High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affrdavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or an appropriate writ more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the petitioner is entitled for regularization of their services as Lab Technician Grade ll from the date of their initial appointment in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of the Honourable High court by their judgment in WP No.'16002t2010 dated 1910212020 and in view of the provision of Rule 5, Annexure ll, class Xl of the Statutory Rules issued in Golvs No 565, dated 27.08.1979 by modifying the order of the 3rd respondent regularizing the services of the petitioner from the date of passing of the Lab Technician Grade Il certificate course to that of their initial appointment and also set 'aside the order of the 2nd respondent in RC No.11221NC812016 dated 1OtO4l2O17 ordering the recovery of the alleged excess amount said to have paid to the petitioner and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to regularize the t I services of the petitioner from the date of their initial appointment with all consequential benefits such as pay and allowance, seniority etc. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition unde r Section 1 5'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order of the 2nd respondent in RC. No.112211 VCBI2016, dated 1010412017, orderirg recovery of pay and allowances, pending disposal of the above Wrrt Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S.RAM REDDY FOR SRI K.S.SUNEEL Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FW T,he Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.1698 oF 202L ORDER Heard Sri S.Ram Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri K.S.Suneel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on record and learned Government Pleader for Medical & Health, Family Welfare appearing on behalf of the respondents. ,

2. The oetitioner aDD roached the Court seekino Draver as under: "...to issue an order, direction or an appropriate writ more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the petitioner is entitled for regularization of their services as Lab Technician Grade II from the date of his initial appointment in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of the Honourable High Court by their judgment in W.P.No.16002/2070 dated 19/02/2020 and in view of the provision of Rule 5, Annexure II, Class XI of the Statutory Rules issued in GOMS No.565, dated 27 /OB/t979 by modifying the order oF the 3'd respondent regularizing the services of the petitioner from the date of passing of the Lab Technician Grade II certificate course to that of his initial appointment and also set aside the order of the 2nd respondent in RC No.11221IVCB/2016, dated 10/04/2017 ordering the l I l 2 SN, J recovery of the alleged excess amount said to have paid to the petitioners and consequently direct the 3.d respordent to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment with all consequential benefits such as . pay and allowance, sen iority etc and pass..."

3. It is specific case of the petitioner that the government for the compoiite state of Andhra Pradesh by GO.MS. No.243, HM and FW Department have sanctioned the posts of Lab Technician Grade II for all the districts. The basic qualification for the post is that the candidate must have passed the intermediate examination and must possess a certificate of lab technician course with proviso thereof, if candidate with their certificate of Lab Technir:ian is not available, a candidate with a certiFicate of lab attendant may be appointed but he/she should pass the certified laLl technician course within the period of probation. As there is no any candidate with the lab technician certificate, the respondent no.3 appointed the petitioners, who are with lab attendant certificate, as lab attendants on temporary basis with no probation. It is further the case of the petitioner that the training course for l-ab Technician was not conducted by any competent t i I I I I I Ti t t I I i i I I ! I I I t I I I t ., SN, J institutions till the year 2001. Thereafter the petitioner had undergone the said course and obtained the certificate and subsequently, on 03.09.2016, respondent No. 3 regularized the services of the petitioner in the cadre of Lab Technician Grade II It is further the case of the petitioner that some candidates of Kurnool district have approached the Tribunal by filing OA No.546/2006 for regularization from the date of initial appointment and the same has been granted by the tribunal, however, the order passed by the tribunal was challenged by the respondents through W.P. No.16002/2OLO, but the same was dismissed by the Division bench of this court on 79.02.2020. Thereafter the District medical officer , Kurnool vide order dated

23.09.2020 regularized the services of the applicants before the tribunal in the said O.A.No.546/2006, as Lab Technician Grade II from the date of initial appointment. The petitioner herein is also similarly situated as the applicants before the tribunal, as such the order of the tribunal in the said O.a.No. 546 of 2006 will apply to the petitioner too. Hence the petitioner preferred the present writ petition. 4 SN, J 4 PERUSED THE RE CORD: A. The order of the Division Bench of th e Andhra Pradesh Hiqh Court, dated 19. 02.2020 passed in W.P .No.16OO2 of 2010 and in o a rticu lar ara Nos.11 and 12 are extr cted here under:-

11. A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal discloses, in clear terms, that the Tribunal took the said aspect into consideration and also considered the effect of Rule 17 (iii) (b) and 1B(ii) (b) of the Generat Rules, and while referring to Rule 18 (b)(ii) of the Service Rules, the Tribunal categorically recorded a finding that the probation of the applicants is deemed to have been extended with retrospective effect. It is also not in dispute that till date, the services of the respondents herein/applicants were not termi{rated by the respondents for not acquiring the required q ua lificatio n.

12. Having regard to the cogent and convincing reasons assigned by the Tribunal in the order impugned, this Court is no1. inclined to take a view different from the view expre:;sed in the impugned order. It is also significant to note that in respect of the similarly situated employees in other districts, the authorities have regularized the services of the said employees from the date of their initial appointment. In order to demonstrate the same, learned counsel for the respondents herein/applicants has placed on rer;ord, during the course of arguments, i.e., an order passed by the District Medical and Health Officxer, Ongole, dated 29.10.2001 and the same is not in controversy. In the considered opinion of this Court, refusing to extend the same benefit to the respondents herein, would amount to discrinTination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of Ind ia. 5 SN, ] B. The counte r affidavit has een filed on hehalf of the respondent No.3 and in particular para Nos. 7 to 10 aIe extracted hereunder:-

7. In reply to para 5 it is further submitted that the petitioner was not forced to accept the oFFer of the post of Lab Attendant against the post Lab Technician as per the mention in initial appointment orders Rc.No.69B4lE6l95, dated 13.08.1995 which the applicant agreed and accepted so discharging duties of Iaboratory. B. In reply to para 6 it is submitted that the averment is correct. The reasons are unknown for not conduct oF training till 2001 as it was the policy of the Government as understood. The services of the petitioner have been reoularized bv District Me d ca! & Health Officer, Medak at Sanoareddv District Erstwhile Di ct'l in the cadre of Lab Technician Gr II as contended in this para. 9. In reply to para 7 it is submitted that it is true to suggest that the 2nd respondent by his proceedings Rc No 7t2ll/VCB/2016 dt. 1.0/4/20t7 issued orders for recovery of pay and allowances paid in excess to the petitioner while he worked with designation of Lab Attendant.

10. It is further submitted that the 2nd respondant issued orders for recovery as per the Government Memo. No. 72274/vctl2015 HM&FW (VC1) Dept dt.4/01/2016 ad No even dt. 6/3/2077 issued in pursuance of enquiry conducted by the Director General (V&E) Dept: No GA (V&E) Dept. Appraisal report No 128 (C.No 146/(V&E)/D2/ dt 4/12/2Ot5. As Der the Government Memo No. 153261H2/L995 Dated: 14.O8.1995 the ost of La b Technician Gr II was dow oraded to the oost of Lab Attendant Accordinolv the oetitio ner was aooointed oainst the Dost of Lab Technician as Lab Attendant a D ./ 6 SN, J G r II and his serv ices reoularize in this cadre of Lab Attend ant alreadv and orobation d cla red. In reply to para B it is submitted that as per the Government Memo mentioned supra where in the Government downgraded the post of Lab Technician Gr II to the post of Lab Attendant for filling up the vacancies of Lab lechnicians Gr II timely and the Government was to take appropriate measures to conduct training. In reply to para 9 it is submitted that clarification from the Director of Public Health & Family Welfare Telangana State Hyderabad will be sought for to take further action as per the judgment dt. 79/02/2020 of the bench of Hon,bte High Court, Telangana, Hyderabad as contended in this pa ra In reply to para 10 it is submitted made here in this para is not in the respo rdent that the averment knowledge of 2nd In reply to para 11 it is submitted that actions will be taken after receipt of clarification from Director of public Health & Family Welfare, Telangana, Hyclerabad who is the head rtf the department

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that it is true that after completion of training course, the services of the petitioner had been regularized in the cadre of Lab Technician Grade II by the 3'd respondent vide proceedings Rc.No.17g6lE7/2OL6, dated O3.O9.2OL6, however, the petitioner is entitted for regularization of services with effect from the date of initial appointment i.e., in the year 1995. I i Il Itii! 7 SN, J

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in support of his submissions placed reliance on the order of the Division Bench of this Court on the subject issue, dated 19.O2.2O2O passed in W.P.No.16OO2 of 2O1O and contends that the petitioner is also entitled for similar relief as extended to the petitioners in W.P.No' 16OO2 of

7. Learned Government Pleader for Medical & Health, Family Welfare appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

8. Takino into consideration: - a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Medical & Health, Family Welfare appearing on behalf of the respondents. c) The order of the Division Bench of this Court, dated L9.O2.2O2O passed in W.P.No.16OO2 of 2O1O (referred to and extracted above). 8 SN, J d) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 (referred to and extracted above). The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for regularization of petitioner's services as Lab Technician Grade II from the date of petitioner's initial appointment in the year 1995 i.e., 13.O8.1995 in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment, dated L9.O2.2O2O passed in W.P.No.15OO2 of 2010 without reference to the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Rc.No.112L/VCB/2OL6, dated LO.O4.2OL7, duly taking into considerataon the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment, dated L9.O2.2O2O passed in W.P.No.16002 of 2010 and to extend the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition as extended in respect of similarly situated employees i.e., to the applicants in O.A.No.546 of 20(J6, , regularizing the services of the said employees from the date of initial appointment in the year 1995, within a period of four (O4) weeks from the date of receipt 9 SN, J of copy of the order in accordance to law and inconformity with principtes of natural justice, by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners and pass appropriate orders and duly communicate the decision on the subject issue pertaining to regularization of petitioner's service as Lab Technician Grade II with effect from the date of petitioner's initial appointment as .,Medical Lab Attendant vide Proc.No.6984/E6/95, dated 13.08.1995 issued by the 3'd respondent herein to the petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs' Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. SD/.P. P ADMANABHA REDDY DEPUTY REGISTRAT< To //TRUE COPY// SecrtoN OFFICER 1. The PrinctP al Secretary to Government, Health, lVle cal and FamilY Welfare Dep artment, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana The Director of Medical and Health Services' Government of Telangana' Koti'

2. i}11i:,:t",i"gFffiHiEr#hti#ff;iHT:":H::les'la'le" +;;;s;;;: rt HYderabad [oUr] Two CD CoPtes 3 4 ^ 6 PSK. BS HIGH COURT DATED:0710412025 CC TODAY ORDER WP.No.1698 ot 2021 6E. SrA16 1 Orl v C C r_) 19 APR 2U5 * * cQ I I I i DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS u