HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4918 of 2005 Dated: 28-06-2010 Between: Smt. Geetabai. … Petitioner And The Director, S.V.Institute of Medical Science, Tirupati. … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4918 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by a Staff Nurse, working in Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences, Tirupati, seeking directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent in not admitting the petitioner on 30.07.1993 as Head Nurse after selecting her for the post of Head Nurse, as arbitrary and illegal. The respondent-University has issued the employment advertisement, which was published in Hindu newspaper on 11.11.1992, to fill up the vacancy of Head Nurse. The petitioner is one of the applicants, who was called for interview. As per the advertisement, the qualifications stipulated for the post of Head Nurse were, (1) Graduation (2) Preferably Internal Science Certificate and (3) Certificate in general sciences, with experience of five years. The Selection Committee, at first instance, selected the petitioner and also issued the appointment order, temporarily appointing the petitioner as Head Nurse. However, prior to her joining in service pursuant to such appointment order, when it was noticed that she was not possessing the requisite qualifications to hold the post of Head Nurse, she was offered the post of Staff Nurse and she has received and acknowledged the said order and joined as Staff Nurse on 2nd of August 1993. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that she was possessing the qualifications required for the post of Head Nurse, and inspite of her selection and appointment to the post of Head Nurse, she is deprived of the post of Head Nurse, as such, she seeks declaration by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent in not admitting her on 30.07.1993 as Head Nurse, as illegal. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the Director of Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences, Tirupati. In the counter affidavit, while generally denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that though the petitioner was initially given appointment order, dated 15.07.1993, temporarily appointing her as Head Nurse, but at the time of admitting her into service, as it was found that her qualifications were not enough to hold the post of Head Nurse, and as she herself was willing to work as Staff Nurse, she joined as Staff Nurse in the institute on 2nd of August 1993. It is further stated in the counter that the petitioner, having wilfully joined in the post of Staff Nurse as she did not possess the qualifications required for the post of Head Nurse, cannot seek for any directions for appointing her as Head Nurse, at this point of time. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the respondents are following the Standing Orders notified by The Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences under the NIMS Act, 1989, and it is submitted that the petitioner has passed only HSC and Diploma in Nursing along with a certificate of registration, but it is to be noted that the respondents have notified in the notification, the qualifications for appointment to the post of Head Nurse as, (1) Graduation (2) Preferably Internal Science Certificate and (3) Certificate in general sciences, with experience of five years. The alternative qualifications, which are sought to be relied on by the petitioner, were not notified for appointment. In any event, even according to the petitioner, she only completed HSC and equates such course, which she had undergone in the State of Tamil Nadu, with the Intermediate course in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Unless there is certification by competent authority declaring equivalency, it is not for the petitioner on her own, to state that the course of study undergone by her in the State of Tamil Nadu, is equivalent to the Intermediate course in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Under the Andhra Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1971, it is the Board, which is empowered to consider such equivalencies having regard to the syllabus, curriculum, etc., but as the petitioner did not secure such equivalency certificate, merely basing on the Higher Secondary Certificate, cannot seek equivalency on her own. It is also to be noted that even in terms of the notification, the alternate qualifications were not notified at all. The only qualification notified was Graduation, and admittedly, petitioner was not having such qualification of Graduation, and in that view of the matter, she was not qualified to be appointed as Head Nurse. Though the petitioner was given temporary appointment order, but at the time of joining, having noticed that she was not possessing the requisite qualifications, she was offered Staff Nurse post, which she has accepted. Having accepted and joined in the said post, it is not open for her to file a writ petition nearly after 12 years, seeking directions for appointment as Head Nurse, pursuant to her selection in the year 1993. Though such abnormal delay and laches on the part of the petitioner were sought to be explained by stating that repeated representations are being given, but the same is no reason to explain such inordinate delay. Having accepted the alternative post of Staff Nurse in 1993 and having joined in the said post without any protest, at this point of time, the petitioner cannot seek for directions to appoint her as Head Nurse. It is also the case of the petitioner that her name was not shown in the seniority list of Staff Nurses. But, from the counter affidavit, it is clear that though at first instance, it was not shown, but subsequently, on the representation made by the petitioner, the name of the petitioner was included in the provisional seniority list. Further, it is stated that in view of the orders passed by this Court in some other writ petitions, the final seniority list is not prepared. Although it is not stated in the counter, but it is fairly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for respondents that the petitioner is a candidate next in the order to be considered for the post of Head Nurse, as per seniority in the category of Staff Nurse. In that view of the matter, while declining to grant the relief as prayed for in the writ petition, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner strictly as per her seniority in the category of Staff Nurse, while filling up the next arising vacancy in the category of Head Nurse. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 28th June 2010 ajr