IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 568 of 2009 Between: Ch.Venkata Ramana S/o.Sri Venkata Rangaiah R/o. Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 B.Narsimhulu Mahabubnagar District at Mahabubnagar. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Health, Medical & Family Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 3 The Director of Health, Kothi, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and call for the records relating to and connected with orders of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal dated 22.12.2008 rendered in O.A.No.8999 of 2008 and quash or set aside the same with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI P.NAVEEN RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 568 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri. Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order, dated 22.12.2008 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.8999 of 2008. The writ petitioner is the 3rd respondent and the 1st respondent herein is the applicant in the O.A. The status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the O.A for the sake of convenience. The applicant filed O.A.No.8999 of 2008 seeking to set aside G.O.Rt.No.1652, dated 31.10.2008 to the extent of posting the 3rd respondent as District Medical & Health Officer (FAC), Mahabubnagar District and consequently, to direct the official respondents to continue the applicant as District Medical and Health Officer, Mahabubnagar District, as per his seniority and eligibility, on the ground that he was promoted in the panel year 2005-06 as Civil Surgeon holding the post of District Medical and Health Officer on Full Additional charge basis and therefore, he is entitled to be posted as a regular District Medical and Health Officer. The Tribunal having observed that the applicant has been promoted for the panel year 2005-06 and he is a senior to the unofficial respondent in the category of District Medical and Health Officer and Additional District Medical and Health Officer and therefore, the applicant cannot be disturbed, allowed the O.A. Having aggrieved by the same, the unofficial respondent therein filed the present writ petition. The learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent-writ petitioner vehemently contended that the post of Additional District Medical & Health Officer and District Medical & Health Officer are of the same cadre in respect of the status and emoluments and a person promoted as Civil Surgeon is entitled to be posted either as Additional District Medical & Health Officer or as District Medical & Health Officer. It is further contended that the 1st respondent-applicant was only holding the full additional charge of the post of District Medical & Health Officer, Mahaboobnagar, which is in addition to his substantive posting as Additional District Medical & Health Officer. It is further contended that on account of promotion of the 3rd respondent-writ petitioner, the applicant is only divested of his full additional charge arrangement and no other right of the 1st respondent-applicant is affected and therefore, the 1st respondent-applicant cannot be permitted to question the action of the authorities, as a matter of right in respect of full additional charge arrangements while he is having the substantive post and that the Tribunal has failed to consider all these facts and hence, the order under challenge is liable to be set aside. While contending so, the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent-petitioner placed reliance on a decision rendered by the Apex Court in Ramakant Shripad Sinai Advalpalkar Vs. Union of India and others[1], wherein it is held that “The third contention is that appellant’s ‘in charge’ arrangements in the higher post had continued for so long a period that a determination of equivalence on the basis of his lower substantive post would become arbitrary. This contention ignores the fact that an ‘in charge’ arrangement is not a recognition of or is necessarily based on seniority and that, therefore, no rights, equities or expectations could be built upon it. The third contention is also unmeritorious.” The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent-applicant while opposing the contentions raised by the 3rd respondent-petitioner, contended that the applicant was promoted for the panel year 2005-06 as Civil Surgeon whereas the 3rd respondent-writ petitioner was promoted in the panel year 2006-07 and therefore, the posting of the petitioner herein over the head of the applicant in the post of District Medical & Health Officer, is illegal and arbitrary and in this regard, the Tribunal has arrived at a right conclusion and therefore, the order under challenge needs no interference. Heard the learned Government Pleader also and perused the material available on record. Before going into the merits of the case, it is relevant to note the facts of the case in detail. The 1st respondent-applicant was posted as Additional District Medical & Health Officer in Mahboobnagar District and he was also placed as full additional charge for the post of District Medical & Health Officer, Mahboobnagar vide orders dated 25.6.2008. Thus, the 1st respondent-applicant has been holding full additional charge of the post of the District Medical & Health Officer in addition to his regular duties as Additional District Medical & Health Officer. While so, the writ petitioner was promoted and posted as District Medical & Health Officer at Mahboobnagar against a clear vacancy. Having aggrieved by the said action, the applicant approached the Tribunal challenging the posting of the writ petitioner. A perusal of the material available on record and the contentions raised by the learned Counsel on either side coupled with category​ (3) (a) of the A.P. Gazette Notification No:31-A, dated 1.8.2002, makes it clear that the post of District Medical & Health Officer and the post of Addl. District Medical & Health Officer are one and the same and apart from that, there is no distinction as to the superiority between these two posts. At this stage, it is to be noted that with a view to run the administration of the District smoothly and effectively, the Government has carved out the posts of District Medical & Health Officer and also Additional District Medical & Health Officer. The fact that remains to be considered is that while the applicant has been working in the post of Addl. District Medical & Health Officer, he was allotted the full additional charge of the post of District Medical & Health Officer. In view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the above citation, it can be said that additional charge is nothing but an interim arrangement till the regular vacancy is filled up and the same will not confer any right to question the action of the authorities as a matter of right, on one pretext or other. But, the Tribunal has failed to consider all these aspects particularly category (3) (a) of the above Gazette Notification, which clarifies the posts of District Medical & Health Officer and the Additional District Medical & Health Officer as one and the same. In this view of the matter and in view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the above citation and the definition of category (3) (a) of the Notification, we have no hesitation to hold that the Tribunal is not justified in passing the order under challenge and consequently, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the order of the Tribunal is set aside. No costs. __________________________ Justice Ghulam Mohammed ____________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar Date: 26.2.2009 NOTE: C.C. in 3 days. (BO) Nn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 568 OF 2009 (Order delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) 26.02.2009 [1] AIR 1991 SC 1145