IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25512 of 2008 Between: Dr. S. Rama Devi, W/o. Sri P. Meharanand, Badenapally Village, Sircilla Mandal, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Dr. MSV Ramesh, S/o. Rama Rao, A.P. Social Welfare Residential School (APSWRS), Kopperla, Vizianagaram District. 2 Dr. D. Suresh, S/o. Dasaradhi, Srikrishnapuram, Visakhapatnam District. 3 Dr. P. Kosuma Kumari, D/o. Amrutha Rao, Sabbavaram, Visakhapatnam. 4 Dr. MP Laxmi, D/o. Simhachalam, Srikakulam. 5 Dr. BVSVV Prasad, S/o. Kasivisweswara Rao, Duppalavalasa, Srikakulam. 6 Dr. G. Nagabhushana Rao, S/o. Swanaidu, Vizianagaram. 7 Dr. L. Prasads Rao, S/o. A. Naidu, Devarapalli, Visakhapatnam. 8 Dr. K.K. Naidu, S/o. L. Naidu, Konam Madugula Mandal, Visakhapatnam. 9 Dr. K.K. Naidu, S/o. L. Naidu, Cherial, Warangal District. 10 Dr. Ch. Ramulu, s/o. Yakaiah, Sirpur, Adilabad District. 11 Dr. K. Suraiah, S/o. Mallaiah, Manthani, Karimnagar District. 12 Dr. M. Sridevi, D/o. Narayana Reddy, Mallapur, Karimnagar. 13 Dr. B. Anjaneyulu, S/o. Yellaiah, for girls, Parvathagiri, Warangal District. 14 Dr. N. Sridharachary, S/o. Badraiah, Husnabad, Karimnagar District. 15 Dr. NRV Pavan Kumar, S/o. Badraiah, Narsampet, Warangal District. 16 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretary, Department of Health, Medical & Family Welfare Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 17 The Commissioner, Department of AYUSH, 5th floor, APGL Building, Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad. .....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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus i) to declare the action of the respondents in not treating services of the petitioner as Health Supervisor on contract basis on par with that the Contract Medical Officers by giving weightage in filling up the regular Medical Officers Posts, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of Principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India; and ii) consequently to declare the Order dated 13-3- 2007 of the AP Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in OA No. 7147 of 2005 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust apart from being violative of principles of natural justice, confirming action of the respondents in not treating the services of Health Supervisors on par with that of the Contract Medical Officers; and iii) consequently to set aside the same directing the respondents to give weightage to the petitioner on par with that the Contract Medical Officer for appointment to the post of Medical Officers in the department of AYUSH along with contract employees including the existing vacancies, as has been notified by the second respondent vide Notification dated 23-10-2008 and iv) pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NANDIGAM KRISHNA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.16 and 17: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FAMI.WELFARE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25512 of 2008 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed,J) In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not treating the services of the petitioner who is working as Health Officer on par with the Contract Medical Officers by giving weightage in filling up the posts of regular Medical Officers as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. She also seeks for a consequential direction to declare the order dated 13.3.2007 of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad made in O.A. No. 7147 of 2005 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and to set aside the same. The facts in brief are that pursuant to a notification dated 25.1.1997 issued by the Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society, Hyderabad, for recruitment of Health Supervisors in Social Welfare Residential Schools located all over the State on contract basis, the petitioner applied to the same and on being selected, she was appointed as Health Supervisor on contract basis on a remuneration of Rs. 3775/- per month. According to the petitioner, the qualification required for the post of Health Supervisor is degree from any university in Ayurveda/Homeopathy/Allopathy system of medicine. She further states that the qualification for appointment of Supervisor and Medical Officer is also one and the same and the duties assigned to them are also common. While things stood thus, the Government issued notification on 12.4.2005 inviting applications for filling up the post of regular Medical Officers in the Department of Ayush. Petitioner further states that the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 90, Health, Medical & Family Welfare Department, dated 23.3.2005 prescribing the method of selection and as per the said G.O., all the posts of Medical Officers have to be filled up by giving weightage of 45 marks subject to the compliance of conditions stipulated in para-B of the said G.O. and subject to the condition that they should have completed minimum of six months continuous service as contract Medical Officer and that they should have put in satisfactory service without any remarks. Pursuant to the same, the respondents 1 to 15 who are similarly situated approached the respondent-authorities requesting to treat them on par with the Medical Officers who were working on contract basis and to extend the weightage provided under the aforesaid G.O. However, when there was no response from the respondent-authorities, they have approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing original application in O.A.No. 7147 of 2005, impugned in this writ petition, seeking a direction to the respondent- authorities to consider their cases for appointment as Medical Officers in the Department of Ayush by treating their services on par with contract Medical Officers by extending the benefit of weightage provided under G.O. Ms. No. 90, dated 23.5.2005. The Tribunal, through the impugned order dismissed the O.A. Assailing the said order, the petitioner, who is not a party to the said O.A., filed the present writ petition by obtaining the leave of the Court. Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would contend that though the petitioner and the unofficial respondents have been appointed as Health Supervisors, they have actually been discharging the duties of Medical Officers and in such circumstances, they ought to have been appointed as Medical Officers by extending the benefit of weightage as provided under G.O. Ms. No. 90, dated 23.3.2005. He further contended that the Tribunal without taking all these aspects into consideration, erroneously dismissed the O.A. filed by the unofficial respondents. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondent-authorities would contend that since the petitioner and the unofficial respondents have been recruited as Health Supervisors, they cannot be appointed as Medical Officers and are not entitled for the benefit of weightage. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner and the unofficial respondents herein were appointed as Health Supervisors on contract basis in pursuance of the notification dated 25.1.1997. There is also no dispute about the fact that through G.O. Ms. No. 59, dated 9.3.2005, the Government has permitted the Commissioner, Department of Ayush to issue a notification to fill up 58 vacancies of Medical Officers on regular basis in various dispensaries/hospitals and institutions under the administrative control of Commissioner, Department of Ayush and through another G.O., namely, G.O. Ms. No. 90, dated 23.3.2005, it also prescribed the methodology of selection in respect of Ayurveda/Homeo/Unani system of medicine. It is relevant to extract Para-2-A of the said G.O., which reads thus: “A. Selection process: a. Total Marks – 100 b. 5 5 marks will be allocated against marks obtained in the qualifying examination. c. Weightage upto 45 marks will be given to Medical Officers working on contract basis with the conditions shown at ‘B’ of this para. d. They should have minimum six months of continuous service as contract Medical Officer to be eligible for weightage. e. They should have put in satisfactory service. The candidate will not be given any weightage, if any adverse remarks are passed. Candidates should enclose a certificate from the controlling officers concerned. On a perusal of clause (d) of the aforesaid G.O., it is seen that a person who has put in a minimum of six months’ continuous service as Medical Officer alone was eligible for the benefit of weightage. In the instant case, since the petitioner and the unofficial respondents have been appointed as Health Supervisors on contract basis, they cannot compare their services with that of Medical Officer. There is a clear distinction between the post of Health Supervisor and Medical Officer. Further in view of the assertion made by the respondent-authorities in the counter filed before the Tribunal that the post of Health Supervisor is equivalent to that of a Staff Nurse, the post of Health Supervisor cannot be equated to that of Medical Officer. They cannot claim the benefit of weightage as provided under the aforesaid G.O. In so far as the question whether the Health Supervisors are discharging the same duties and responsibilities that are being discharged by the regular Medical Officers is concerned, the same cannot be gone into by this Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction and the respondent-authorities alone can decide that aspect. The Tribunal, therefore, taking all these factors into consideration, rightly dismissed the O.A. In the circumstances, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner from making an application to the respondent-authorities seeking to extend the benefit of weightage as provided under G.O. Ms. No. 90, dated 23.3.2005. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J DATE: 21st November, 2008 ________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY,J pnb