Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1123 (TS)

P. Krishna Malakonda Reddy v. State of Telangana

2025-09-26

PULLA KARTHIK

body2025
ORDER : PULLA KARTHIK, J. Heard Sri L.Ravi Chander, learned senior counsel, representing Sri Bobbili Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents. 2) The case of the petitioner is that he is presently working as senior-most Professor of Cardiology at Osmania Medical College i.e. respondent No.3 College and serving as Head of the Department of Cardiology. Further, he has successfully completed DM (Cardiology) and chose to serve in the Government sector. Further, as a Super Specialist in Cardiology, he treated thousands of heart patients who could not afford private healthcare. Further, during Covid-19 pandemic also, he rendered dedicated service and successfully treated numerous Covid-19 patients. While so, during general transfers-2024, the petitioner requested the respondents to transfer him to Warangal. However, as his services are very much essential in respondent No.3 hospital as he is the senior-most Doctor in the Super Specialty of Cardiology for PG Teaching and patient care, the respondents have retained him in respondent No.3 Hospital. It is further averred that by showing the name of the petitioner, respondents made the National Medical Council to allot cardiology seats. While so, respondent No.1 having decided to effect promotions on a temporary basis to the posts of Additional Director of Medical Education including Principal of a Medical College and Superintendent of a Teaching General Hospital, has directed all the eligible Professors, including the petitioner, to submit Annual Confidential Reports (ACR) of the candidates to be promoted. As the petitioner is keenly interested in teaching and also due to his mother’s health condition, which requires continuous medication and regular follow-up and also due to other personal and family reasons, he submitted an option form dated 28.06.2025 requesting the respondents to consider his case for promotion to the post of Principal in any one of the five medical colleges at Sanga Reddy, Quthbullapur, Vikarabad, Hanumakonda and Nalgonda. However, without considering the said options, the respondents, under the guise of promotion, have transferred the petitioner to a non-teaching post i.e. Superintendent of Government General Hospital, Nizamabad, vide impugned G.O. dated 07.07.2025. However, without considering the said options, the respondents, under the guise of promotion, have transferred the petitioner to a non-teaching post i.e. Superintendent of Government General Hospital, Nizamabad, vide impugned G.O. dated 07.07.2025. But, as the petitioner is not in a position to discharge the administrative responsibilities and also lack of interest in administrative work, he submitted a representation dated 09.07.2025 requesting the respondents to permit him to forego the promotion, retain and continue him in the post of Professor of Cardiology and HOD (Cardiology), Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad. However, without considering his representation, the respondents are compelling the petitioner to accept the promotion, taking steps to relieve him from the post of Professor of Cardiology and HOD (Cardiology), Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad, and also to fill up the said post with another person. Therefore, the action of the respondents is highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable, without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice and infringement of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to Rule 11 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules. 3) Learned senior counsel has contended that as per Rule 11 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules, all the candidates who are promoted are entitled to forego their promotion and nobody can insist the petitioner to join in the promotion post. An option was left open to the employee to forego promotion subject to the condition that they would forfeit their promotion for the current panel year. Since the petitioner has agreed to forego promotion, the respondents are duty bound to continue the petitioner as Professor of Cardiology and HOD (Cardiology), Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad. However, contrary to Rule 11 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules as well as contrary to the terms of G.O.Rt.No.298, dated 07.07.2025, the respondents are taking steps to relieve the petitioner from the said post and fill it with another person. This action is highly illegal, arbitrary and unjust. Learned senior counsel further contends that under the guise of the impugned promotions, senior professors like the petitioner, are being transferred from crucial posts and junior faculty members are being posted in their place, which is causing serious detriment to a large number of needy patients and is contrary to the interest of postgraduate students. Learned senior counsel further contends that under the guise of the impugned promotions, senior professors like the petitioner, are being transferred from crucial posts and junior faculty members are being posted in their place, which is causing serious detriment to a large number of needy patients and is contrary to the interest of postgraduate students. Learned counsel further submits that though the petitioner made a representation on 09.07.2025 to the respondents that he will forego the promotion, requested to retain and continue him in the present place, without considering the same, the respondents are taking steps to relieve the petitioner and to fill the same with another person. Therefore, the learned senior counsel contends that the action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and unjust. Further, in several cases where the doctors have opted to forego promotion, the respondents have continued such doctors in their existing posts without insisting upon their acceptance of the promotional post. Learned senior counsel has demonstrated before this Court the case of one Dr. Surya Prakash whose case was considered by the respondents duly retaining him in the same post even after his foregoing the promotion. Similarly, in 2024 promotion counseling, in respect of 11 Professors, who opted to forego their promotion, were retained in the same posts where they were working. However, in case of the petitioner, the respondents, for the reasons best known to them, are compelling him to accept the promotion, which action of the respondents is ex facie illegal, unconstitutional and amounts to discrimination. Further, certain Professors, whose ACRs have not been forwarded to respondent Nos.1 and 2, are being retained in their existing posts without being promoted. Thus, as per the learned senior counsel, the respondents are effecting promotions selectively and in a pick-and-choose manner under the guise of promotion. The action of the respondents in shifting the petitioner to non-teaching post suffers from arbitrariness. Thus, as per the learned senior counsel, the respondents are effecting promotions selectively and in a pick-and-choose manner under the guise of promotion. The action of the respondents in shifting the petitioner to non-teaching post suffers from arbitrariness. 4) Per contra, the learned Government Pleader while admitting the fact that the petitioner was promoted as Professor of Cardiology in the year 2010-2011 and working in respondent No.3 Hospital as Professor of Cardiology and HOD (Cardiology) submits that the Government has promoted 44 Professors as Additional Director of Medical Education including Principals of Medical Colleges and Superintendents of Government General Hospital and posting orders were issued to the promotees, including the petitioner, vide G.O.Rt.No.298, dated 07.07.2024, wherein it was clearly mentioned at para 4 that the Director of Medical Education, Telangana, Hyderabad, shall take immediate steps to communicate the said orders to the Principal of Medical College concerned/ Superintendent of the Hospital concerned and relieve the individuals immediately, without seeking their consent for relief by granting 15 days time to the individuals for joining in their respective promoted posts. Learned Government Pleader further submits that the Government of Telangana has sanctioned and established 25 new Medical Colleges and the total sanctioned strength of the post of Additional Director of Medical Education including Principal of Medical College and Superintendent of Teaching General Hospitals is 64 and working strength is 15 and for remaining 49 vacant posts, the Government has taken up the promotions of Special Grade Professor and Professors (Clinical, Non-Clinical and Super Specialty) and the Departmental Promotion Committee had cleared 44 names of Special Grade Professor and Professors to the post of Additional Director of Medical Education/ Principal of Medical College/Superintendent of Teaching General Hospitals, which is a State level post. Hence, the promotees can be posted to anywhere in the State keeping in view of administrative exigency. Accordingly, posting orders were issued keeping in view the administrative exigency and NMC requirements duly following the need based assessment as it may affect the recognition of the Medical College in the NMC inspections and the Government Officers have to be ready to serve wherever required in public interest. Accordingly, posting orders were issued keeping in view the administrative exigency and NMC requirements duly following the need based assessment as it may affect the recognition of the Medical College in the NMC inspections and the Government Officers have to be ready to serve wherever required in public interest. Learned Government Pleader further contends that if the doctors in the State Medical Services on promotion are posted to elsewhere in public interest to Government Medical Colleges to Administrative post and such postings are challenged for one or the other reason, the running of such Government Medical Colleges will be in question and further, there will be serious observations from the NMC in continuation of its recognition to such Medical Colleges in the absence of faculty, which will be in total violation of public interest. Learned Government Pleader further contends that if the contention of the petitioner that the impugned G.O.Rt.No.298, dated 07.07.2025 is contrary to Rule 11 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules is accepted, every doctor whoever is transferred may take a similar stand, in which event, it will be difficult for the Government to man the posts and there would be chaos since no doctor would be ready to join at their place of posting, if it is not a lucrative posting, which would be against the concept of welfare State and injurious to public interest. Learned Government Pleader has placed reliance on Rule 28 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules and also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Achal Singh , (2018) 17 SCC 578 and Sk. Nausad Rahaman v. Union of India , 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 266 . 5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective counsel and perused the material on record. 6) A perusal of the material on record reveals that while the petitioner is working as Professor of Cardiology and Head of the Department, Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad, he is promoted to the post of Additional Director of Medical Education/Principal of Medical College/Superintendent of Teaching General Hospitals vide impugned G.O.Rt.No.298, dated 07.07.2025, and posted as Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Nizamabad, which is a non-teaching post. Para 5 of the said G.O., which is relevant in the present context, is reproduced hereunder: “The Professors promoted above, shall join the promotion post within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the orders of promotion. If, they fail to join the new post within the said time limit or evade to join the post by proceeding on leave, they shall forfeit their promotion for the current panel year in terms of Rule 11 (b) of TS State & Subordinate Services Rules, 1996”. 7) From the above, it is clear that if the promotees fail to join in the promotion post within a period of 15 days, they will forfeit their promotion for the current panel year in terms of Rule 11 (b) of TS State & Subordinate Services Rules, 1996, which provision of law reads as under: “11. The time limit for joining either on first selection or on promotion or on appointment by transfer:- (a) ….. (b) Time to join a post on appointment/temporary appointment under Rule 10 including appointment by transfer or by promotion otherwise than by direct recruitment, shall be allowed a joining time of 15 (fifteen) days to join the post from the date of receipt of the order of appointment sent to the candidate by Registered Post with acknowledgement due or by any other means. An employee who does not join the post within the stipulated time or evades to join the post by proceeding on leave, shall lose his promotion right/offer for the current panel year and the name of the candidate shall be placed before the next Departmental Promotion Committee for consideration in the next year panel subject to availability of vacancy. In case of non-selection posts, the name of the candidate who does not join within the stipulated time in the promotion posts shall be considered for promotion again after a period of one year from the date of offer of appointment subject to availability of vacancy.” 8) Para 5 of the impugned G.O.Rt.No.298, dated 07.07.2025, juxtapose to Rule 11 (b) of the TELANGANA STATE AND SUBORDINATE SERVICE RULES , 1996, make it crystal clear that non-joining of the promotee in the promoted post within 15 days time would render forfeiture of promotion by the promotee for the current panel year. 9) In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner has expressed his willingness to forego the promotion even before joining in the promoted post, which action of the petitioner is in accordance with Para 5 of the impugned G.O.Rt.No.298, dated 07.07.2025, as well as Rule 11 (b) of the TELANGANA STATE AND SUBORDINATE SERVICE RULES , 1996, referred supra. Hence, the respondents cannot compel the petitioner to accept the promotion, as is alleged by him. 10) Further, the main ground urged by the respondents is that in view of the establishment of (25) new Medical Colleges across the State, the Government has taken up the present promotion process since the non-availability of required faculty may affect the recognition of the Medical College itself in the National Medical Commission Inspections, which will also be in total violation of public interest. 11) If really, the purport of the present promotions is to get over the inspections of the National Medical Commission and to keep the recognition of Medical Colleges intact, the respondents ought to have posted the petitioner in such newly established Medical Colleges as faculty/teaching member since the services of the petitioner are already being utilized in the capacity of teaching faculty in the present place of work. Instead, the respondents have promoted and posted the petitioner in a non-teaching post, which has nothing to do with the main purpose for effecting promotions. In such circumstances, the respondents cannot contend that the promotions and postings are effected in public interest. 12) Further, the petitioner has participated in the promotion process in his willingness to work as a teaching faculty. Had the respondents readily considered his request, the ultimate purpose of promotion process would also have been achieved. Instead, the respondents chose to post the petitioner in a non-teaching post under the guise of promotion from a teaching-post, which action of the respondents, by no stretch of imagination, can be stated to be in public interest. Therefore, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Achal Singh (referred supra) relied upon by the respondents is of no avail to them. Similarly, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sk. Nausad Rahaman (referred supra) also cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present since the present case is of relinquishment of promotion. Therefore, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Achal Singh (referred supra) relied upon by the respondents is of no avail to them. Similarly, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sk. Nausad Rahaman (referred supra) also cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present since the present case is of relinquishment of promotion. 13) For the afore-mentioned reasons, more particularly in view of the relinquishment pleaded by the petitioner, the impugned G.O.Rt.No.298, dated 07.07.2025, is hereby set aside in respect of the petitioner herein alone. 14) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.