ORDER : 1. Aggrieved by the action of respondent No.3 in passing the order dated 27.11.2024 rejecting the claim of the petitioner to retire her from service under medical invalidation grounds and the consequential order dated 06.12.2024 passed by respondent No.4 directing the petitioner to immediately join the duty, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2. Heard Mr. Nayakawadi Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Watch Woman on compassionate grounds in the year 2007 and completed nearly 15 years of service. Further, as she suffered with various health problems, she proceeded on leave on medical grounds w.e.f. 17.12.2022 for taking treatment and the said leave period was extended for the purpose of treatment for considerable length of time. As there is no progress in her health condition, she submitted a representation dated 24.11.2023 through proper channel to respondent No.4 seeking to consider her claim to retire from service on medical invalidation by referring her to Medical Board for medical examination in terms of G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 23.10.2008. Respondent No.4 has forwarded her representation to respondent No.3, who inturn has addressed a letter dated 19.10.2024 to the Superintendent, Government Medical Hospital, Jagitial, to examine her case as per G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 23.10.2008, and issue medical reports for taking further action. In turn, the Superintendent and Chairman, District Medical Board, Government General Hospital, Jagityal, has addressed a letter dated 29.04.2024 referring the petitioner to State Medical Board. Consequently, the Superintendent, Osmania General Hospital, which is the Regional Medical Board, has examined the petitioner on 15.05.2024 and issued Medical Invalidation Certificate and sent the medical report to respondent No.4 vide letter dated 02.08.2024 for taking further action in the matter. Thereafter, respondent No.3 has issued the notice dated 31.08.2024 asking the petitioner to appear before the District Level Committee along with relevant documents for taking further action. Accordingly, the authorities have examined the case of the petitioner but surprisingly and shockingly respondent No.3 has rejected the claim of the petitioner to retire her on medical invalidation ground vide proceedings dated 27.11.2024, and consequently respondent No.4 has passed the order dated 06.12.2024 directing the petitioner to join duty immediately, which are impugned in the present Writ Petition. Accordingly, the authorities have examined the case of the petitioner but surprisingly and shockingly respondent No.3 has rejected the claim of the petitioner to retire her on medical invalidation ground vide proceedings dated 27.11.2024, and consequently respondent No.4 has passed the order dated 06.12.2024 directing the petitioner to join duty immediately, which are impugned in the present Writ Petition. 3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that contrary to the medical report given by the Regional Medical Board, the impugned orders are passed. Further, once the Regional Medical Board declares the petitioner as unfit for performing her legitimate duties, the District Level Committee cannot come to the conclusion that the petitioner is fit to perform her duties and the same is illegal and arbitrary. Further, respondent No.3 is not competent to decide the medical condition of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order dated 23.10.2008 passed by respondent No.3 is without application of mind and liable to be set aside. Hence, the learned counsel prayed this Court to pass appropriate orders by setting aside the impugned orders. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied on: 1) Order dated 18.10.2021 passed by this Court in W.P. (Tr) No.6111 of 2017 as confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.633 of 2021 vide judgment dated 07.12.2021. 2) Order dated 27.12.2024 passed by passed by this Court in W.P.No.33270 of 2024. 4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader while admitting the fact that the petitioner was appointed as Watch Woman in the year 2013, has submitted that she filed an application before respondent No.4 on 24.11.2023 about her illness of paralysis, inability to discharge her official duties and proceeded on leave from 18.11.2022 onwards intending to retire on medical invalidation grounds. On such application, respondent No.4 vide letter dated 19.01.2024 has referred the case of the petitioner to the Superintendent & Chairman, District Medical Board, Government General Hospital, Jagtial, who in turn has referred the case of the petitioner to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, i.e. the Regional Medical Board. Thereafter, the Regional Medical Board has issued the medical invalidation certificate dated 15.05.2024 stating that the petitioner has completely and permanently incapacitated for further service in the department. Thereafter, the Regional Medical Board has issued the medical invalidation certificate dated 15.05.2024 stating that the petitioner has completely and permanently incapacitated for further service in the department. Learned Government Pleader has further submitted that the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 23.10.2008, has issued orders for revival of scheme of Compassionate Appointment to the dependents of Government employees who retire on medical invalidation and also issued certain guidelines therein. Pursuant to the proposals submitted by respondent No.4, respondent No.3 has issued a notice dated 31.08.2024 to the petitioner asking her to attend the office of respondent No.3 on 05.09.2024 for examining her case. Accordingly, the petitioner has attended before the District Level Committee members on 05.09.2024. The Committee has examined the case of the petitioner in detail as per the guidelines contained in G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 23.10.2008, and opined that the petitioner is not appeared to have been suffering from illness as opined by the Regional Medical Board, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, and therefore respondent No.3 has rightly rejected the case of the petitioner vide impugned proceedings dated 27.11.2024 and the same was communicated to the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader has further submitted that the decisions relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective parties and perused the material on record. 6. A perusal of the record reveals that on receipt of the representation dated 24.11.2023 from the petitioner seeking to consider her case to retire from service on medical invalidation, respondent No.4 has forwarded the same to the District Collector i.e. respondent No.3, who is the Chairman of the District Level Committee. In turn, respondent No.3 has referred the matter to the Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Jagityal, to examine the case of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.661 dated 23.10.2008, and issue medical report for taking further action. The Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Jagityal, in turn has referred the matter for evaluation to the Superintendent, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, which is the Regional Medical Board. The Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Jagityal, in turn has referred the matter for evaluation to the Superintendent, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, which is the Regional Medical Board. Accordingly, the Regional Medical Board has examined the petitioner on 15.05.2024 and issued the Medical Invalidation Certificate with the following observations: “We consider Smt. P.Padma have completely and permanently incapacitated for further service in the department to which she belongs in consequence of “Hypertension, Diabetic Mellitus, Paralysis of right upper limb and lower limb, she cannot perform her duties, hence invalid (falls under G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 23-10-2008 at Sl.No. 16 (i) (g) (1) (ii)).” 7. Further, the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.661, General Administration Department, dated 23.10.2008, redefining the scheme of compassionate appointment to the dependents of the Government employees who retire on medical invalidation, in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4210/2003, dated 12.08.2008. In the present context, it is relevant to refer relevant portion of para 16 of the said G.O., which reads as under: 16. The appointing authority on receipt of the application from the Government employee for retirement on Medical Invalidation, shall refer the case to the Medical Board. (i) At District level, a team of Doctors shall furnish the medical report to a District Level Committee of officers. Accordingly, Government hereby constitute the medical team (Medical Boards) as follows:- (a) Where there are teaching hospitals, other than Ranga Reddy and Hyderabad Urban Districts, the medical team (Medical Board) shall consist of the Superintendent of the Govt. General Hospital and two doctors of the cadre of Civil Surgeon, nominated by the Superintendent of Government General Hospital, among them one should be a specialist in the disease/illness with which the employee is suffering and seeking Medical Invalidation and in case of a lady employee seeking a Medical Invalidation, of the two civil surgeons, one should be a lady civil surgeon. (b) In the case of Ranga Reddy and Hyderabad Urban Districts, the Medical Boards already existing in Osmania General Hospital and Gandhi General Hospital shall constitute the team of Doctors (Medical Board) respectively. (c) …. (d) As and when a Government employee seeks and applies for retirement on medical grounds, the concerned appointing authority shall refer the case to the team of doctors (Medical Board) mentioned above. (e) …. (c) …. (d) As and when a Government employee seeks and applies for retirement on medical grounds, the concerned appointing authority shall refer the case to the team of doctors (Medical Board) mentioned above. (e) …. (f) The benefit of compassionate appointment shall be extended in case where a Government servant totally cease to be employable and become a burden on his family i.e., when a Government servant is totally incapacitated on account of serious illness/accident. (g) Accordingly, the disease for which medical invalidation shall be allowed may be any one of the following:- 1. Paralysis (i) All 4 limbs (ii) One side upper limb or lower limb (iii) Both lower limbs 2. End stage Renal diseases 3. End stage Liver diseases 4. Cancer with metastasis stage or secondaries 5. Dementla - Mental Disorder 6. Severe Parkinson disease 7. Loss of limbs (hands or legs) in case of drivers. (ii) The appointing authority under whom the employee seeking medical invalidation is working, shall, after receipt of the Medical Boards recommendations refer the matter to a District Level Committee of officers for scrutiny and its recommendations. Government hereby constitute the District Level Committee of the officers with the following:- 1. District Collector … Chairman 2. The District Medical & Health Officer … Member 3. The District Head of the Department in …Member/Convener which the employee is seeking retirement on Medical Invalidation. The District Level Committee shall consider the Medical Invalidation report given by the Medical Board constituted in para 16 (i) above and scrutinize the proposal for compassionate appointment on Medical Invalidation strictly in accordance with the guidelines and conditions stipulated in the existing instructions on the scheme. The committee is also competent to seek at its discretion personal presence of the employee seeking retirement on medical invalidation before considering the proposal.” 8. From the above it is clear that as per para 16 (ii) of G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 23.10.2008, the District Level Committee headed by the District Collector is competent to scrutinize the proposal for compassionate appointment on medical invalidation and also can seek personal presence of the employee seeking retirement on medical invalidation before consideration of such proposal. 9. From the above it is clear that as per para 16 (ii) of G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 23.10.2008, the District Level Committee headed by the District Collector is competent to scrutinize the proposal for compassionate appointment on medical invalidation and also can seek personal presence of the employee seeking retirement on medical invalidation before consideration of such proposal. 9. In the instant case, admittedly, after receiving the said report dated 15.05.2024 from the Regional Medical Board, respondent No.3, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 23.10.2008, has issued the notice dated 31.08.2024 to the petitioner asking her to appear physically before the District Level Committee on 05.09.2024 for examining her case. Accordingly, the petitioner has appeared physically before the Committee on 05.09.2024 and the Committee has scrutinized the proposal of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on medical invalidation and passed the impugned rejection order dated 27.11.2024. Thus, in the instant case, there is no procedural irregularity or illegality on the part of respondent No.3 and the physical examination of the petitioner by the District Level Committee is also inconsonance with the guidelines prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.661, dated 23.10.2008. 10. Further, even as can be seen from the order dated 18.10.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(Tr) No.6111 of 2017, on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned single Judge has opined that in cases covered under clause (g) (1) and (7) physical examination of the employee would be of some relevance. In the instant case, admittedly, the case of the petitioner falls under clause g (1). Therefore, the action of the respondents herein in physically examining the petitioner cannot be faulted with. 11. For the afore-mentioned reasons, this Court is of the view that there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.