Disposed

Dr. B.Ramana Prakash, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Sept 2023WP/43332/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in an interlocutory order, did not decide the merits of the petition regarding absorption or posting as an Assistant Professor. Instead, it directed the government respondents to consider the petitioner's representations within two months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; respondents directed to consider representations and pass appropriate orders in two months.

Dr. B.Ramana Prakash, Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

[³³⁰³¹

¶3

IN THE HIGH^{COURTFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE^{TWELFTHDAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY THREE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUST]CE J. SREENIVAS RAO}

¶7

WRIT PETI TloN NO:4^{3332 0F 2017}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Dr. B. Ramana^{Prakash, S/o Yadagiri' Age{ p7 years'} .Oc.c^CASffutor' Department of General^{Surgery, MGM Hospital,Warangal' ruo warangal}

¶10

..,PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

l.TheStateofTelangana,Rep.byitsPrincipalsecretary,Health,Medicaland Family Welfare De[artment,^{Secretariat, Hyderabad'}

¶13

The Director of^{Medical Education, Telangana,Hyderabad-}

¶14

The Director of^{Health,Telangana,Hyderabad}

¶15

The Superintendent,^{MGM Hospital,Warangal'}

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filedtherewith,the High court maybe} pleased to issue appropriate^{writ, order or direction, more particularly' one in the} nature of writ of Mandamus^{by declaring the inaction on the part of the} Respondents 1 and 2^{not considering the representations dated11-08-2017and} 17-11-2017 submitted by the^{petitioner for absorptionor issuingnecessary} posting orders by the 1st and 2nd Respondents^{to the Petitioner as an Assistant} Professor in General surgery^{in the teaching institutions attached with Hospitals} as being illegal and unjust^{consequently, direct the Respondents1 and 2 to take} appropriate action on the representations^{dated11-08-2017and 17-11-2017} submitted by the^{petitionereither for absorptionor necessary posting ordersas} an Assistant Professor under^{the controlof the 2nd Respondentin any medical} institutions attached with Government^{teaching hospitalsby followingMCI} Minimum Qualifications for Teachers^{in Medical lnstitutions Regulations,1998as} amended upto 8th June, 2017.

¶18

¶19

¶20

LA. NO:¹ 0F^{20'17(WPMPNO:5 3739 0F 2017)}

¶21

Petition under^{Section 151 cPc prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition'the High Court mayb-e-p]9?s-ed to} directtheland2totakeappropriateactiononthedatedll-08-2017and i7-11-2017 submitted^{by the peiitioner either for absorptionor posting ordersas} an Assistant^{Professor underof the 2" Respondent in any medi<;alattached with} Government teaching^{hospitalsMCI Minimum Qualificationsfor Teachers} lnstitutions Regulations,^{1998 as amendedJane, 2017 forthwith'}

¶22

Counsel for the^{Petitioner:SRI JOHN MATHEW REPRESENTINGFOR} SRI K.V. SIMHADRI

¶23

Counset forthe^{Respondents: GP FORSERVICESll}

¶24

The Court made^{the following: OROER}

¶25

¶26

I I

¶27

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO Writ Petition No. 43332 of 2Ol7

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Writ Petirion is filed seeking the following reliel_

¶30

'to issue appropriate urit, ord.er or direction, more particalarlg one in the nadlre of Writ of Mand.amus bg declaing the inaction on tlle part of the Respondent Nos. l and 2 not constdeing the representdtions dated l l.Og_2O17 and 17.11.2O17 submitted. bg the petitioner for absorption or rbsuing necess ary posting ord.ers bg the j.t and Zd Respondents to the petitioner as an Assrlstanl professor in GeneraL Surgery in tle teaching h-stitutions onaiLrcd. u.tith Hospitals as being illegal and. unjust; @nseEtentlg, d"irect tle Respondent iVos. I and 2 to take appropiate actton on the representations d.oted 11.0g.2O17 .and 17.11.2O17 submttted bg the petitioner either for absorption or necessary posting orders as an Assrlstant professor un_der the control of the 2"d Respondent in ang medicat institrttions attached tuith Gotemment teoching hospitab bg fo oraing MCI Minimum Qualif.cations fo, Teachers in Medicat Institutions Regulations, 1998 as amended upto gth June 2017.,,

¶31

Heard Sri John Mathew, learned counsel representing Sri K.V.Simhadri, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government pleader for Services^_ II appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶32

l.earned counsel for the petitioner subm.its that the petitioner submitted representations to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, dated 11.08-201 7 and. lT.7l.2OlZ for absorbing or issuing necessary posting orders for the post of Assistant professor in General Surgery in the teaching institutions attached with

¶33

¶34

Hospitals. Inspite of the repeated request madr: by the petitioner, the respondents have not considered the sarne.

¶35

Learned Government Pleader submitted that the respondent Nos. I and 2 may be directed to consider the representations of the petitioner, dated ll.O8.2Ol7 and l7.ll.2ol7 by giving a reasonable time and pass a1:propriate order in accordance with law.

¶36

Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties, without going into the merits of the case, this Court deems it fit and proper to dispose of the Writ Petition directing respondent Nos. I and 2 to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner dated 11..O8.2017 and 17.1 l.2Ol7 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶37

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dispose:d of. No

¶38

costs.

¶39

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶40

SD/. C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// @ SECTION OFFICER

¶41

To, 1. The Principal^{Secretary, Health, tvledical andFamily Welfare Department, The} State of Telanoana. Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶42

I I i I I I I

¶43

The Director of Medical Education, Telangana, Hyderabad. 3. The Director of Health, Telangana, Hyderabad 4. The Superintendent, MGM Hospital, Warangal. 5. One CC to SRI K.V. SIMHADRI, Advocate TOPUCI 6. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES ll, High Court for the State of Telangana lourl

¶44

Two CD Copies BN GJP

f I

1 )

HIGH COURT

DATED:1210912023

I t

ORDER

/4.' ' tl-c SIa 16
\n
o ii
i'J
110[T2m
).
;'

¶54

WP.No.43332 ot 2017

¶55

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶56

{ ,"9Nro

Dr. B.Ramana Prakash, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. B.Ramana Prakash, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Mallesham, Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

K. Janju Naik Vs The State of Telangana

V R M Reddy, Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

T.Rajender Rao, Vs The State of Telangana, rep. by its Secretary

C Ravinder Reddy Vs Prl.Secretary ( Irrigation) and 4 Others

D. Pochaiah, Vs State of Telangana