APHC010581862025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 29939 of 2025 [3552] P Hema Sai Keerthi ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: Mr.P NAGENDRA REDDY Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): GP FOR MED HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, Smt.Tata Venkata Sridevi,Standing Counsel for Dr.NTR University of Health Sciences CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 2nd December 2025 ORDER: (per Hon9ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Present writ petition is filed questioning the inaction of 3rd respondent in issuing certificate of experience of three years of rural service as Civil Assistant Surgeon for the purpose of considering her candidature for admission to post-graduate medical courses under the in-service candidate quota in pursuance to NEET-PG-2025 counselling for the academic year 2025-26, to be illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional, and consequently, sought direction for issuance of such certificate enabling her to participate in the ongoing counselling. 2 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.No.29939 of 2025 2. Petitioner claims to be working as Civil Assistant Surgeon (<C.A.S.=) under the administrative control of 3rd respondent since 30.03.2022. She initially claims to have been appointed as C.A.S. at Primary Health Centre, Chagalamarry, by proceedings, dated 30.03.2022, issued by 3rd respondent and accordingly, rendered service from 30.03.2022 till 09.10.2022. Later, she has been selected and got appointed as C.A.S. on regular basis in pursuance to the Notification, dated 23.07.2022, and got posted at K.M.C., Kurnool, by proceedings, dated 08.10.2022, and continued to work there. Her services came to be regularized with effect from 10.10.2022. She claims to have qualified in the NEET-PG- 2025 examination and became eligible to claim for admission to post-graduate medical courses under the in-service candidate quota. In pursuance to the notification issued by the 4th respondent, in particular, as envisaged under Clause 4.2(iii), candidate claiming admission under in-service quota should possess service of three years or more in rural area as on the date of NEET PG Examination notification i.e., 16.04.2025. Petitioner claims that in aforesaid two spells of service, she had put in service of three years and 17 days, therefore, clearly, satisfied the eligibility criterion. Petitioner has made request through proper channel to 3rd respondent for issuing certificate of service experience for the purpose of participating in the 3 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.No.29939 of 2025 admission process. As the same was not being considered, she preferred the present writ petition. 3. This Court, on 30.10.2025, passed interim orders directing the respondents to reserve one seat, considering the last date of making application. 4. The 4th respondent has filed I.A.No.2 of 2025 seeking to vacate aforesaid interim order. Along with vacate petition, detailed counter- affidavit has been filed, inter alia, stating that the competent authority i.e., 3rd respondent, by speaking order, dated 30.10.2025, has rejected the case of petitioner, as she had only two years and six months of rural service, falling short of the prescribed minimum service requirement to claim admission under in-service quota. It is also stated that inasmuch as the competent authority has rejected the case of the petitioner, the 4th respondent cannot consider the case of petitioner for admission under in-service quota. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Welfare appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and 5; and Smt.T.V.Sridevi, learned Standing Counsel for Dr.N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, appearing for 4th respondent. 4 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.No.29939 of 2025 6. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that inasmuch as petitioner has rendered service as C.A.S., in two spells i.e., from 30.03.2022 to 09.10.2022 and from 10.10.2022 till the date of the notification i.e,, 16.04.2025, the entire of the service rendered ought to be considered for the purpose of computing the rural area service and inasmuch as the said period exceeds three years, she is entitled to be considered for admission under the in-service quota. 7. Per contra, both learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and 5 and learned standing counsel for 4th respondent University, contended that inasmuch as the competent authority has rejected the case of petitioner by passing speaking order and that petitioner found to be not satisfying the eligibility criteria of completing three years rural service as envisaged in the notification, she is not entitled to be considered for admission under the in-service quota. Learned Government Pleader has further contended that the initial appointment as C.A.S., made in pursuance to the appointment order, dated 26.03.2022, was merely on temporary basis, which was in pursuance to Rule 10(a) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (for short, 8the Rules9), therefore, her service for aforesaid period cannot be taken into consideration, as it is not a regular service. Besides, it is also contended that the moment petitioner has been appointed as C.A.S. on regular basis, in pursuance to he second 5 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.No.29939 of 2025 notification, in view of Rule 30(c) of the Rules, the employee upon resignation would forfeit not only the service rendered in that particular post held at the time of resignation, but also the previous service under the Government, therefore, the petitioner9s service for the initial spell cannot be considered, and besides that the speaking order has not been called in question in the present writ petition. 8. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions of learned counsels. 9. The orders of appointments issued in favour of petitioner, both by proceedings, dated 26.03.2022 and 08.10.2022, clearly provide that the appointment of petitioner was purely on temporary basis and that such appointments would not confer any right for regularisation of service. These appointment orders specifically refer to Rule 10(a) of the Rules. The first appointment order was made in pursuance to the notifications, dated 29.09.2021 and 22.11.2021. In pursuance to the first appointment order, petitioner has worked as C.A.S. from 30.03.2022 to 09.10.2022. She had yet again applied for regular post of C.A.S., in pursuance to the notification, dated 23.07.2022, however, this was for regular posts and she got duly selected and, accordingly, by appointment order, dated 08.10.2022, she has been posted at K.M.C., Kurnool. Rule 10(a) of the Rules envisages the scenario of filling up of any post on temporary 6 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.No.29939 of 2025 basis, if filling up of such vacancy is likely to take considerable period. It is the claim of 3rd respondent that petitioner was initially appointed on ad-hoc basis to the post of C.A.S., awaiting the filling up of such posts on regular basis. Subsequently, in pursuance to the notification issued in the year 2022, petitioner has once again participated in the selection process and was accordingly, appointed as C.A.S. on regular basis by extending the time scale of pay, therefore, for all purposes, firstly, that the first spell of service cannot be taken into consideration, and secondly, even otherwise, in terms of Rule 30(c) of the Rules, as petitioner has resigned from the post in which she was appointed initially, the service rendered in the particular post as on the date of resignation, all the previous service under the Government stand forfeited. 10. We find considerable force in the aforesaid submissions. If really the petitioner was appointed to the post of C.A.S., on regular basis, there was no occasion for her to resign from the said post and later, yet seek re-appointed by participating in the selection in pursuance to 2022 Notification. 11. Be that as it may, now the 3rd respondent has passed speaking order, dated 30.10.2025, rejecting her claim of completing the minimum service of three years rural area service, which eligibility qualifies her for 7 HCJ & CGR, J. W.P.No.29939 of 2025 admission to PG medical courses. Until and unless the said order is challenged and stands successful, no direction can be given in the present writ petition for consideration of petitioner9s claim under in- service quota. 12. Accordingly, we find no merit in the writ petition and hence, the same stands dismissed with liberty to lay challenge to the speaking order, dated 30.10.2025, issued by the 3rd respondent, if so advised. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending in this case, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J cs