IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAYOF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.No.5005 of 2010 Between: Dr. S. Vanajakshi, D/o S. Malakondaiah .. Petitioner AND The Director of Health & Family Welfare, Sultan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad .. Respondent ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed The writ petition is filed assailing the correctness of the order dated 06-02-2009 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2491 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. holding the same to be devoid of merit. The factual background for the writ petition is that pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.929 M & H dated 26-09-1980 issued by the Government approving the selection of ST candidates against the carried-forward vacancies reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates for appointment of Civil Assistant Surgeon including Health Officers in A.P. Medical and Health Services, the petitioner was initially appointed on temporary basis vide proceedings in Rc.No.23546/E6.C/80, dated 03-11-1980 and joined at Primary Health Centre, Maredumilli on 24-11-1980. Subsequent thereto, she was regularly selected through APPSC and was shown at S.No.558 of 1982 batch in the provisional list of Civil Assistant Surgeon. It is the further case that her services were regularized with effect from 30-07-1982 the date on which she was recruited through APPSC as the basis not from the date of her initial appointment i.e. 24-11-1980 vide G.O.Ms.No.929, dated 26-09-1980 on the ground that there was a break up in her services for prosecuting Post Graduate Course from 01-04-1981 till her appointment through APPSC. Further, the similarly situated doctors, who were appointed initially on temporary basis and who were later recruited through APPSC like the petitioner, got regularization of their services with effect from the date of their initial appointment. As the respondent refused to consider the case of the petitioner in regularizing her services with effect from the date of her initial appointment like other persons, the petitioner filed O.A.No.2491 of 2003 before the Tribunal seeking the same relief. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. by the order dated 06-02- 2009 holding that as the petitioner is not similarly situated person having not put in continuous services from the date of her temporary appointment, regularization orders cannot be issued from the date of her temporary appointment. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner mainly argued that the Tribunal did not give any opportunity to the petitioner to hear the case despite non-appearance on her behalf and that the Tribunal erroneously dismissed the O.A., which is contrary to the principles of natural justice for which the learned Government Pleader for Services-I seriously opposed. Having heard the learned counsel for both parties and having perused the order impugned, it appears that the Tribunal erroneously dismissed the O.A. purely basing on the material on record and the contents of the counter affidavit without hearing the applicant despite non-appearance on her behalf. The Tribunal did not even remotely state about giving reasonable opportunities to the applicant. The Tribunal could have taken such a course of action in the manner in which it was taken only after giving reasonable opportunities of being heard to the applicant. It is incomprehensible as to how the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. in the absence of giving reasonable opportunities of hearing the applicant. The Tribunal should have given one more opportunity instead of dismissing the O.A. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the writ petition, we deem that interests of justice would be sub-served, if the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for proper adjudication in the matter after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the applicant. Therefore, the order impugned suffers from serious illegality calling for interference by this Court and hence, the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 06-02-2009 in O.A.No.2491 of 2003 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and remitted the matter to the Tribunal directing to dispose of the same in accordance with law on merits after affording every reasonable opportunity of hearing to the applicant preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is needless to state that the writ petitioner is at liberty to place all relevant material in support of her case before the Tribunal so as to have effective adjudication in the matter. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 04-03-2010 Ksn