Dismissed

E.Srinivas v. The Director of Public Health and Family Welfare

Telangana HC6 Apr 2021WP/350/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court, KANTECHA J., dismissed writ petition challenging non-consideration of representations for appointment as Multipurpose Health Assistants. Court directed respondents to consider representations within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to consider representations dated 16.11.2019 and 18.11.2019 and pass orders within eight weeks.

E.Srinivas Vs The Director of Public… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA''-'' AT HYDERABAD (Special Originat Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'XBLE SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶5

Between:

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 350 OF 2021

¶7

1 [-S11ivas,^S/o .Agaiah.^{Agedabout40 years,Unemployee,R/o.H.No.5_10} Heooavangara(V a nd IV), Ir,4ahabubabad District,

¶8

2 G.Yelender, S/o. Ir,/allaiah, Aged about 41 yeals, Unemployee, R/o. H.No. 2_47 Kad.avendi vrI|age, Devaruppu-la l.r1andal, Jangoan District.

¶9

3 IV. V^enkateshwar, S/o l,4.Pandari. Aged ab]out 43 years, Occ Unemployee. R/o Chata Village and Post, Kubeer N/Indat, Adilabad'District. ,.;;,;;;;;

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Director of Public Health and Family Welfare, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad. 2 The State of Telangana, rep, by its Principal Secretary, Health, - Ir/edical and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The District Medical and Health Officer, Warangal, Warangal District.

¶12

4 The District Collector, Warangal, Warangal Disirict.

¶13

5 The District Medical and Health Officer, Adilabad, Adilabad District. 6 The District Collector, Adilabad, Adilabad District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of lvlandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in not considering the Representations of the petitioners dl. 1410212019, 1611112019 and 1811112019, regarding therr appointment to the post of Multipurpose Health Assistants ([VPHA) (lr/), even though they secured more marks than the candidates reappointed vide G.O. Rt. No. 1207, dt.09/10/2013, inspite of the orders of this Hon'ble High Court in WVMP. No.212012015 in W.P. No. 3178/2014 dt. 15/09/2015, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently, direct the Respondents to consider the Representations of the Petitioners to appoint them to the post of MPHAs(lt/), as they have secured more marks than the candidates reappointed vide G.O. Rt. No. 1207, dl. 0911012013, strictly by implementing orders of this Honble Court in WVIVP. No. 212012015 in W.P. No.3'178/2014 dated^'1 5/09i2015, as was done in respect of similarly placed persons. lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶16

Petition under Section^'1 51 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 consider the Representations of the Petitioners dt. 14.02.2019, 16.11.2019 &18.11.2019, regarding their appointment to the post of MPHAs(M), by implementing the orders of this Hon'ble High Court dt. 15.09.2015,in

¶17

wv[/P,No.2'12012015inw.P.No.3178/20l4,keepinginviewofthemeritmarks secured by^{them, in preference to the candidates reappointedvide G O Rt No 1207'} dt.0g.l0.20l3,aSwaSdonelnrespectofsimilarlyplacedpersons-

¶18

Counsel for the^{Petitioner:SRI P' AMARENDER} Counsef forthe^{Respondents:GPFOR SERVICES'l}

¶19

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶20

HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶21

w.P.No.350 o 2021

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel on either side fairly concede that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the common order dated 28.12.2020 passed bv this Court in W.P.Nos.15427 and 15441 of 2020.

¶24

Following thc common ordcr 28.12.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.15427 and 15441 ot 2020, this Writ Pe tition is disposed of directing the respondenrs to consider the representations dated 16.11.2019 and 18.11.2019 submitted bv the petitioners and pass appropriate orders by duly taking into account the interim order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in !/.P.No.38060 of 2013 and batch, dated 15.09.2015, within a reasonable period, preferably, within a period of eight rveeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶25

Pending misccllaneous pctitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶26

¶27

SDA K.SAILESHI ASslsrANr R.vzRAR ,rRUE COPY//

¶28

SECTION OFFICER

¶29

To, 1. The Director of Public Health and Family Welfare, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶30

The Principal Secretary, Health, Iriledical and Family Welfare Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶31

The District tMedical and Health Officer, Warangal, Warangal District.

¶32

¶33

4 The District^{Collector, Warangal' Warangal District} s. rhe District^{Medical uno iiElitt' cj*ii"'' AqnPgq' Ad ilabad District'}

¶34

;. +ii; 6i;i;i;i^{Cotte.tot, Adilabad' AdilabadD-rstrict'}

¶35

;, ci;;-cc t,;-sri^{P. Amarender, Advocate[oPUC]} ^ A irnl" dd"i"^{cp ror. s"'i"illr'iiishcourtfor the State of Telansana} at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶36

n lll"""J*",,flpj?pv ot order dt28t12p020 in w P No s 15427 & 15441of 20oo)

¶37

¶38

&..,^tr

<br>

HIGH COURT

{

DATED:06/04/2021

ORDER

WP.No.350 ol 2021

LI I4
k
c
2 2 APB 2021
a
*
P!.1

¶46

OISPOSING OF THE WP

¶47

WITHOUT COSTS

¶48

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶49

WRIT PETITI ON Nos.l5427 ond^'15 441 ol 2020

¶50

COMMON ORDER:

¶51

Since the issue roised in these two wril petilions is one ond lhe some, they ore being disposed of ot the odmission stoge with the consent of both porlies.

¶52

Heord Mr.P.Amorender, leorned counsel oppeoring for the petitioners ond ihe leorned Government Pleoder for Services-ll oppeoring for the respondents.

¶53

For the soke of convenience, the focts in W.P.No.l 5427 of 2020 ore discussed hereunder :-

¶54

W.P.No.l5427 ot 2020 is filed seeking the following relief:

¶55

".... to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularty one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to dec[are the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Multipurpose Heatth Assistants (MPHA) (M) even though they secured more marks than the candidates reappointed vide G.O.Rt.No.1207 dt.09.10.2013 in spite of the orders of this Honbte High court in wvMP No.2120/2015 in W.P.No.3178/2014 dt.15.09.2015 as ittegat, arbitrary, discriminatory and viotative of Artictes 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentty direct the Respondents to appoint the Petitioners to the post of MPHAs(M), as they have secured more marks than the candidates reappointed vide G.O. Rt.No.1207, dt.09.10.2013 strictty by imptementing orders of this Honble Court in WVMP.No.2120l2015 in W.P.No.3'178/2014 dated^'15.09.2015 as was done^jn respect of similarly ptaced persons with all service and monitory benefits..... ".

¶56

lt hos been contended by the petitloners lhoi they ore fully eligible ond quolified lo be oppointed os Mulli Purpose Heollh

¶57

¶58

Assisionls ond in^{pursuonce of the Noiifico'lion, 'the respondents} hove finolized lhe selection^{processond given oppointment orders} to the selecled condidotes^{vide G.O.Rt No.l207 doted09'10 2013'} They hove secured more^{morks lhon 'the persons, who hove} selected ond lhe issue come^{up for considero'iionbefore 'the} Hon'ble Division Bench of^{this Courl in W.P.No.3B060of 2013 ond} bolch ond the Hon'ble^{DivisionBench wos pleosed lo gront interim} order ond when vocote^{stoy opplicotion wos filed, the Hon'ble} Division Bench hos modified^{the eorlierorder ond possedthe interim} order on 15.09.2015. The^{operotive portion of the interim order} gronted on 15.09.20'1 5 reods os follows:-

¶59

"........1n these set of circumstances,^{as the ends of} justice woutd be met with adequatety, we direct both^the States, namety, the State^{of AndhraPradeshandthe State of} Tetangana, to offer appointments^{as Mutti Purpose Heatth} Assistants^(Mate) to the^{respective candidatesin eachDjstrict} under their respective administrative^{controt, who secured} more marks than any of those^{candidates to whom the} appointment as contract^{basishas been offered pursuant to} the recommendations made^{by the qroup of Ministerswhich} was accepted by the State^{Governmentthroughtheir} G.O.Rt-No.1207 and such^{candidatesshall atsobe offered and} be subjected to the same terms^{and conditions and if they} accept the same they can be^{taken into senr'ices Let this} exercise in the respective Districts^{be completedwithina} maximum^period of two months.

¶60

With this modification, the^{WVMPS stand ordered.}

¶61

List att these writ^petitions under^{the caption'Part-} heard' after a couple of weeks.

¶62

This order shatt not be construed^as a^{reftection of our} opinion that the 1200 candidates who^{have been offered} emptoyment on contract basis^pursuant to^{the orders} contained in G.O.Ms.No.'1207 dated 09.10.2013^{shatl be} discontinued. "

¶63

¶64

¶65

The obove soid order is implemenied in the Slote of Andhro Prodesh.

¶66

Leorned counsel oppeoring for the petitioners hod conlended thot the petitioners ore olso stonding on ihe some footing. The petitioners hove secured more morks thon the persons, who were selecled vide G.O.Rl.No.l2OZ doled 09.lO.20l3. The pelitioners hove submitted deloired representotions on 03.02.2020, 10.02.2020 ond 19.02.2020 requesling the respondents io consider their cose for oppointment 1o the post of Multi purpose Heolth Assistont in terms of the inlerim order possed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.p.No.38060 of 20i3 ond botch, doted 15.09.20i5. But, so for, the respondents hove not possed ony orders on lhe soid representotions. Therefore, the leorned counsel submits thot oppropriole orders be possed in ihe wril petilion directing the respondenls lo consider the represeniotions submitted by the pelilioners ond poss oppropriote orders by duly toking inlo occounl the interim order possed by the Division Bench of lhis Courl in W.P.No.38060 of 2013 ond botch, doted 15.09.2015.

¶67

Leorned Governmenl pleoder oppeoring for the respondenls contended lhol botch of writ petilions ore pending before the Division Bench of lhis Courl. However, since the represenlolions of boih the peiitioners ore pending before the respondenls, the respbndents would consider the some ond poss oppropriole orders in occordonce with low.

¶68

This Courl, hoving considered the rivol submissions mode by the porties, is of the considered view ihoi these writ petiiions con be

¶69

disposed of direciing the respondents to consider the

¶70

¶71

represen'totions submitted^{by the petilionersin W P'No l 5427 of 2020} on 03.02.2020,^{10.02.2020ond 19.02.2020 ond the peiitioners in} W.P.No.1544l ot 2020^{on 24.02.2020ond 02.03.2020ondposs} oppropriote orders by^{duly toking into occount the lnterimorder} possed by the Division Bench^{of lhis Courl in W.P'No38060of 20,l3} ond botch, doted^{1 5.09.20I5, within oreosonoble period'} preferobly within o^period of eight^{weeksfrom the dote of receiptof} o copy of this order.

¶72

With the obove observotions,^{these writ petitions ore disposed}

¶73

of. No costs.

¶74

Pending miscelloneous^{petilions, if ony, sholl stond closed'}

¶75

ABHINAND KUMAR^SHAVILI,J

¶76

28.12.2A20 Prv

E.Srinivas v. The Director of Public Health and Family Welfare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Srinivas v. The Director of Public Health and Family Welfare

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

Sri.Md.Khadar Pasha Vs The State of Telangana

M.V. Bhadraiah Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

S.Shankar Vs The Director of Horticulture State of Telangana and another

M.Veera Reddy and 7 others Vs The Director of Public Health and Family Welfare

B.Srihari Vs The Registrar and 2 Others

Dr. D. Vishnu Kumar (H.T.No. 17111003011) Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others