Allowed

Dr a.Rathna Kumari v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Nov 2023WP/21748/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ of mandamus for posting preference under spouse category at Government ENT Hospital, Hyderabad. Court found husband's study leave salary being paid by department constituted government service, directing reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

Directions to respondents to reconsider petitioner's case for posting under spouse category considering husband's study leave and post her within two weeks.

Dr a.Rathna Kumari Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^321s ]

¶2

i i I I I I

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Speciat Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶7

WRIT PETITI ON NO:2'l 748 0F 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Dr A.Rathna Kumari. Wo Dr.K.Sunil,Age.-d about 40 yrs,.Occ. Associate professor, R/o Flat no^'t303. stvtR Vinay 5it::qfl6p"t6 Hyder"bad pubtic Schoot, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad, Telanfana jSOOOiS^-"-'-

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

.1. The State of Telansana, Re p" by.the Principal Secretary, Department of

¶13

Health, Medical an d Family wertare, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶14

2 Bffi:$15 TJ#3J:,3"3it3ril:^{Far4lvwerrareDM and HS campus, Koti,}

¶15

3 Ils"?xs:i:'."J,S?g::'fr%ffifion'^{DM and HS campus' KutbiGuda'Koti,}

¶16

4 Dr K.Ramqsh, S/o not known to the petitioner, Age. Maior, Occ. Assistant Professor ENT, Care of covernmen[.ntEaidri'C.YrEgl;:iE,'g;"dr, ilrin'grn"

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the H(]h court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particurarly one in the nature of writ of mandamus

¶19

a) Declaring the action of the respondents in not consadering the case of the petitioner in the spouse category preference for posting in vacancy in Government ENT Hospital Koti, Hyderabad whire promoting her to the post of Associate Professor (ENT) for the paner year 2022-2023 as arbitrary, iilegar and without jurisdiction and arso in gross vioration of principres of naturar justice and also contrary to the Telangana State and Subordinate service Rules, .l 996 and

¶20

¶21

// also in gross vioration of the petitioner's fundamentar right guaranteed under Article^'14 of the Constitution of lndra; and

¶22

b) Direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for posting her in Hyderabad having due regard to preference under the spouse category to the promotion post of Associate professor (ENT) for the panel year 2022_2023.

¶23

Counsel for the petitioner: SRI p. THIRUMALA RAO

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: Gp FOR SERVICES ll

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI SAMA SANDEEP REDDY

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI^DEVI

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.21748 of 2o23

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring^the action of the respondents in not considering the case^{of the petitioner for} posting by taking into consideration her spouse category certificate as itlegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents^to consider the case of the petitioner for^posting in Hyderabad^{under spouse} category and to pass such other order or orders.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the^{petitioner was} promoted as Associate Professor (ENT) in the panel year 2022-23, along with other probable candidates such as respondent No.4. It is submitted that thereafter, .while giving^postings, the^{respondents have not taken} into consideration the spouse certjficate submitted by the^petitioner solely on the ground that her spouse is on study^leave and^{is not} working. Though she was within the zone of consideration ald respondent No.4 has been given posting at the Government^(ENT) Hospital, Hyderabad. Learned counsel for the^{petitioner submitted that} the petitioner's husband is studying at Gandhi^{Medical College,} Hyderabad after being permitted to study after^{beingsanctionedthe}

¶32

2 PMDJ W.P.No.2L748 of 2023

¶33

study leave. Therefore, according to him, the spouse certificate submitted by the petitioner shourd have been considered a,,d given preference by the ofhcial respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed and is seeking consideration of his case on the same footing as respondent No.4 has been considered.

¶34

3 ' The official respondents fired counter affidarrit stating that the petitioner's husba,d has proceeded on study leave and his salary is being drawn from p.G. lien (S.H.E.B ) o/o.the Director of pubric Hea,th arrd Family welfare, Hyderabad and arso that after completion of his pG course, he will be reporting back to the head offrce of the Director of Public Health and Family welfare and he wilr be reposted in any of the existing vacancies of civil Assistant surgeon post ava able in the state and therefore the spouse certificate of the petitioner could not be considered.

¶35

4 ' *arned counser for respondent No.4 submitted that respondent No'4 has been promoted against the roster point for which he is eligibre and his case has been considered in accordance with the g,iderines as well as the spouse certihcate given by him.

¶36

Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this court finds that the respondents ought to have considered the case

¶37

3 PMD,J W.P.No.217zl8 of 2023

¶38

¶39

---7

¶40

of the petitioner for posting on the basis of the spouse certificate produced by the petitioner and it is not disputed that the husband of the petitioner is on study leave after it was duly sanctioned by the Department and thereflore, his study at Gandhi Medical College at Hyderabad with the payment of salary by the Department is to be considered as the government service and the petitioners spouse certificate has to be taking into consideration in terms of G.O.Ms.No.3l7, dated 06. 12.2021. In view of the same, the respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner after considering the spouse certificate submitted by her and post her in the place according to her eligibility as per such preference including availability of mix-and-match posts and pass appropriate orders within a period of two (O2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶41

With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs,

¶42

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.

¶43

SD/-P.PADMANABHA RE DY ASS]STANT REGIS R //TRUE COPYII

¶44

SECTION OFFICER

¶45

To,

¶46

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

¶47

Directorate of Public Health and Family Welfare DM and HS Campus, Koti, Hyderabad, Telangana 500001.

¶48

The Director of Medical Education, DM and HS Campus, Kutbi Guda, Koti, Hyderabad, Telangana 50000'1.

¶49

One CC to Sri P. Thirumala Rao, Advocate IOPUC]

¶50

Tw<r CCs to GP for Services ll, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶51

One CC to Sri Sama Sandeep Reddy, Advocate [OpUC]

¶52

Two CD Copies

GJ .

HIGH COURT

DATED:2011112023

1 ilE ST4 14:
(
3 02 0EC 2021 Ct
-b
* *
o6-SPATC

¶57

ORDER

¶58

WP.No.21748 ot 2023

¶59

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶60

(9
->/ )

Dr a.Rathna Kumari v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr a.Rathna Kumari v. The State of Telangana

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

Vatsala Rathod Vs The State of Telangana

Ch. Padma Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Abdul Quddus Hussaini Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd. Sirajuddin Vs State of Telangana

B. Chendrashekar Vs The State of Telangana

Kursan Rama Rao Vs The District Educational officer