Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 262 (TS)

Ch. Narsimhulu 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 petitioners on record and learned Government Pleader for Medical & Health, Family Welfare appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioners 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 petitioners are entitled for regularization of their services as Lab Technician Grade II from the date of their 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 orders of the 3 rd and 4 th respondents regularizing the services of the petitioners from the date of passing of the Lab Technician Grade II certificate course to that of their 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 and 4 th respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment with all consequential benefits such as pay and allowance, seniority etc and pass…” 3. It is specific case of the petitioners 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. 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 petitioners that the training course for Lab Technician was not conducted by any competent institutions till the year 2001. Thereafter the petitioners have undergone the said course and obtained the certificate and subsequently, on 03.09.2016, respondent No. 3 regularized the services of the petitioners in the cadre of Lab Technician Grade II. It is further the case of the petitioners 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 petitioners herein are 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 petitioners too. Hence the petitioners 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. 6 to 11 are extracted hereunder:- 6) In reply to Para NO.6, it is submitted that it was the policy of the Government to conduct training of Lab- Technology (Diploma) as it is mentioned in their letter no. 15326/H2/95, dated: 14-08-1995 addressed to the district collector Nalogonda where in it is clarified that Government would consider appropriate measures and train them adequately in due course. Subsequently the appointees (Lab-Attendants) were sent for DMLT to IPM as in service candidates and due to passing the course their services were regularized in the cadre of Lab Technician Gr-II from the next day of the last Examination. 7) In reply to Para No.7, it is submitted that the process for recovery which is to start for of excess payment while working as Lab-Attendant paid on par with the salary applicable to Lab-Technician Gr-Il as per the proceedings of R-2 No.11221/VCB/2016, dated 10-04-2017 issued orders for recovery of excess payment in pursuance of the Government Memo No. 12274/VCI/2015 HM&FW (CI) Department Dated: 04-01-2016 which was issued on the Appraisal Report No. 128/C.No. 146/V&E) Department Dated: 04-12-2015 given in the enquiry conducted by the Director General (V &E) Department No.GA (V&E) Dept. 8) In reply to Para No.8, it is submitted that the petitioners were appointed as Lab-Attendants against the post of Lab- Technician Gr -II down-graded as Lab-Attendant as per the Government clarification mentioned in the above paras. It is submitted that the contention for regular appointment as Lab-Technician Gr-II with intermediate vocational Lab- Technology Qualification does not have foot to stand as per the orders of the Government which were in force. Regarding conduct of training course for the appointees as Lab-Attendants it has policy of the Government and it is clearly mentioned in the clarification issued by the Government that Government would take appropriate measures to train the appointees (Lab-Attendants) so the petitioners were sent as in So the petitioners were sent to undergo training (DMLT) as in service candidates. It is further submitted that after selection of the petitioner/petitioners they were appointed as Lab- Attendants (due to down grading of Lab-Technician Gr- II post) and were awarded pay scale applicable to the post of Lab-Attendants the petitioners have accepted the orders and joined duty as Lab-Attendants. If the petitioners were reluctant to the appointment orders as Lab-Attendants they could have refused/rejected at that time only and would have not joined as Lab-Attendants so contention to this extent is not correct. 9) In reply to Para No. 9, it is submitted that the petitioners were appointed initially as Lab-Attendant with Vocational Qualification against the post of Lab-Technician Gr -II down -graded by the Government due to non- availability of qualified candidates according to the clarification issued by the Government in 8/1995 given to all the district collectors. 10) In reply to Para NO.12, it is submitted that the petitioners were appointed as Lab-Attendant with the intermediate Vocational qualification against the post of Lab-Technician Gr -II (Down graded as Lab-attendant) as per the then standing instructions of the Government. Further it is submitted that the conduct of training to the appointees to pass certificate Course was the matter with the policy of the Government. However Later the Government sent such appointees to undergo training course in Medical Lab-Technology as in-service candidates. After the competition of training course the services of the petitioners were regularized in the cadre of Lab-Technician Gr -II. 11) It is Submitted that the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. After the competition of training course the services of the petitioners were regularized in the cadre of Lab-Technician Gr -II. 11) It is Submitted that the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. The petitioners having accepted for appointment in the year 1995 at this distance of time turn around and fetching that they were appointed as Lab- Technician Grade-II is no legs to stand for the scrutiny of the law. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that it is true that after completion of training course, the services of the petitioners 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 petitioners are entitled for regularization of services with effect from the date of initial appointment i.e., in the year 1995. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners 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 petitioners are 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 petitioners. 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 petitioners 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 petitioners for regularization of petitioners’ services as Lab Technician Grade II from the date of petitioners’ 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 petitioners 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 petitioners’ service as Lab Technician Grade II with effect from the date of petitioners’ 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 petitioners. How ever, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.