T IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 21141 OF 2015 Between: M.Bhagya Lakshmi, W/o. Y. Srinivasa Rao, aged 40 years, Occ; Non-Medical Demonstrator Guntur Medical College, Guntur. ...PETITIONER/5*‘’ Respondent in O.A. AND 1. B.Padma Latha, W/o. P. Sambasiva Rao, Occ: Lab Technician Guntur Medical College, Guntur R/o. H.No.5-14-3, 2/13 Brodipet, Guntur Guntur District. ...Respondent/Applicant in O.A, 2. The Regional Director of Medical and Health Services Guntur Guntur District. 3. The Director of Health Services, Andhra Pradesh at Koti, Hyderabad. 4. The District Medical and Health Officer, Guntur, Guntur District. 5. State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its. Principal Secretary, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 6. The Hon’ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal rep. by, its Registrar A P Hyderabad. (R5 is amended as per the Court Order dated.8/7/2015 in WPMP No.26570/2015) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to pnd connected with the orders made in O.A.No. 12986/2009, dated 19-06-2015 on the filed of Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash or set aside the same by holding as erronious and contrary to the law. ' I.A. NO: 2 OF 2015rWPMP. NO: 27241 OF 2015) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may^e pleased to susper^ the operation of the orders made in OA.No. 12986/2009 dated 19.6.2015 on thefile of theHon'ble AP Administrative Tribunal disposal of the above writ petition. and pending Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI NARAHARI BABU FOR SRI M. R. TAGORE Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI K. CHETHAN FOR SRI S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 6 : GP FOR SERVICE -IV The Court made the following: ORDER ■x- 1 APHC010132732015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3525] MONDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 21141/2015 Between: M.Bhagya Lakshmi ...PETITIONER AND B. Padma LathaAnd 5 Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.M R TAGORE 2.NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM 2.GP FOR SERVICES IV The Court made the following Order: (Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri Narahari Babu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri K. Chethan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and the learned Government Pleader for Services-IV, appearing for respondents 2 to 6. «l 2. The petitioner herein had been appointed to the post of Non- Medical Demonstrator, by proceedings, dated 30.10.2009, in Guntur Medical College. Aggrieved by the said appointment, the 1®* respondent herein had approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, by way of O.A.No.12986 of 2009. 3. The main contention raised by the 1"* respondent was that she senior to the writ petitioner herein and she should have been appointed, to the post of Non-Medical Demonstrator instead of the writ petitioner herein. It was further contended that the procedure to be followed in a case for appointment by transfer is to finalize the seniority list of the feeder category and to consider the cases of the persons in such feeder category, according to their seniority. was 4. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal accepting the said contention, had allowed the application, by an order dated 19.02.2013, setting aside the promotion of the writ petitioner and directing appointment of the 1®* respondent as Non-Medical Demonstrator. 5. This order was challenged by the writ petitioner before the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, by way of W.P.No.22325 of 2013. A Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by an order dated 23.04.2015, set aside the order the Tribunal and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal, for fresh consideration. 3 The Andhra Pradesh Tribunal, after remanding of the matter, had 6. allowed the application again, by an order dated 19.06.2015, setting aside the order of appointment of the writ petitioner, dated 30.10.2009, with a further direction for carrying out a fresh appointment by transfer, in accordance with law. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has again approached this Court, by way of the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that this was not a simple case of appointment by transfer in as much as applications were called for and candidates were selected from among those who had applied for the posts. It is contended that the 1®* respondent had not applied and as such fell outside the zone of consideration and could not have any complaint or locus to challenge the appointment of the writ petitioner. It is further contended that two persons had been appointed as Non-Medical Demonstrators, under the impugned proceedings, dated 30.10.2009. The appointment of the other person had also been challenged, by way of separate proceedings, by another person, and the same came to be rejected. In such circumstances, fresh challenge by 1®' respondent could not have been 7. considered. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would also contend that the process of appointment by transfer, even otherwise is not to be done on the basis of the seniority of the candidates but it is to be done only on the basis of a separate process after receiving applications. 8. 4 It is contended that the said process has been followed in as much as proceedings, dated 29.02.2008, of the Regional Director of Medical and Health Services, Guntur required applications to be made for consideration for appointment to the post of Non-Medical Demonstrator and all the persons who had applied had been considered and the writ petitioner was selected after a process of selection had been done. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the proceedings of the Regional Director of Medical and Health Services, Guntur, dated 29.02.2008, only required the officers in the discharge entry, to obtain particulars of the employees who would meet the qualifications set out in the communication and to submit the same to the Regional Director, Medical and Health Services. This cannot be taken to mean that applications had been called for. He would further submit that the order of the Tribunal holding that the process of selection, conducted by the 4*Vespondent, is clearly not in accord with the method of selection for appointment by transfer, is correct. 10. The Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in its 11. order, dated 23.04.2015, in W.P.No.22325 of 2013, had considered all these issues and had remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The consideration also included examination of the issue whether appointment of the writ petitioner to the post of Non-Medical Demonstrator is in accordance with the rules and whether the action of the 5 y official respondents restricting appointment to only those persons who had submitted applications pursuant to the circular is valid or not. 12. After remand, the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal considered these issues and held that the procedure of calling for applications, for appointment by transfer is an unknown procedure and accordingly, held that the appointment of the writ petitioner requires to be set aside. The Tribunal did not go into the question of whether the restriction of consideration, to only those who had applied, was correct or not. 13. We are in agreement with the order of the Tribunal to the extent that the procedure for appointment by transfer cannot be done by seeking applications and would have to be done after considering the seniority of the persons in the feeder category. 14. Apart from this, the circular, dated 01.01.2008, issued by the Director of Medical Education and the consequent communication of the Regional Director of Medical and Health Services, dated 29.02.2008, had required the superior officers to obtain particulars of employees who have the requisite qualifications and to submit the same for consideration. The language of these circulars, cannot be stretched to mean that applications had been called for. It is not clear as to how the language in the circulars had been understood to mean that applications are required. For both the reasons, we do not find any reason to interfere with 15. the order of the Tribunal and the same is affirmed. 6 16. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M.PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE N OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri M. R. Tagore, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri S.V.S.S.Siva Ram, Advockfe [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP for Service- IV, Hi^"Court of Andhra Pradesh. 4. Three C.D. Copies. (OUT) Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:03/03/2025 * 07 APR 2025 ? ORDER C9, f . Current Section . ^ WP.No.21141 of 2015 DISMISSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS