THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P.NO.22054 of 2010 Between: 1.The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Special Chief Secretary to Government, Health Medical and Family Welfare Department, A.P., Hyderabad and another. . . Petitioners-Respondents And 1.Dr.Raheem Sulthana, Naturopathy Doctor, H.No.7-1-247, Balkampet, Central Park, Apartment, Pent House I & II, Hyderabad and another. .. Respondent-Petitioner in O.A HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P.NO.22054 of 2010 ORDER: (Per. Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) Heard learned Government Pleader for Services-I for the petitioners and Sri Abhinand Kumar Shavili, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent (applicant in O.A.No.8186 of 2008). Respondents 1 and 2 in the O.A have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order of the learned Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (Tribunal) dated 21.04.2010 allowing O.A.No.8186 of 2008; quashing the letter dated 22.01.2008 and memo dated 08.02.2008 issued by the State Government and the Commissioner, Department of Ayush, Hyderabad respectively; and directing the writ petitioners to consider, select and appoint the 1st respondent-applicant as Senior Medical Officer/Senior Lecturer for the remaining vacancy, pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 04.11.2006. The factual matrix in so far as is relevant for the disposal of this writ petition may briefly be noticed: On 04.11.2006 a direct recruitment notification was issued to fill up 10 posts of Senior Medical Officers/Senior Lecturers prescribing the maximum age limit for unreserved categories of candidates as 41 years. The applicant crossed 41 years on the relevant date i.e., 01.07.2006, the notified eligibility date. On the representation of the applicant for beneficent consideration, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.224, HM & FW (R.1) Department dated 05.07.2007 enhancing the upper age limit for recruitment to the posts of Senior Medical Officers/Senior Lecturers from 41 years to 46 years as a one time measure. By the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.224 however the process of recruitment pursuant to the notification dated 04.11.2006 had concluded and all the posts except one were filled up. The remaining unfilled vacancy pertains to a vacancy earmarked for OC (PHC) (Women). The applicant was not eligible for this vacancy since she was not physically challenged and the post was reserved for PHC. Subsequently, by the orders issued in G.O.Rt.No.1031 HM & FW (R.1) Department dated 02.08.2007, the State Government converted the post of Senior Medical Officer/Senior Lecturer earlier reserved for OC (Women) (PHC) to OC (W). Thereafter, the applicant submitted a representation dated 12.08.2007 requesting the writ petitioners to appoint her as Senior Medical Officer/Senior Lecturer and the 2nd petitioner-Commissioner, Department of Ayush recommended her case to the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner issued a memo dated 23.10.2007 directing the 2nd petitioner to take appropriate action in the matter. The 2nd petitioner however by the memo dated 17.11.2007 directed the applicant to apply whenever a notification was issued for the vacancy unfilled pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 04.11.2006 but later converted to a vacancy reserved for OC (W) in G.O.Rt.No.1031 dated 02.08.2007. Aggrieved at having to apply for the vacancy whenever subsequently notified, the applicant filed O.A.No.7850 of 2007 before the Tribunal and by the interim order dated 24.12.2007 the writ petitioners were directed to consider the case of the applicant for appointment as Senior Medical Officer/Senior lecturer in terms of G.O.Ms.No.224 and G.O.Rt.No.1031. However, on consideration of the applicant’s case pursuant to the interim directions of the Tribunal referred to above, the impugned memos were issued directing the applicant to apply whenever the post is re-notified. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant filed O.A.No.8186 of 2008 wherein the Tribunal passed the order already adverted to above. It requires to be noticed that out of 10 vacancies notified in the category of Senior Medical Officers/Senior Lecturers by the recruitment notification dated 04.11.2006, seven vacancies were filled up pursuant to the process of recruitment initiated thereby. Though the applicant became eligible on relaxation of the age requirement (pursuant to the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.224 dated 05.07.2007), there was no vacancy to accommodate her as the vacant posts were all filled up except the vacancy reserved for O.C (W) (PHC). The conversion of this post as OC (W) occurred on 02.08.2007 by issuance of G.O.Rt.No.1031. As a consequence of the conversion of the reservation category, those women who possessed qualification and eligibility as per the recruitment notification dated 04.11.2006 or any subsequent notification issued in this behalf, would be eligible to apply. It is axiomatic that since a post of Senior Medical Officer/Senior Lecturer is a public office, the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India enjoin the State to afford equal opportunity to all eligible persons to apply for public employment subject to the prescribed norms of eligibility and qualification. On conversion of the post as reserved for OC (W) with effect from 02.08.2007 (by issuance of G.O.Rt.No.1031), if the applicant was alone to be considered, the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be violated as the applicant would exclusively be considered without affording an opportunity to other eligible women candidates, if qualified and eligible, to apply. In the above circumstances, the orders issued by the petitioners advising the applicant to apply as and when the vacancy is notified again, is consistent with the mandate of equality enjoined by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and no order in the nature of Mandamus could have been issued by the Tribunal to divert the trajectory of the equality injunctions of the Constitution. On the aforesaid analysis, the order of the Tribunal impugned herein is unsustainable and is accordingly quashed. The 1st respondent-applicant is however at liberty to apply, as advised by the orders of the petitioners (impugned in the O.A) for the post of Senior Medical Officer/Senior lecturer as and when a fresh notification is issued, subject to eligibility. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM _______________________________________ JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 14.12.2011 Gsn