1. This writ petition is filed to call for the original records relating to the impugned memo Rc.No.11229/E1 A/2016/1064 Dated 27.09.2019 of the 2nd
respondent is violating vide amended G.O.Ms.No 145 dated 15.06.2004 vide Rule 11B and set aside the same as void, violating the principals of
natural justice by virtue of order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in WP No.13624 of 2015, dated 02.06.2017, by restoring the notional
promotion of the petitioner, which was already granted on par with his junior for future notional benefits.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Civil Assistant Surgeon in Mahabubnagar District, during the
recruitment year 1998 and completed PG Diploma course in DCH at Gandhi Medical College, Secunderabad, under service quota during the year
2004-2006 and successfully completed PG Course in 2018. Thereafter, respondent No.2, posted petitioner as Civil Assistant Surgeon to Niloufer
Hospital, Hyderabad, Vide Rc.No.6157/E6.B/2018, Dated 10.07.2018. Later, the respondent No.2 issued promotional posting order to petitioner, vide
proceeding Rc.No.11219/E1.A/2016, dated 16.02.2019, in the category 4 of the Deputy Civil Surgeon of the Telangana State Medical and Health
Services for the panel year 2012-2013 on par with junior Dr.D Gnana Prasunna, with effect from 08.11.2013, along with the place of posting at
Kumaram Bheem, Asifabad District as Deputy DM & HO from the present working place at RMO, Niloufer Hospital, Hyderabad. It is further
submitted that the petitioner could not join the new place of posting immediately on medical grounds and the same was informed to respondent No.2
with a proof of medical certificate, by requesting another chance of promotion as Deputy Civil Surgeon in Hyderabad District on spouse ground.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner made request for promotion as Deputy Civil Surgeon in Hyderabad District on
spouse ground, the respondent No.2, rejected the petitioner’s request for Deputy Civil Surgeon on spouse grounds vide RC No. 11229/E1.A/2016
dated 12.04.2019 and informed that petitioner’s name was already considered and approved for promotion as Deputy Civil Surgeon for the panel
year 2012-2013 notionally and hence the same cannot be included in the subsequent panels for promotion. Thereafter, petitioner made two applications
with the same request for promotion as Deputy Civil Surgeon in Hyderabad District on spouse ground but the respondent No.2 rejected the same, by
speaking orders vide letter dated 27.09.2019, by reiterating earlier order dated 12.04.2019, along with forfeiting petitioner’s notional promotion on
the ground that the petitioner did not reported within the stipulated time.
4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order vide RC No. 11229/E1.A/2016/1064 dated 27. 09.2019, by the respondent No.2
infringed petitioner’s right to promotional opportunity in the category of Deputy Civil surgeon for future panel years including petitioner’s
earlier sanctioned notional promotion. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation on 17.12.2019 to the respondent No.2 requesting for posting as
Deputy Civil surgeon on spouse ground in Hyderabad. It is further submitted that as per an amendment made to G.O.Ms. No.145, dated 15.06.2004
vide Rule 11B, wherein it is stated that an employee who does not join within stipulated time in the post shall lose his promotional right/offer for the
current panel year and name shall be placed before the next departmental promotion committee for consideration in the next panel year subject to
availability of vacancy.
5. Though various grounds are raised in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner restricts his prayer seeking liberty to petitioner to pursue his
promotion eligibility in terms of G.O.Ms.No.145 dated 15.06.2004 vide Rule 11B and pray this Court to direct the respondents to consider the same
and pass appropriate orders.
6. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II submits that to the extent petitioner for pursuing his promotion eligibility, the respondents may be
directed to pass appropriate orders as per the petitioner’s eligibility.
7. Heard, both the sides. Perused the record.
8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and without
going into the merits of the case, the present writ petition is be disposed of, granting liberty to petitioner to pursue his promotion eligibility in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.145 dated 15.06.2004 vide Rule 11B, and the respondents are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, if the petitioner
is otherwise eligible.
9. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous application, if any pending, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
