.P.No. 26841 of 2017 dated 24.08.2017 whereby the 1st respondent is directed to consider the recommendations made by the Expert committee vide Rc.No. 6575iE112017 dated.13.12.2014, set aside the impugned G.O.tr,4s. No. B, Labour, Employment, Training and Factories (llVS) Department dated 30.01.2004 in so far as excluding the P,G. Diploma holders for promotion to the post of Special Grade Civil Surgeon in Category-2 of the Telangana lnsurance Medical Service Rules by declaring the same as arbitrary, vindictive, illegal and violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to finalize the recommendations of the Expert Committee fonryarded to the 1st respondent by the 2nd respondent vide Rc.No. 65751E112017, dated 13.12.2014 as directed by this Hon'ble Court by its order dated 24.08.2017 in

¶19

w.p. No.^{26841 of 2017 before finarizing promotionsto the post of Special Grade} Civil Surgeon^{in Category-2of the Telangana lnsurance Medical Service Rules'}

¶20

Counsel^{for the Petitioner:SRI C' SRINIVASABABA}

¶21

Counsel^{for the RespondentslGPFOR SERVICES 'I}

¶22

The Court^{madethe following:ORDER}

¶23

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶24

w.P. No.1 895 of 2021

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandarnus declaring the inaction of the respondents in implementing the orders of this court dt.24_og_2017 in w.p.No.26 841 of 2017 whereby the I't respondent is directed to consider the recommendations made by the Expert Committee vide letter dt.l3-12_2014 and set aside the impugned G.O.Ms.No.8 dt.30-01-2004 insofar as excluding the P.G.Diploma holders for promotion to the posr of Special Grade Civil Surgeon in Category-2 of the Telangana Insurance Medical Service Rules by declaring the same as arbitrary and illegai.

¶27

Heard Sri C.Srinivasa Baba, lear.ned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Govemment Pleader for Services-l appearing fol the respondents.

¶28

lt has been contended by the petitioner that the petitioner is working as Civil Surgeon Specialist and he fully eligible and qualified to the post of Special Crade Civil Surgeon.^Butthe respondents are rlot considering the case of the^{petitioner on the} ground that the qualifrcation prescribed lbr the^{post of SpecialGrade} l11 Crvil Surgeon IS ONC rrust possess Post Graduation^Degree Medicine but the petitioner is having^{onlyPost GraduationDiploma} l-he Petitioner has firrlher contended^{that the case was examined by} the Expert Committee and the Expert^{Committeehas recommended}

¶29

W.P No.l395^{ol 202l}

¶30

the case^{of the petitionerfor amendment of the Rules and the satneis} pending^{beforethe 1" respondent' The petitioner has submitteda} detailed^{representationto the 1't respondent on 01-10-2021} requesting^{to amendthe rules and give effect promotionsto the post} of Special^{Grade Civil Surgeon, but so far the I't respondenthas not} passed any^{orders on the said representation'Therefore'learned} counsel for^{the petitionerhas contended that appropriate ordersmay} be^{passed in the Writ Petition directing the 1" respondent to consider} the representation^{of the petitionerand to passappropriate orders in} accordance with^larv.

¶31

Learned Government Pleader for^{Services-lappearing} fbr the respondents has contended that as of today,^{the petitioneris} not qualified and eligible to be promoted as Special Grade Civil Surgeon and the recommendations made by the Expert Committee for amending Rules is pending before the 1" respondent. Since the petitioner's representation is pending with the 1'r lespondent, let the 1't respondent be directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶32

Having regard to the rival submissions made by the pafties, this Court is of the considered view that this Writ petition can be disposed of by directing the l't respondent to consider the representation dt.07 -10-2021 of the petitioner and pass appr.opriate orders thereon in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks from the date ofreceipt ofa copy ofthis order.

¶33

¶34

*.0.t".,rr, "15!/

¶35

6 Wirh rhese observations, the Writ petirion is disposed

¶36

ol. No costs.

¶37

7 As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if.any,

¶38

shall stand closed.

¶39

SD/.T.KRISHNA KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

To,

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

l The Speciar chief Se'cretary, Labour, Emproyment, Training and Factories (rvrs) Department. state or rela;d; "r, S;;,;; ;i;;?y"o"r, bad, rS.

¶45

2 The Director of Insurance tvedicar services, Government of rerangana, IVusheeratad, Hyderabad, TS^{-- -"}

¶46

One CC to SRI C. SR|N|VASA BABA, Advocate [OpUC]

¶47

4 Two CCs to Gp for SERVTGES - r, High court for the state of rerangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶48

Two CD Copies.

¶49

One Spare Copy.

N/P I1,,' SB fl

HIGH COURT

DATED:221121202'l

ORDER

WP.No.1895 of 2021

i Ht, ST,4 I.h
'* '!
oo5 2 7 JXll 2nJ 2
+ l-:

¶56

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

Dr. M.L.S. Ramakanta Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dr. M.L.S. Ramakanta Rao v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T Saritha and 3 Others, Vs Chief Secy., Rural Poverty Hyd., and 4 Others

Mohd. Khalid Sarwar, Vs The State of Telangana

Gangam Shekar Vs The State of Telangana

Jadhav Vasram Vs The District Collector and Chair Person Special Dsc 2011

Bandapalli Madhu Vs The Telangana State Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd. and 2 others

Smt. B. Kisatamma Vs The State of Telangana