1 APHC010117662026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 6575/2026 Between: 1. YADLAPALLI SOWMYA, D/O YADLAPALLI CHAMUNDESWARARAO, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, CIVIL ASSISTANT SURGEON SPECIALIST IN GENERAL MEDICINE, COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER, NAGARAM522268 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH MEDICAL AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT, OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT, A.P. SECRETARY BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522237. 2. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY HEALTH, TEDEPALLI, ANDHRA PRADESH, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522501. 3. THE DISTRICT COORDINATOR OF HOSPITAL SERVICES, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522002. 4. THE MEDICAL OFFICER, COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, NAGARAM, NAGARAM MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT-522268. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 2 pleased topleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents not considering the Representation of the petitioner dated 12.12.2025 to the 1st respondent is as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and further direct the respondents to consider the Representation dated 12.12.2025 to the 1st respondent in favour of the petitioner, forthwith and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased eased to direct the 1st respondent to consider the Representation dated 12.12.2025 to the 1st respondent in favour of the petitioner, forthwith and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T V V KOTESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 12.12.2025 to the 1st respondent as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was selected as Civil Assistant Surgeon, Specialist in General Medicine through notification dated 01.02.2021 and subsequently she was appointed vide proceedings dated 12.03.2024 by the 2nd respondent along with others on contract basis and she was posted at C.H.C. Nagaram, Bapatla District. Subsequently when the 3 contract period was over, the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 05.05.2025 extended the contractual services of the petitioner upto 31.03.2025. While things stood thus, the petitioner applied for Maternity Leave for a period of 6 months w.e.f 08.10.2025 and subsequently 3rd respondent accorded sanction for 1st maternity leave for a period of 180 days from 08.10.2025 to 05.04.2026 with a direction to report at same place after completion of leave. Subsequently when the petitioner was on maternity leave, counseling was conducted on 10.11.2025 for all the contract specialist doctors who had been displaced due to the places opted by the in-service PG doctors during counseling held on earlier dated 31.10.2025 while submitting their willingness to render services in any location. While, the petitioner was on maternity leave, counseling was conducted for contract specialist doctors on 10.11.2025 stating that certain contract specialize doctors who were displaced due to the places opted by the in-service PG doctors during the counseling held on 31.10.2025. Surprisingly, when the petitioner was on materiality leave, she was relieved by the order dated 01.12.2025, which is contrary to the leave rules especially as per Section 12(1) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner has made a representation/appeal to the 1st respondent on 12.12.2025, but the respondent No.1 has not considered and passed any orders. Hence the present writ petition. 3. Reply to the said contention, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted based on the written instructions of the Joint 4 Commissioner, that the counseling was conducted to the in-service PGs on 31.10.2025 duly showing the clear and contractual vacancies and posting orders were issued to the in-service PGs as per the option exercised by the doctors. The petitioner was affected due to option exercised by Dr. A. Kiran, in-service PG who opted and posted at CHC, Nagaram, Guntur District and reported for duty at CHC, Nagaram on 01.12.2025. Due to reporting of in-service PG, the petitioner was deemed to be relieved from duties at CHC, Nagaram as per the condition Nos.2 and 3 mentioned in the appointment order of the petitioner. 4. Considering the submissions though the petitioner was granted maternity leave, it may not be proper on the part of the respondents to notify the vacancy of C.H.C, Nagaram. The facts remains that the said vacancy was notified and the incumbent officer has also joined. 5. In the said circumstances, without going into merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider the appeal/representation submitted by the petitioner and take appropriate decision within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order after providing the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No order as to costs. 5 Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. _____________ D. RAMESH,J Date:10.03.2026 Gk. 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH 39 WRIT PETITION No.6575 OF 2026 Date:10.03.2026 Gk