APHC010044022019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI WRIT PETITION No: 2028 of Between: 1. YATLA TRINADH, RETIRED PHARMACIST GR S/o. LATE Y. SOMAYYA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.19 MENTHAVARI STREET, MAHARANIPETA, VISAKHAP 530002. 1. THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AP. 2. THE DIRECTOR, MEDICAL & HEALTH, GOLLAPUDI, NRI CENTER, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, 3. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL & HEALTH SERVICES, VISAKHAPATNAM 4. SRI P.TIRUPATHI RAO, PHARMACY SUPERVISOR, AGED ABOUT 53 YRS., WORKING AT DM & DH OFFICE, VIZIANAGARAM, A.P. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Mr.S M SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW(AP) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No: 2028 of 2019 YATLA TRINADH, RETIRED PHARMACIST GR S/o. LATE Y. SOMAYYA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.19 MENTHAVARI STREET, MAHARANIPETA, VISAKHAP AND THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, THE DIRECTOR, MEDICAL & HEALTH, GOLLAPUDI, NRI CENTER, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, AP. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL & HEALTH SERVICES, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530013, AP. SRI P.TIRUPATHI RAO, PHARMACY SUPERVISOR, AGED ABOUT 53 YRS., WORKING AT DM & DH OFFICE, VIZIANAGARAM, A.P. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW(AP) IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3549] MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA YATLA TRINADH, RETIRED PHARMACIST GR-I, S/o. LATE Y. SOMAYYA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.19-5-1, MENTHAVARI STREET, MAHARANIPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM - ...PETITIONER THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, THE DIRECTOR, MEDICAL & HEALTH, GOLLAPUDI, NRI CENTER, THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL & HEALTH SERVICES, SRI P.TIRUPATHI RAO, PHARMACY SUPERVISOR, AGED ABOUT 53 YRS., WORKING AT DM & DH OFFICE, VIZIANAGARAM, A.P. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 The Court made the following Order : (Per Hon’ble NJS, J) The applicant in O.A.No.2813 of 2018 on the file of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad, aggrieved by an order dated 19.12.2018, filed the present writ petition. 2. 2. The writ petitioner / applicant flied the said O.A., stating that he rendered service as Pharmacist Grade-II and Grade-I in various Medical & Health institutions from 11.06.1979 to 31.01.2017 i.e., till the date of superannuation and though there were two vacant posts of Pharmacy Supervisor, one in the office of the District Medical & Health Officer, Vizianagaram and another at Government RIMS Hospital, Srikakulam as on 01.12.2016, he was not promoted to the said post though he is eligible and entitled to the same. His Representation dated 01.12.2016 in this regard did not yield any result and ultimately he retired from service on 31.01.2017. 3. In the O.A., he questioned the action of the respondents in promoting the 4th respondent as Pharmacy Supervisor vide Proceedings dated 27.10.2017 by depriving promotion to the writ petitioner / applicant to the said post w.e.f. November, 2016 to 31.01.2017 as high handed, arbitrary, discriminatory etc., and to grant consequential benefits in the cadre of Pharmacy Supervisor w.e.f. November, 2016 to 31.01.2017 and to pay all arrears by duly re-fixing his pay forthwith and to pass such other orders as may be deemed fit and proper. 3 4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner, inter alia, contends that the learned Tribunal went wrong in dismissing the O.A., without considering the matter in the proper perspective. He submits that while the petitioner was in service, two posts of Pharmacy Supervisors were available and the respondent-authorities for the reasons best known to them have not filled up the vacancies, much less with the writ petitioner who is No.2 in the seniority list and eligible for promotion. He submits that the respondent-authorities wantonly not filled up the vacancies till the writ petitioner is retired and thereby deprived of his promotion, as such the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for in the O.A. He, accordingly, urges for allowing the writ petition by setting aside the order under challenge. 5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical & Health made submissions to sustain the order impugned in the writ petition. He submits that the O.A., is misconceived and the learned Tribunal had not committed any error in dismissing the O.A., and the order is supported by reasons which are valid and tenable. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. 7. On an appreciation of the submissions made, the only point that arises for consideration is : Whether the order under challenge warrants interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the case? 4 8. At the outset, it may be noted that the writ petitioner prior to his retirement, made a representation dated 01.12.2016 to the 3rd respondent to consider his candidature for promotion by transfer to the post of Pharmacy Supervisor. While the representation was pending consideration, he attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.2017 and retired from service as no DPC was conducted. Much subsequently, the 4th respondent was promoted as Pharmacy Supervisor on 27.10.2017. It is not the case of the writ petitioner that overlooking his seniority, the 4th respondent was appointed while the petitioner is in service and thereby he was deprived of promotion. If the petitioner was not promoted due to non-conduct of DPC in the relevant year and the 4th respondent was promoted subsequently after the retirement of the petitioner, it would not give cause of action to question the promotion of the 4th respondent. The writ petition, as rightly contended is misconceived. The learned Tribunal while taking note of the relevant aspects that so long as the writ petitioner was in service, no promotion was given to any of his juniors, that subsequent to his retirement, there is no question of his right for promotion or his right to be considered for promotion and passed the order under challenge. This Court see no reason to take a different view, in the facts and circumstances of the case. The point is answered accordingly. 5 9. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. No order as to costs. Consequently, all pending applications shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA _____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA BLV Dt. 22.09.2025 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA W.P.No: 2028 of 2019 (Per Ninala Jayasurya, J) Date: 22.09.2025 BLV