Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 261 (TS)

P. Anjaneyulu v. State of Telangana

2025-04-07

SUREPALLI NANDA

body2025
ORDER : (SUREPALLI NANDA, J.) Heard Sri S.Ram Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri K.S. Suneel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on record and learned Government Pleader for Medical & Health, Family Welfare appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under : “…to issue an order, direction or an appropriate writ more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the petitioner is entitled for regularization of their services as Lab Technician Grade II from the date of his initial appointment in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of the Honourable High Court by their judgment in W.P.No.16002/2010 dated 19/02/2020 and in view of the provision of Rule 5, Annexure II, Class XI of the Statutory Rules issued in GOMS No.565, dated 27/08/1979 by modifying the order of the 3 rd respondent regularizing the services of the petitioner from the date of passing of the Lab Technician Grade II certificate course to that of his initial appointment and also set aside the order of the 2 nd respondent in RC No.11221/VCB/2016, dated 10/04/2017 ordering the recovery of the alleged excess amount said to have paid to the petitioners and consequently direct the 3 rd respondent to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment with all consequential benefits such as pay and allowance, seniority etc and pass…” 3. It is specific case of the petitioner that the government for the composite state of Andhra Pradesh by GO.MS. No.243, HM and FW Department have sanctioned the posts of Lab Technician Grade II for all the districts. The basic qualification for the post is that the candidate must have passed the intermediate examination and must possess a certificate of lab technician course with proviso thereof, if candidate with their certificate of Lab Technician is not available, a candidate with a certificate of lab attendant may be appointed but he/she should pass the certified lab technician course within the period of probation. As there is no any candidate with the lab technician certificate, the respondent no. 3 appointed the petitioners, who are with lab attendant certificate, as lab attendants on temporary basis with no probation. It is further the case of the petitioner that the training course for Lab Technician was not conducted by any competent institutions till the year 2001. As there is no any candidate with the lab technician certificate, the respondent no. 3 appointed the petitioners, who are with lab attendant certificate, as lab attendants on temporary basis with no probation. It is further the case of the petitioner that the training course for Lab Technician was not conducted by any competent institutions till the year 2001. Thereafter the petitioner had undergone the said course and obtained the certificate and subsequently, on 03.09.2016, respondent No. 3 regularized the services of the petitioner in the cadre of Lab Technician Grade II. It is further the case of the petitioner that some candidates of Kurnool district have approached the Tribunal by filing OA No.546/2006 for regularization from the date of initial appointment and the same has been granted by the tribunal, however, the order passed by the tribunal was challenged by the respondents through W.P. No.16002/2010, but the same was dismissed by the Division bench of this court on 19.02.2020. Thereafter the District medical officer, Kurnool vide order dated 23.09.2020 regularized the services of the applicants before the tribunal in the said O.A.No.546/2006, as Lab Technician Grade II from the date of initial appointment. The petitioner herein is also similarly situated as the applicants before the tribunal, as such the order of the tribunal in the said O.a.No. 546 of 2006 will apply to the petitioner too. Hence the petitioner preferred the present writ petition. 4. PERUSED THE RECORD: A. The order of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, dated 19.02.2020 passed in W.P.No.16002 of 2010 and in particular para Nos.11 and 12 are extracted hereunder:- 11. A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal discloses, in clear terms, that the Tribunal took the said aspect into consideration and also considered the effect of Rule 17 (iii) (b) and 18(ii) (b) of the General Rules, and while referring to Rule 18 (b)(ii) of the Service Rules, the Tribunal categorically recorded a finding that the probation of the applicants is deemed to have been extended with retrospective effect. It is also not in dispute that till date, the services of the respondents herein/applicants were not terminated by the respondents for not acquiring the required qualification. 12. It is also not in dispute that till date, the services of the respondents herein/applicants were not terminated by the respondents for not acquiring the required qualification. 12. Having regard to the cogent and convincing reasons assigned by the Tribunal in the order impugned, this Court is not inclined to take a view different from the view expressed in the impugned order. It is also significant to note that in respect of the similarly situated employees in other districts, the authorities have regularized the services of the said employees from the date of their initial appointment. In order to demonstrate the same, learned counsel for the respondents herein/applicants has placed on record, during the course of arguments, i.e., an order passed by the District Medical and Health Officxer, Ongole, dated 29.10.2001 and the same is not in controversy. In the considered opinion of this Court, refusing to extend the same benefit to the respondents herein, would amount to discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. B. The counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 and in particular para Nos. 7 to 10 are extracted hereunder:- 7. In reply to para 5 it is further submitted that the petitioner was not forced to accept the offer of the post of Lab Attendant against the post Lab Technician as per the mention in the initial appointment orders Rc.No.6984/E6/95, dated 13.08.1995 which the applicant agreed and accepted so discharging duties of laboratory. 8. In reply to para 6 it is submitted that the averment is correct. The reasons are unknown for not conduct of training till 2001 as it was the policy of the Government as understood. The services of the petitioner have been regularized by District Medical & Health Officer, Medak at Sangareddy District (Erstwhile District) in the cadre of Lab Technician Gr II as contended in this para. 9. In reply to para 7 it is submitted that it is true to suggest that the 2nd respondent by his proceedings Rc No 11211/VCB/2016 dt. 10/4/2017 issued orders for recovery of pay and allowances paid in excess to the petitioner while he worked with designation of Lab Attendant. 10. It is further submitted that the 2 nd respondant issued orders for recovery as per the Government Memo. No. 12274/VC1/2015 HM&FW (VC1) Dept dt. 4/01/2016 ad No even dt. 10/4/2017 issued orders for recovery of pay and allowances paid in excess to the petitioner while he worked with designation of Lab Attendant. 10. It is further submitted that the 2 nd respondant issued orders for recovery as per the Government Memo. No. 12274/VC1/2015 HM&FW (VC1) Dept dt. 4/01/2016 ad No even dt. 6/3/2017 issued in pursuance of enquiry conducted by the Director General (V&E) Dept: No GA (V&E) Dept. Appraisal report No 128 (C.No 146/(V&E)/D2/dt 4/12/2015. As per the Government Memo No. 15326/ H2/1995, Dated: 14.08.1995 the post of Lab Technician Gr II was downgraded to the post of Lab Attendant Accordingly the petitioner w as appointed as Lab Attendant against the post of Lab Technician Gr I I and his services regularized in this cadre of Lab Attendant already and probation declared. In reply to para 8 it is submitted that as per the Government Memo mentioned supra where in the Government downgraded the post of Lab Technician Gr II to the post of Lab Attendant for filling up the vacancies of Lab Technicians Gr II timely and the Government was to take appropriate measures to conduct training. In reply to para 9 it is submitted that clarification from the Director of Public Health & Family Welfare Telangana State Hyderabad will be sought for to take further action as per the judgment dt. 19/02/2020 of the bench of Hon'ble High Court, Telangana, Hyderabad as contended in this para. In reply to para 10 it is submitted that the averment made here in this para is not in the knowledge of 2nd respondent. In reply to para 11 it is submitted that actions will be taken after receipt of clarification from Director of Public Health & Family Welfare, Telangana, Hyderabad who is the head of the department. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that it is true that after completion of training course, the services of the petitioner had been regularized in the cadre of Lab Technician Grade II by the 3 rd respondent vide proceedings Rc.No.1786/E7/2016, dated 03.09.2016, how ever, the petitioner is entitled for regularization of services with effect from the date of initial appointment i.e., in the year 1995. 6. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in support of his submissions placed reliance on the order of the Division Bench of this Court on the subject issue, dated 19.02.2020 passed in W.P.No.16002 of 2010 and contends that the petitioner is also entitled for similar relief as extended to the petitioners in W.P.No. 16002 of 2010. 7. Learned Government Pleader for Medical & Health, Family Welfare appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 8. Taking into consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Medical & Health, Family Welfare appearing on behalf of the respondents. c) The order of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 19.02.2020 passed in W.P.No.16002 of 2010 (referred to and extracted above). d) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 (referred to and extracted above). c) The order of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 19.02.2020 passed in W.P.No.16002 of 2010 (referred to and extracted above). d) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 (referred to and extracted above). The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for regularization of petitioner’s services as Lab Technician Grade II from the date of petitioner’s initial appointment in the year 1995 i.e., 13.08.1995 in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment, dated 19.02.2020 passed in W.P.No.16002 of 2010 without reference to the impugned proceedings of the 2 nd respondent in Rc.No.1121/VCB/ 2016, dated 10.04.2017, duly taking into consideration the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment, dated 19.02.2020 passed in W.P.No.16002 of 2010 and to extend the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition as extended in respect of similarly situated employees i.e., to the applicants in O.A.No.546 of 2006, regularizing the services of the said employees from the date of initial appointment in the year 1995, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order in accordance to law and inconformity with principles of natural justice, by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners and pass appropriate orders and duly communicate the decision on the subject issue pertaining to regularization of petitioner’s service as Lab Technician Grade II with effect from the date of petitioner’s initial appointment as Medical Lab Attendant vide Proc.No.6984/E6/95, dated 13.08.1995 issued by the 3 rd respondent herein to the petitioner. How ever, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.