Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1408 (AP)

K. S. Dhan Raj v. Osmania University, Hyderabad

2003-11-17

G.BIKSHAPATHY, M.NARAYANA REDDY

body2003
G. BIKSHAPATHY, J. ( 1 ) THE Writ Appeal is filed challenging the orders passed by the learned Single Judge dated 02-05-2003 in W. P. No. 21749 of 1994. The petitioner challenged the appointment of the second respondent as medical Officer. The only ground raised in the writ petition is that the writ petitioner (sic. 2nd respondent) was over-aged as on the date of application for few months, therefore, his application ought not to have been considered. On the other hand, the petitioner is fully qualified for the post and on that ground he challenges the said order. ( 2 ) LEARNED Single Judge after considering the matter held that even though the second respondent was over-aged by few months, in view of the fact that he was appointed in 1988 and he was continuously working in the capacity of Medical Officer and also taking into consideration that on earlier occasion he was granted exemption at the time of temporary appointment in 1990, dismissed the said writ petition by orders dated 02-05-2003 against which the present Writ Appeal has been filed. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that the order of the learned Single judge is illegal and contrary to law. Having found that the appellant (sic. and respondent) was over-aged as on the date of application, he ought to have allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner, therefore the order is liable to be set aside. ( 4 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the respondents. ( 5 ) THE learned Single Judge in his order already considered the issue raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in the following paragraphs:" In view of the respective contentions, the only question that falls for consideration is whether the appointment of the second respondent is said to be illegal in view of the violation of age restriction as per advertisement No. 2/93. It is not in dispute that as on the date of 30-12-1993, the second respondent crossed the age of 41 years, by few months but the same is explained on various grounds. It is not in dispute that as on the date of 30-12-1993, the second respondent crossed the age of 41 years, by few months but the same is explained on various grounds. It is also not in dispute that the second respondent was appointed on temporary basis in one capacity or the other right from the year 1988 onwards and in the year 1990, he is appointed in the very same Health centre of the respondent-University as medical Officer on temporary basis. In view of the advertisement the second respondent also applied in the open category for regular appointment and keeping in view his earlier appointment right from the year 1990 his case was considered and he is appointed as medical Officer. Further, it is to be seen that as submitted by the learned standing Counsel, there are no statutory service regulations prescribing age limit for Medical officers of the University, though age restriction was imposed in the advertisement, but subsequently the selection of the second respondent by the Selection Committee is approved by the Board of Management, which is the competent authority to make appointments. Though the age of the second respondent is not in conformity with the requirement of age restriction still it is to be seen that the same is not in violation of any service regulations, governing the appointments. Further, it is to be seen that there is a specific office order, exempting the petitioner from age restriction and even at the time of temporary appointment, made in the year 1990, the said orders are in general terms. Even from that angle also, it is to be seen that the said orders have become final and the said orders exempting the second respondent, from age restriction are not questioned and even if the appointment of the second respondent is viewed with reference to the said office order also, it cannot be said to be illegal. In any event, having regard to the fact that the second respondent is in service of the university from 1988 onwards in one capacity or the other is appointed about nine years back as regular Medical officer, his services are confirmed in the said post, and he is also given upgradation in scale on completion of eight years of service. In any event, having regard to the fact that the second respondent is in service of the university from 1988 onwards in one capacity or the other is appointed about nine years back as regular Medical officer, his services are confirmed in the said post, and he is also given upgradation in scale on completion of eight years of service. I feel it is not a fit case to interfere with the appointment of the second respondent at this stage, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, I do not see any ground to interfere with the appointment of the second respondent. " ( 6 ) TAKING into consideration the contentions raised by the learned counsel for petitioner and also the fact that the second respondent was working from 1988 onwards, the learned Single Judge refused to interfere with the said order by exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We do not find any ground to interfere with the said order. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.