THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.NO.21318 of 2010 30-08-2010 BETWEEN; The Government of “A.P rep. by its Principal Secretary, Health,Medical and Family Welfare Department, Hyderabad. ...Petitioner vs. Dr.M.Subrahmanyam, and others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.NO.21318 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) The writ petition is directed against the order dated 20-04 2010 allowing O.A.No.12487 of 2009 filed by the 1s respondent herein assailing the order of the petitioner in G.O.Rt.No.149 dated 17-11-2009 promoting/appointing the 2nd respondent a Director of Medical Education on the ground that the said appointment i contrary to the Rule 5 of the A.P. Health and Family Welfare Servic Special Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.261, HM&FW, dated 28-06-2002. The 1st respondent was working as Regional Director of Medical an Health and the 2nd respondent as Additional Director in the Directorate o Medical and Health and In-charge Commissioner of A.P.Vydhya Vidha Parishad. Rule.5 of the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.261 inter alia ordain that fo eligibility for appointment as Director of Medical Education, a person mus have put in not less than three years of service, of which at least two year should be in the feeder category; and that no person shall be eligible fo promotion to the post of Director of Health, if he/she has completed 5 years of age on the date of approval of panel by the Government. As non of the candidates, neither the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent nor an other officer in the feeder category had the requisite qualifications fo consideration for appointment as the Director of Health, the Stat Government relaxed the requirement of having two years service in th feeder category, in favour of the 2nd respondent and the DPC considere and recommended his case for appointment as Director of Health. It i however the admitted factual position that as on the date of approval of th panel by the Government, the 2nd respondent had completed 57 years o age and therefore was ineligible for appointment in view of the Clause.V o Rule 5 of the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.261. In view of the 2n respondent’s ineligibility, the learned Tribunal by the order impugne allowed the application of the 1st respondent and declared the 2n respondent herein as ineligible for appointment as Director of Healt notwithstanding that the Government in G.O.Rt.No.1054 dated 10-08-200 had relaxed Rule.7 which prescribed that no person shall be eligible fo promotion or transfer unless he/she is an approved probationer and ha put in not less than three years of service in the category from whic promotion or transfer is to be made. The Tribunal held that though the 1s respondent herein (the applicant) is the only person who had not crosse 57 years, the 2nd respondent was appointed as Director o Health on the basis of the approval by the Government, when the 2n respondent had crossed 57 years of age,(by the date of such approval contrary to Rule 5(v) and set aside G.O.Ms.No.1492 dated 17-11-2009 The learned Government Pleader for Services. I reiterates before u the same contentions as have rightly found disfavour before the learne Tribunal. For reasons succinctly recorded by the Tribunal with which w concur, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to b dismissed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission No order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 30th AUGUST 2010. TSNR