The High Court · 2025

Order

This V/rit Petition is filed seeking the following relief: "...tc issue any appropriate order or orders direction or directions particularly one in the nature of Writ Of Manrlamus declaring the inaction of the respondents I to (i) for not issuing the proceedings promoting the Petitioner as pathologist/specialist as an internal candidate from the cadre of General Duty Medical Officer by not promoting the Petitioner for SJrecialist (Pathologist) cadre clespite the Respondents using services of the Petitioner in a vacant post of pathologr / specialist from 16.05.2007 after completing lhe post graduation even approved note hle order. dated 30.L2.2O14 and competed DPC dated 05.03.2019 (ii) in not rnodifying the stucly Leave from date of last .,vorking day w.e.f. 05.04.2OO3 and in not recritying the anornalies in E3 thereby and further maintenance of Inter-se-seniority; and (iii) not upgrading the Pt:titioner to Grade in tr7 as per CIL Promotion Rules (2:l :l) i.e ., Specialist : MBBS with l-lospital administratior. MBBS with Specialty pursuant to the petitioner already fulfilling the eligible criteria in E6 grade GIIMO as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, etc., and consequently direct the Respondents to and direct the Respondents Nos.l to 4 (i) issue proceedings in pursuant to the Notc File orde'r of the depe.rtmental promotion committee dated 30. L'2.2O14 and completed DPC on 05.03.2019 whercby the proposal for promotion of the petitioner as pathologist/specialist is approved as per the o,cmpany rules and further to issue the proceedings pr-,:moting the Pctitioner as pathologist/specialist as an internal canclidate from the cadre o[ General Dut5, Ivledical Officer from 16.05.2007 as per Rules, (ii) to promote to his r:ntitled grade in specialt-v; (iii) to moclify the study Learc from derte of last working day w.e.f.05.()4.2003 and to rectify the anomalics in E3 and further maintenance of Inter-se-seniority; and (iv) to ,lpgrade the Petitioner to Graclc in D7 as per CIL pr.,tmotion Rules (2:I:l) i.e., Specialist : MIIRS with Ilospital administration : MBF3S with Specialty pursua.t to the 2 JAK. J W.P.No.9914 of 2Ol7 petitioner already fulfilling the etigible criteria in E6 tradc GDMO and to providc all thc service benefits attached to the post such as specialist cadre with effect from 16.5.2007, monetary benefits, fitment benefits specialist/pathologist genererl allowance etc retrospectively in the intercst of justice and fair ptay pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and grant such other relief or reliefs as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Prayer is amencled as per C.O. dt. 1610612023 in IA Ol/2022 (i) declaring the action of Respondent I to 4 in not following in-service rules of the organization and not following Rule Of Reservation and in not following Roster system in April 2OI2 while going for external recruitment notilication and in not promoting the Petitioner who is entitled for selection as a pathologist / specialist cadre (E3) Grade in the scale of RS.60,000/- to RS.1,80,000/- to maintain inter seniority fix above to Dr.K. Narayana Reddy E.C.No.0052691 specialist I pathologist E6 as illegal, arbitrary; (ii) declaring the action of Respondent 1 to 4 in not conducting Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) pursuant to the Notc file approved by Board and in not promoting petitioner to E6lE4 rvith effect from 30.12.2014 in the interest of justice and fair play, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and grant such ottrer relief or reliefs as this Honble Court may deem Iit and proper in the circumstances of the case. "

2. Heard Mr. N.V.Anantha Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL) appears for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

3. Brief facts: Petitioner is M.B.B.S, M.D. (Pathologr), Dip. Diabetolory, Dip. Family Health and has P.G. Certificate in Pediatrics. Respondent Organization, SCCL, issued a 3 JAK, J .U.P.No.9914 of 2Ol7 Notification. to fill up the posts of General Duty Medical Officer (GDMO) E-2 (Grade). Petitioner applied and got selected, he was appointed as GDMO uide proceedings, dated 25.10.1999, and he reported to duty on 16.11.1999 (Page No.20)

4. Petitioner made an application (dated 05.01.2003) for sanction o1'study leave to pursue Post Graduat.e Degree in Pathologr, it was not agreed for administrative reasons (dated 26.O2.2OO3, Page No.26). Thereupon, petitioner made representation dated 05.05.2003 (Page No.27) to respondent Company for grant of study leave, vras granted study lea'u'e vide letter dated 26/27.08.2003 subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. Conseqtrent upoll fulfillment of the conditions (on submission of agreement bond), petitioner was relieved w.e.f. L5.O7.2O03i on loss of pay for a period of three years to enable him to llursue Post Graduate Degree in Pathologr (letter dated IZO.O9.2OO3, page No.30). After completion of P.G. in M.D. Pathologr, petitioner reported to duty on 07.02.2006 (Page No.23). A request for updation of qualifications in FIPR, service records was made stating that he \,vas awarded post 4 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017 Graduate Degree of Doctor of Medicine in pathologr from NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, during examinations held in November, 2006, and passed pG

Diploma in Family Health from sri Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute (Deemed University), Chennai, during examinations held in April, 2OO4 and passed PG certificate course in Paediatrics.

5. On 02.08.2007 (Page No.52) petitioner was posted to work as senior medical officer in Pathologr Department to take care of the blood bank and Pathologr Department in Area hospital, Godavarikhani. By an office order dated 06/07.11.2011, the services of petitioner, Deputy Medical Superintendent, Area hospital, Ramagundam, were placed at the disposal of the Collector & District Magistrate/ President, lndian Red Cross Society Blood Bank (for short 'IRCS), Adilabad, on full time basis for a period of 2 years for prompt treatment to children suffering from Thalassemia and Sickle CeIl disorders uide Ref No.CRP/PER/C/ 13/2377, dated 22.LO.2O1 1, was relieved from 07.LL.2OL1 and advised to report back to GM., RG-I on 08. Ll.2O 13 after completion of deputation. 5 ,IAK, J L\.P.No.9914 of2O17

6. Details of petitioner's promotions (as per counter affidavit p{r.ragraph No.4) are as follows: Petitioner with other Doctors (of his batch) was confirmed in E-2 grade, utde letter <lated 19.01.2OO1 (a) Date ol' Promotion as SR.MO/E3 Grade: 0I .10.2005. (b) Date c,f Promotion as Dy. Medical Superintendent, (GDMO) : O t .o4.20 10/E-5 Grade. (c) Date of Promotion as Medical Superintendent (GDMO): Ol .O4.2O 14. I E -6 Grade. 7 . On (\2.O8.2OO7, petitioner was promotr:d to E-3 Grade uide Office Order dated 30.03.2006 under the cadre scheme u'ith notional effect from 01.10.i1005 with monetary benefits from 07 .02.2006.

8. Grievance of petitioner is that he is eligrble to E-3 grade w.e.f. Ol.O4.2OO5 and not from 01.10.2005, his case has.to be c,cnsidered for promotion to E-3 grade in terms of promotion rules from 01.04.2005. Petitioner made 1O representat.ions on various dates (Page Nos.3i to 43), the first representation is dated 15. 10.2008 (Page No.31) and the last reF,resentation is dated 24.O5.2O10 (at Page No.43) seeking rec:tification of his date of promotion on par with 6 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017 similarly situated persons, but was not found suitable, the sarne was communicated vide letter dated 02.O4.2OlO.

9. Respondent Company issued Notification No.4 /2012 dated 31.10.2012, calling for applications to fill up various specialist doctors posts, including one in the branch of Pathologr (Page Nos.53 & 54, P15). Petitioner applied for the post of Pathologist as an internal/local/in-service candidate along with external/non-local candidates. Petitioner was not selected, he alleges that an external candidate one Dr. Narayana Reddy was appointed without considering Rule of Reservation (merit list dated

09.11.2012, Page Nos.57 to 59). Petitioner alleges to have made a representation dated O 1. 1 L.2Ol2 to the authorities of respondent Company to consider his case for appointment as specialist doctor in Pathologr branch in terms of Recruitment Rule(s), but was not considered.

10. Respondent Company issued a circular on

19.05.2014 (Page No.61) with regard to promotion policy for General Duty Medical Officer's promotion of specialists on acquiring PG Degree/ PG Diploma qualification 7 JAK, J W.P.No.99I4 of 2Ol7 Petitioner's grievance is that as per clause (b) of the policy, he is entitled to the post of Pathologist as internal candidate, but he was not considered. Petitioner avers that he made several representations requesting respondent Company t<l issue proceedings to promote him as; Specialist Doctor (Pathologist) retrospectively w.e.f. 16.O5.2OO7, the date from 'which he claims to be performing/discharging duties as Pathologist in the vacant post of Pa-thologz at Area Hospit.al, Ramagundum and IRCS, Mancherial

11. By letter dated 01.11.2OL2 (PIS) addressed to Chief Medical Offlicer (CMO), petitioner requested CMO of the organization to give an opportunity to work as a Pathologist as an internal candidate along with a bio-data. Subsequent to the letter, a Notification No.O4 of 2012 was issued for Walk-in-lnterview for specialist doctors. One k..Narayana Reddy rru'as selected and appointed as Specialist Doctor in the branch, of Pathologr. It is alleged that respondent organization did not follow the recruitment rules and instead of selecting an internal candidate, it was filled up by an external candidate. 8 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017

12. A Notification No.1 of 2Ol4 (walk-in-interview) was issued for Specialist Doctors posts, by respondent organization, for various branches, including two posts as Dermatologists. It is alleged that after inducting two Doctors, two internal candidates made representations to be appointed as Dermatologists. without there being a vacancy, the respondent company appointed them on the basis of representations. Petitioner's grievance is that thoughhemadearepresentationin2o12tobeappointed for the post of Pathologist (Specialist Doctor), he was not appointedinspiteofpetitionerworkingfrom2oo7aSa Pathologist. That his case should have been considered as the case of Dermatologists who were appointed in 2ol4 on the basis of representations. The grievance of the petitioner is, a different yardstick is followed in his case'

13. Further grievance of the petitioner is that though the Coal India Limited (CIL) norms have been adopted by the respond.ent organization, petitioner' who was entitled for E5 and E7 Grades, was not given the Grades' as and when the petitioner was entitled to be given' It is the case of the petitionerthatinstead'ofadoptingtheratioof2:7:|aS 9 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 20I7 enumerated in CIL Growth Plan, respondent organizatton adopted the ratio of 2:1, which is improper. It is submitted that in spitr: of DPC note in the year 2014, his case was not considered for promotion and that his case be considered in terms of the note. L4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is M.B.B.S, M.D. (Pathologr) Dip. Diabetologr, Dip. Family Health and P.G. Certificate course in Pediatrics. That, pursuant to Notification to fill up the posts of General Duty Medical Officer (GDMO) E-2 (Grade) in Responilent Company, petitioner applied, got selected, appointed as General Duty Medical Officer vide proceedings, dated 25.10.1999 and reported to duty on

16.11.1999. It is further submitted that petitioner's case was not considered for promotion to E3 grade due to an anomalf irL considering the dates and as such, suffered injustice in further promotions.

15. It is submitted that in spite of DPC note j.n the year 2014, his case was not considered for promcltion. It is pointed our: that petitioner fulfills the eligibility criteria in 10 JAK, J W-P.No.9914 of 20t7 E6 grade and not upgrading the petitione r to ET Grade as per promotion rules in spite of having requisite qualifications is illegal ancl arbitrary. 76' Learned counser for petitioner submitted that petitioner was discharging duties at sccl, Area Hospital Blood Bank, from 16.os.2oo7 as Medical officer in-charge, that the same is evident from the report of the inspecting officer dated 30.07.2007 (p31, page Nos.174-177). It is further submitted that though petitioner was working as a qualified pathologist from r6.os.2ooz, he was not promoted to the post of pathol0gist, in spite of a pathologist post falling vacant from 2oo3 (person who was posted as Pathologist at Ramakrishnapur left the job in 2oo3, recruited in year 2OO2). 17 - It is submitted that pursuant to notification No.4/2o12 petitioner made an apprication as internal local/in-service candidate arong with external/non_rocar candidates and that an external/non-rocar candidate was appointed. It is further submitted that respondents had not followed the Recruitment Rules i.e., point 2(II\, (lV) and 11 JAK,.I W.P.No.9914 of 2017 (VI), 6(a), (b) and 2.1, 3.1, 3.3 and 3.6.3 of Singareni Collieries Flecruitment Rules. Inviting the attention of this Court to pzrge No.53, page Nos.198 to 205, it is contended that petitic,ner being the lone internal local ca.ndidate in BC-B category, he ought to have been appointed AS Specialist Doctor in Pathologr branch.

18. It is submitted that respondent Company issued notification on 29.O1.2OI4 to fill up various Specialist Doctors posts including that of Dermatologists. Petitioner alleges that after appointing two candidates, tr,vo internal candidates \,vere appointed on the basis of their representations, even though vacancies were not available as Specialist Doctors in the branch of Dermatologr in

2014. It is contended that in the case of petitioner, the said procedure was not adopted, in spit-e of his representation in 2OI2, prior to notification, thus petitioner r*ras denied an opportunity.

19. Inviting the attention of (lourt Procgs.No.lRCS/ADB/2OIl, dated 08.11.2011 (page No.188), let.ter of recommendation of collector and District L2 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2Ol7 Magistrate, Adilabad, addressed to Chairman and Managing Director (page No.240), Section l22G of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (page No.265) and Form-26G i.e., renewal of licence to operate a blood bank issued by Joint Director, Drug Control Administration (January, 2ol4l (pag" No.266), it is submitted that petitioner was eligible for the post of Specialist Doctor, Pathologr branch, and that his candidature was recommended by the Collector.

20. tnviting further attention to page No.259 i.e., Rules for Recruitment from External Candidates, it is submitted that internal candidates should be given preference and that Rule of Reservation should be followed, but non- adherence to both has affected thg promotional avenues earmarked for internal candidates.

21. Attention of this Court is invited to the Office Order, dated 22.O3.2012, of CIL. It is submitted that for promotion from E4 Grade to E5 Grade, respondent organization has to follow Note.ii (at page No.31O). 13 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2Ol7

22. It is further submitted that the Board of Directors in the Meeting held on 22.O2.2013, after deliberations, accorded approval to adopt the CIL Career Grou,th Plan in SCCL by its proceedings 1n Ref.No.CRP/ CS/O 54 / 123, dated 06.0:1.2013 (at page No.297). It is further submitted that the respondent organization did not ;adopt the promotion l'rom E4 to E5 Grade and above Grades in the ratio of 2:l:l (pag. No.310). That if only the respondent organization had adhered to the ratio, as enumerated in the Career Growth Plan of CIL adopted by SCCL, petitioner u,ould have been promoted to higher grade and thus benefit.ed.

23. It is lurther submitted that as per the CIL norms adopted, petitioner is entitled for E7 Grade. That instead of adopting the ratio of 2:1: 1 as enumerated in CIL Growth Plan, respondent organization adopted the rat.io of 2:1, which is irrrproper. It is pointed out that the ,listinction between rr:cruitment and promotion has not been considered and by way of walk-in-intervier,r,s, higher categories of posts have been filled up. t4 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017

24. Placing reliance upon the representation submitted (at page No.238) to the Director (pA&W), SCCL, it is submitted that petitioner's request for issuing proceedings as a Pathologist retrospectively from the date of his deputation i.e., 08. 11.2o11 to IRCS Services (wherein his services were being utilized as pathologist) was not considered. It is lastly submitted that petitioner,s case was not considered by the respondent organization to promote him to the post of specialist Doctor (pathologr branch) from 2OO7 in spite of the petitioner being eligible.

25. tt is pointed out that the petitioner has suffered injustice and was denied the rightful benefits of being promoted in time, thus affecting his career prospects. It is further pointed out that for reasons best known to the respondent organization, the services rendered by the petitioner as Pathologist in various organizations was never considered for promoting the petitioner as specialist Doctor in the branch of Patholory. That petitioner was treated unequally and thus Article 14 of the constitution of India has been violated in the case of petitioner. 15 JAK, J n/.P.No.9914 of 2017

26. Learned counsel for respondent or:ganization submitted that petitioner \ ras appointed as General Duty Medical Officer uide proceedings, dated 25.10.1999 and he reported to duty on 16.11.1999 (Page No.2O). It. is further submitted that petitioner joined M.D. pathologr without seeking pe:rmission for study leave, that as per circular dated O6.0t].1999 (page No.s ll4-1 15) the executive should have 5 year:s of service to get sanction of study leave. It is also subm:itted that petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent for pursuing his Post graduate course and informed the responclent organization only r,r,hen a telegram was sent to his addrt--ss on 05.04.2OO3, that petitioner sulcmitted an application dated O5.O1.2003 for sanction of study leave to pursue Post Graduate Degree in Patholory.

27. Learned counsel submitted that having less than five years of service, without permission, joined the course, yet, the competr:nt authority granted study leave on loss of pay or 3 years on 15.07.2003. It is further submitted that petitioner r:eported for duty on 07.02.2006. It is also submitted that petitioner's case was considered for

1.6 JAK, J W.P.No.99I4 of 2O17 promotion as senior Medical officer (E3) from Medical officer under cadre scheme with other doctors on o1.o4.2005 and found petitioner not suitable and the sarne yas communicated vide letter datecl ob,.o+.zoto after considering his representations, that in the Dpc meeting held in 18.10.2005, petitioner's case was considered and promoted from O 1. 10.2005 notionally, with monetary benefits from 07.02.2006. It is also submitted that there was no anomaly in considering his casc and that the anomaly is to be rectified cannot be accepted.

28. It is submitted that petitioner could not clear his post Graduate Examination in first attempt and sought extension of leave for a period of 2 months from 01.05.2006 to 30.6.2006. tt is further submitted that petitioner did not submit his PG Qualification immediately after acquiring. It is also submitted that mere acquisition of qualification does not give any vested right for promotion and monetary benefits until the academic qualifications are submitted to the management by the executives. L7 JAK, J tA/.i'.No.9914 of 2017

29. It is submitted that petitioner was posted as Senior Medical Offiicer (GDMO) in department of pathologr to take care of Blood Bank at area hospital from O2.O8.2O07. it is further submitted that while in-charge of pathologr department, a HIV reactive test result of swimming coach was communicated to Chief General Manager without confirmation, that subsequent results revealed patient was not reactive to HIV. It is also submitted that petitioner was doing private practice by tying with local laboratories and hence r€r'r,oVed from inchargeship of the pathologr department and was posted to work in Dispensar)'

30. It is sr,rbmitted that petitioner was deputed to work at Indian Red Cross Society Blood Bank (IRCS) Marecherial at request of District Collector from 22.10.2011 and that petitioner .v\ras bringing political influence to continue deputation at IRCS. It is further submitted that applicationr; were invited from eligible internal medical officers for the post of Specialist Doctors (Pathologr) on

23.05.2015, that no internal GDMO applied for the specialist doctor (pathologr) including Petitioner L8 JAK, J W.P.ND.9914 o12017

31. It is submitted that filling up vacancies is subject to sanction of vacancies and as there was sufficient pathologists on the rolls of company no adrrertisements v./ere give. It is further slrbmitted that in the branches where there was shortagc of specialist doctors company notified walk in interview. It is also submitted that appointment of specialist's doctors in case of internal candidates is treated as 'promotion' and in case of external candidates it is treated as 'recruitment'

32. It is submitted that only SC/ST internal candidates have reservations, that reservation for BC's, Women, Local and non-local is applicable in case of recruitment. It is further submitted that from 2016 roster system is being followed in walk in interview for specialists in case of external recruitment. It is also submitted that petitioner cannot compare his speci alizationr,vith other branches and it is only when vacancies arise they will be filled up in accordance with guidelines. That there are sufficient pathologists in the ComPanY, three in number, that the 19 JAK, J tl .P.No.99l4 of 2017 contention of petitioner he has to be promoted from the date of his deputation at IRCS is invalid and not tenable

33. It is submitted that promotion will be issued only after completion of DPC proceedings and not on the note approved brr competent authority. It is further submitted that representations of petitioner were examined and replies were sent accordingly to petitioner. It is also submitted that petition is devoid of merits and the contentions raised are untenable, invalid and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

34. Heard learned counsels, perused the record, considered the submissions

35. Writ pretition is filed in March, 2017, counter affidavit is filed in February, 2OI8, reply affidavit is filed on

18.09.2019. An application to amend the prayer \ ras filed vide I.A.No.1 of 2Ol9 (W.P.M.P.No.1 of 2ol9l

17.09.2019. Further I.A.No.1 of 2022 came l-o be filed seeking arnendment of prayer in December, 2022. Both the amendment applications were ordered on 16.06.2023. 20 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017 The averments in the reply affidavit run into 35 pages and number of documents are annexed with the reply affidavit from page Nos.163 to 32o. No additional counter affidavit is on record for the amended prayers and the reply affidavit by the respondent Company.

36. Petitioner was initially appointed as General Duty Medical officer uide proceedings, datecl 2s.lo.lggg and reported to duty on 16.ll.lg9g. petitioner with other Doctors (of his batch) was confirmed in E-2 grade, vide letter dated 19.01 .2OOL.

37. It is evident observed from the record that petitioner joined M.D. pathologr without seeking permission for study leave. It is evident form circular dated 06.09. rggg (page Nos.1 l4-ll5) the executive should have 5 years of service to get sanction of study leave. petitioner made an application dated 05.01.2003 for sanction of study leave. Petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent for pursuing his Post graduate course and informed the respondent organization only when a telegram was sent to his address on 05.04.2OO3. 27 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017

38. The relevant clauses of the circular dated 06.08. L999 are as follorvs 'Study Leave'will be granted to executives to prosecute higher studies which are considered to be in the Company's interest as provided under Leerve Rules applicable to Executives. The follor,ving guidelirres will be followed to consider grant of Study Leave to Executives. 'lhe Executives who have completed 5 years 1). and atrove service will be considered for grant of Study Leave on half pay for 2 years and those who have prrt in less than 5 years and more tl;,an 2 years service in the regular grade may be considerecl [crr grant of Study Leave on loss of pay. 2). 'Study Leave' to an executive may be exten<led on sper:ific request made well in advance, for one ye:er on loss of pay, over and above 2 years of Study Lea.ve with heLlf pay or on loss of pay to complete the course. 9). lle should inform the Director (PA&W) through proper channel about the result of his course soon after the publication of the results. 1O). I{e will not have any claim for automatic promotion on acquiring the additional qualification. 11). I{e should meet all expenses towards travelling, study etc., and no expenses whatsoever will be borne by the Company. L2). '[he executives who have applied for sanction of Sturly Leave should not leave the station to prosectrte the course before sanction of Leave is communicated to them.

39. On a perusal of the circular and the facts on record it is apparent that petitioner has proceeded to pursue his higher studies without seeking prior permissiorr and has 22 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2Ot7 not applied for sanction of study leave. An employee of the organization is bound by the conditions in the circular.

40. There is no rebuttal to the averments of counter affidavit that petitioner could not clear his post Graduate Examination in first attempt and sought extension of leave for a period of 2 months from 01.05.2006 to 30.6.2006 and also to the averment that petitioner did not submit his pG Qualification immediately after acquiring. From a reading of clauses 9 & 1o of the circular it is clear that acquisition of qualification has to be intimated soon after the date of publication of results. As contended mere acquisition of higher degree does not give any vested right for promotion and monetary benefits until the academic qualifications are submitted to the management by the executives, this submission of the respondent counsel appears to be a valid submission and cannot be brushed aside. All these factors have to be considered when the representation of the petitioner is considered.

47. Petitioner was promoted to E-3 grade (senior Medical Officer, GDMO) w.e.f. 01.10.2005. Petitioner's request to 23 J.AK, J $'.1'.No.99 14 of 20 l7 consider his promotion from 01.04.2005 rectifying the anomaly in the date of promotion to E3 grade was rejected

42. By a reply to representation dated 05.02.2OLO, for rectification of anomaly in the date of promotion to E3 grade and consideration to E4 grade, as per llxecutives promotion/:;tudy leave rules enforced from 18.07.1998 (Rules 3.3 & 4.2l., the General Manager (Personnel) vide reference ltlo.CRP/PER/C/025 I 7 16, dated OiZ "O4.2OlO, held as follows: "Your representation dated 05.O2.2O10 requesting - (i) to rectify date of promotion to E-3 as 01.04.:2005 (notional) instead of 1.10.2005 (ii) to consider your study period (loss of pa1,) as continuous service as per the Executive Promrttion Rules enforced on 18.7.1998 to prevent further <lelay in E-,1 promotion which actually due on 1.4.'2OO9 along with your batch of doctors who already promoted (iii) tc, make use of your specialized service ;:rs a Pathologist in Area Hospital Laboratory, RG I has be:en examined. 'l'his is to inform you that in the DPC meeting 2. held on 25.1.2005, you were considered along with other eligible Medical Officers for promotion as Senior Mediciil Officer (E-3) with effect from 1.4.2OO5 under Cadre Scheme and after careful examination of PARs for thr: period from 1999-2OOO to 2OO3-20O4 and on detaile,d assessment of your performance, the DPC did not find you suitable for promotion as Senior Medical Officer'(E-3). ( 24 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017

3. However, as recommended by the DpC in its meeting held on 18.10.2005. You were promoted as Senior Medical Officer (E-3) notionally from 1.10.2005 and with monetar5r benefit from 7.2.2006 i.e. from the date you reported for duty after Study Leave, as per Rule 4.2 of Executives Promotion Rules. 4. Due to administrative reasons, the request to utilize your services as Pathologist cannot be agreed to."

43. From the contents of paragraph No.7 of the counter affidavit fiiled by the General Manager (Personnel)] and the communication date.d O2.O4.2O|O; it is inferred that the case of petitioner for promotion w.e.f. 01.04.2005 was considered by examining the Performance Appraisal Reports (PARs for 1999-2OOO to 2OO3-2OO4\ by the DPC and found him not suitable. In the subsequent DPC Meeting held on 18.10.2005, he was notionally promoted as Senior Medical Officer E3 Grade considering representations made by petitioner in M.y, 2OOg and February, 2OLO for promotion on par with his colleagues

44. The grievance of the petitioner that he was put to loss of 6 months seniority of not being promoted with his batchmates to E3 Grade was well considered and fbund not suitable. It is trite law that seniority of a person is reckoned from the date he is promoted to the post. 25 JAK, J W'.P.No.9914 of 2Ol7 Petitioner was promoted as Senior Medical Officer E3 Grade notionally from 01.10.2005 with moneta-ry benefits from 07.O2.2006. Seniority once fixed, continues, seniority of petitioner is fixed, from 01.10.2005, from the date promoted to E3 Grade.

45. Petitioner cannot agitate after this length of time to rectify the anomaly retrospectively. The inter se seniority fixed has attained finality, it cannot be revived. The other relevant as'pect vvhich cannot be ignored is that employees, who would be affected if seniority of petitione'r is to be revived after this length of time as sought for in this writ petition, should be granted an opportunity of being heard. In their absence i.e., they not being made as party respondents, this Court cannot consider the grievance of petitioner on this ground also.

46. It is not the case of the petitioner that his representations were not considered. The representations made by him were examined in detail and was; informed uide Ref.No. CRP/PER/C/025 / 7 16, dated 02.O4.2OtO (page No.1 16), thzrt he was found unsuitable to be promoted from -, 26 JAK, J W.P.No.991a of 2017 OI.O4.2O05. It was made clear in the communication dated

02.04.2010 that petitioner was promoted as Senior Medical Officer (E3) notionally from 01.10.2005 and with monetary benefit from 07.02.2006 i.e., from the date petitioner reported for duty after study leave as per Rule 4.2 of Executives Promotion Rules.

47. It is not forthcoming from the recclrd, as to whether the petitioner has taken any steps to challenge the communication, dated O2.O4.2O10. For reasons supra, the relief sought for to consider petitioner's request to rectify the anomaly cannot be granted.

48. It is observcd from the record that petitioner made a representation prior to Notification No.4 of 2012 to consider his case as a Pathologist (Specialist Doctor). the walk-in-interviews conducted pursuant to Notification No.4 of 2OL2, petitioner was not selected and hence not appointed. One Dr.Narayana Reddy was appointed as Specialist Doctor in the branch of Patholory. It is not evident from the record, whether petitioner has challenged his non-selection. 27 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017

49. A perusal of the Rules (at page No.259) relied on by petitioner counsel indicate that the said Rules pertain to Executive Entry Level in different disciplines. The reservation prescribed for internal candidates in recruitment to entry level posts should be adhered to the extent possible as per Rules. Petitioner seeks to consider his case ret.rospectively for the post of Specialists Doctor in the branch of Pathologr. It is not an executive entry level post. For l-he posts notified in 2012, 2014 and 2016, the selection procedure adopted by the committee is, on walk- in-intervievy basis. The numbers of vacancies in each branch were notified and the employment notification was advertised in the newspapers (as observed from the record). Minimum rlualifications were prescribed for the posts. Notification No.4 of 2ol2 is for specialists doctors E3 Grade (one, vacancy is notified for patholog, branch). Notification No.I of 20 14 is for E3 Grade (no .,zacancy is notified for Pathologi branch). Notification No. I of 2016 is for E4 and E3 Grades (no vacancy is notified for pathologr branch). In these employment notifications for Ispecialists Doctors in various branches, candidates with prescribed 28 JAK, J W.P.No.99l4 of 2017 qualifications were inducted. Petitioner appea.red in 2ol2 and his candidature was not considered. Though appeared for the walk-in-interview was not selected. It is the wisdom of the committee to select the best talent for appointment as Specialists Doctors.

50. tt is trite to take note of the contents of counter affidavit filed for better appreciation of the facts and the sarne are as follows "3. It is submitted that the petitioner has frled the above writ petition praying this Hon'ble Court to declare the inaction of the Respondents 1 to 4 for not issuing the proceedings promoting the petitioner as pathologist/ specialist as an internal candidate from the cadre of General Duty Medical Officer and direct the respondents No 1 to 4 issue proceedings in pursuant to the note lile order of the departmental promotion committee dt.3o. L2.2OI4 (R.1 to R.4) whereby the proposal for promotion of the petitioner as pathologist/ specialist is approved as per the company rules and to provide all the service benefits attach to the posts such as seniority in specialist cadre 'with effect from 16.O5.2OO7 monetary benefits, fitment benefits, specialist/pathologist general allowance etc retrospectively.

4. In reply to averments in para-l & 2, it is submitted that the Petitioner was initially appointed as General Duty OffrcerlB-2 Grade on 15.11.1999 and Medical subsequently promoted to various levels. The details are as follows: (a) Date of Promotion as Sr.MO/E3 Grade: O1.10.20Os (b) Date of Promotion as Dy. Medical Supdt. (GDMO) 01.O4.2O 10/E-5 Grade 29 JAK, J l1 .D..\o.9914 of 2017 (c) Date of Promotion as Medical Supdt. (GDlilO) Ol.O4.20'14/E-6 Grade 5. In reply to averments in paras 3 to 7, it is submitted that the Petitioner has submitted a representation through tiri Diwakar Rao, MLA Mancherial Constitut:ncy for promotion as Specialist (Patholory) from his date of deputation to IRCS, Mancherial. It is submitted that Promotion Policy of Specialist (vide Circular No.CRP/ PER/C/O2SI 1i30, dated 19.05.2014) is as follows: (a) to p,romote internal medical officers with MBBS and PG degree/diploma qualification( wittr Specialization) with 3 years post PG experience as Specialist in E4 Grade, and those with same quaiihcation and less than 3 years post PG experience as Specialist in E3 Grade through intervir:w by DPC against vacancies. (b) In case there are GDMOs with PCi Qualifir:ations available with no vacancies exist, they will be accommodated /promoted as specialists limiting to lOo/o of the approvecl discipline strength of Specialt_r' or minimum 1 post, but not exceeding the total strength of Specialist Doctors. (c) To fill up available specialist vacancies l"t with Internal eligible GDMOs through interview by DPC and tLre remaining vacancies will be filled up through open advertisement/ Walk in interview b1, allou,ing internal candidates also. In erccordance with above new promotion pol.icy, applications have been invited from the eligible inte,:rral Medical Officers/Sr. Medical Offrcers/General l)uty Medical (Jfficers (GDMOs) for the post of Specizilist (Patholog') to fill up 1 vacancy (lO%o of approved discipline strength) out of total sanctioned strength Specialist vide Lr.No.CRPlMEDlllOOl/2OO5, dzrted 23.O5.2O15 In response to the above, no internal GDMO has subrnitted application for the post of Specizilist (Patholog') including the Petitioner vide letter dated 25.09.2015. Hence, further action was not initiatecl on the same. It is also to submit that promotion orders will be issued only after completion Departmental Promotion Committe,: (DPC) proceedings but not on the Note approved by the Competent Authority. Prior to the aL,ove new prom.otion policy, management invited applications from the external Specialist (Pathologr) vide pa-per 30 JAK, J W.P.No.99t4 of 20t7 advertisement dated 3o.ro.2or2. In response to the above, the Petitioner has apptied for the poit, but he was not selected. copies of selection proceedings are enclosed as material papers which may be read is part of this counter. Therefore from the aforesaicl facts, the contention of the Petitioner that Respondents No.1 to 4 have not issued his promotion order based on approved Note dated 30. r2.2o 14 is not tenable. copies of tircular 19.05.2014, letters dated 23.O5.2O15, and 2S.Og.2}ls are enclosed as material papers which is may be read as part of this counter. 6. In reply to averments in paras B and 9, it is submitted that the Petitioner remained unauthorized absence from duty from 05.04.2003 while he was working at Area I{ospital, Ramagundam. On sending a Telegram to his address, the Petitioner submitted an application dated 05.05.2003, addressed to C&MD, statinglie joined in the M.D. (Pathologr) on 31.I2.2OO2 and requestecl for sanction of Study Leane. As per clause No.1 of circular dated 6-8-L999, the cxecutive shall have a minimum pe{od of 5 years service to get sanction of study leave( half pay study leave). As per clause No.12 of tircular dated 6-8-1999, executive rvho have applied for sanction of study leave shall not leave the station to prosecute the course before sanction of study leave is communicated to them. Copy of circular dated 06.08.1999 is frled as material paper, which may be read as part of this counter. Though the Petitioner joined in pG colrrse without prior permission of the competent authority and also having less than S yrs service as on aate of submission of application for study leave, management was kind enough to grant study leave on loss of pay for a period of 3 years from 15.07.2003 to prosecute his pG Degree in Pathologr (MD-patholory) at Osmania University, Hyderabad. The Petitioner has reported back on 07.02.2006 vide Office Order No.RGI/GMO/p-2/82, dated 09.02.2006. Therefore, the contention of the Petitioner that management has put him under suffer at different stages is totally far from the truth and it is denied and the Petitioner is put to strict of the same. 7. In reply to paras 10 to 14, it is to submit that DpC meeting held on 25.01.2005, the petitioner was considered along with other eligible Medical Officers for promotion as Senior Medicai Officer (E3) with effect from O1.04.2OO5 under cadre scheme and after careful examination of PARs for the period from 1999-20OO to 2OO3-2OO4 and on detailed assessment of petitioner,s performance, the DPC did not find him suitable for 31 JAK, J V'.P.No-9914 of 2017 promotiorl as Senior Medical Offrcer (E3). However on recommerldation in the next DPC meeting held on 18.10.2005, the Petitioner was promoted as Senior Medical Officer (E3) notionallS, from 01.10.2005 arrd 1.10.2005 monetar5i benefit from 07.02.2006 i.e., Iiom the date the Petitioner reported back for duty after Study Leave as per Rule No.4.2 of Executive's Promotion Rules. The Petitioner submitted representations on 22.O5.2OO9 and 05.012.2010 for correction of his date of promotion at par with Dr.Adi Andhra Maddileti, Dr.Chenna Merry Kumari, Dr.Jatti Kishan Rao and Dr.O.Kaleshwar Rao as they were also availed study leave. His representations were exernined in detail by the Management and informed him vide Lr.No.CRP IPE.R/ClO25l7 16, d:a.ted 02.O4.2Ol.O stating that he was not suitable for promotion along with the above said others doctors on OL.O4.2O05. As such, the contention of the Petitioner that without any valid legal reasons, the Petitioner was put to loss of (i months seniority by the management in compared to his batch mates is not tenable and it is denied and the Petitioner is put to strict of the sarne. B. In rep,ly to the averments in para-15, it is submitted that the Petitioner has not passed MD Pathologz dtrring his first attempt. He requested for further extension of study lea're for a period of 2 months from 01.O5.2006 to 30.06.2006, as he could not clear the examination in his first attenrpt. After availing study leave, the Petitioner has not subrnitted PG qualification immediately. As per rules in vogue, any executive has to submit valid academic /Technical qualifications to the management, the same will be updated in Employee Personal Record (EPR). However, mere acquiring the qualilication does not give any r,'ested right to claim promotion or any monetify benefit by the executives.

9. In rep1y to para-16, it is submitted that the Petitioner was posted to work as Sr. Medical Officer (GDMO) in the Department of Pathologr to take care of complete Blood Bank and Pathologr Department work at Area Hospital, Ramagun,Cam vide letter dated 02.OB.2OO7 (local adjustment). While the Petitioner was holding charge as In-charge Pathologr Department, a HIV reactive test result of Swimming Coach was communicated to Chief Manager, Ramagundam-l Area without confirmation of the same. This issue created a lot of embarrassment to Chief General Manager, RG.I and Medical Department, both in the print and the electronic media, as subsequient tests results have revealed that the said patient rvas not reactive to HIV. It is further to submit that during his In- 32 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2O17 chargeship at Area Hospital, Ramagundam, it was alleged that the Petitioner was doing private practice, by tying up with local laboratories. 'lhus, hc was removed from the Inchargeship of the Pathologr Department and was posted to work in Dispensary.

10. In reply to para- L7, it is submitted that the Petitioner was deputed t<.r work Indian Red Cross Society Blood Bank(IRCS), Mancherial at the request of District Collector, Adilabad/President, IRCS, Adilabad vide Lr. No.CRP/PERICl 1312377, dated 22.IO.2OII Since then, he is bringing political influence on management with a view to continue to work on deputation at IRCS, Mancherial. Hence, the contention of the Petitioner that m€rnagement has deputed him to IRCS, Mancherial for its mutual interest is totally false and it is denied and the Petitioner is pu[ to strict proof of the same.

11. In reply to para-18, it is submitted that the Petitioner has applied for the post, but he was not selected. Subsequently, applications were invited from the eligible interna-l Medical Off,rcers/Sr. Medical Officers/General Duty Medical Officers (GDMOs) for the post of Specialist (Pathcrlogr) vide Lr.No.CRP /MED /IlOOl /2OO5, dated 23.05.2015, however no internal GDMO has submitted application for the post of Specialist (Pathologr) including the Petitioner for the reasons best known to him. As such, the contention of the Petitioner that he has applied for the post of Pathologist as internall LocaT/ln-service candidate in Pathologr discipline along with external/non-local candidates is denied and the Petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. The other contentions in the said para are denied and the Petitioner is put to strict proof of the s€une. L2. In reply to paras 19 &,2O, it is submitted that filling up of vacancies in Specialist Doctors is subject to sanction strength including in Patholory. As there were sufficient Pathologist on rolls in the Company, management has not given any advertisement for recruitment of Pathologist in the year 2014. Copy of paper publication is filed as material paper, which may be read as part of this counter. It is further submitted that due to acute shortage of Specialist Doctors in Respondent Company Hospitals such as General Physician, Pediatrician, General Surgeon, Ortho, etc, Specialist, the Management is forced to go for walk in interview of external candidates. It is also relevant to submit that appointment of Specialists in the case of internal candidates is treated as Promotion. In the case of 33 JAK, J \'/.P.No.9914 of 20I7 external candidate, it is treated as recruitment. For internal candidates, only SC/ST candidates will have reservation in promotions. Reservations under BCs, Women, local and non-local will applicable in the case of recruitment of Specialist. However, from 2016 onwards, Roster system is being followed in Walk in-intenie'w for specialists in the case of external recruitment. Copres of Watk in interview notifications are filed as material, which may be read as part of this counter. In reply to para No.21, it is submitted th€rt 13. vacancies of Specialist (Pathologr) are limited ancl the Petitioner cannot compare his specializatson with ,:ther specialtir:s. As there are sufficient Specialists (Patholory) on rolls {3 persons), the Management could filI the post of Specialis't (Pathologr) as and when vacancy arise in accordance guidelines issued vide circular clated 19.O5.2Ctl4. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he ,shall be promoted as Specialist (Pathologr) from the date of deputation to IRCS since he is workirrg as Pathologist in IRCS, Mancherial is not tenable a:-rd as such, it is denied and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same.

14. In reply to paras 22 to 26, the facts stated therein a-re not lcnown to this Respondent and as such, thcy are not trave:rsed hereunder and the petitioner is put to :srrict proof of the sarne.

15. It is; reiterated that promotion orders will be issued only after completion of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) proceedings, but not on the Note approvecl by the Competent Authority. Regarding various representations submitted by the petitioner, it is submitted that the representations have been exarnined in detail and suitable replies have been sent accordingly. In rriew of what has been stated above, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Fligh Court may be pleased to dismiss the writ petition as devoid of merits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem {it and proper irL the circumstances of the case."

51. By Notification No.1 of 2014, walk-in-interview for Specialist Doctors for branches other than Pathologr were notified. Petitioner's contention that his repr(3sentation 34 JAK, J LV.P.No.99 14 of 2017 made on 0l.ll.2ol2 (prior to Notification No.4 of 2OL2l must have been considered. It is contended that representations made by the candidates, who appeared for walk-in-interviews, but not appointed, pLtrsuant to Notification No. I of 2014, were considered and they were appointed as Dermatologists. The contention that his representation should have been considered in similar lines in 2012 does not hold water.

52. This Court is of the opinion that such a grievance cannot be countenanced. Nothing is forthcoming from the record, und.er what circumstallces the two Specialist Doctors in the branch of Dermatolory were appointed in 2Ot4 on the basis of representations. In the absence of such details, an averment would be only self-serving in nature. Even otherwise, such a ground cannot be canvassed at this hour, petitioner having not availed remedies available under lau,. The contention advanced is totally misconceived and does not deserve acceptance.

53. It is observed from the record that on the basis of promotion policy for GDMOs (General Duty Medical 35 J,4K, J tl .P.No.9914 of 2017 Officers) fc,r promotion as Specialist Doctors dated L9.O5.2014 (Circular at page No.11O) (referred 1n paragraph 1\o.5 of counter affidavit supra), applications were invitecl from eligible internal officers (MO's (Medical Officers), SNIO's (Senior Medical Officers), GDMO's) for post of Specialist (Pathologr) to fill up one vacancJ/ QOo/o of approved dirscipline strength) on 23.O5.2O15 (page No.112). Page No.l lli is a document, the contents of which are as follows: "with reference to the above, we have not received any applications from internal GDMOs. (Reference No.2 is enclos,:d)"

54. It is obrserved that there is a handwritten enclorsement at page No.1 13, which is as follows: "P1. connect to the lile of Dr. Vishnu Murthy & put up. Dated 26.O9.2O15, DGM (P) EE"

55. It is pertinent to extract the relevant portion of the Note (Page ltlos.Tl to 74, P23) of December, 20 14, which forms the bitsis for the submissions that petitioner's case needs to be considered in view of the approved note (as termed by thLe counsel). It is observed that in the NOTE (at Page No.71) under the caption 'subject', it is observed that 36 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2O17 a representation is made by the Member of Legislative Assembly, Mancherial, to release orders to the petitioner as Pathologist from the clate of his deputation from SCCL to IRCS. The following is the extract of the NOTE. .THE SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LIMITBD (A Government Company) NOTE Ref:No.CRP/PER/CN/ Date: 12.2O14 Sub: Representation of Sri Dirvakar Rao Nadipclli, I\ILA, Mancherial Constituency to release orders to Dr.Vishnu Murthy as pathologist from the date of his deputation from SCCL to IRCS - Reg.

01.Kindly peruse the representation dt. 2B.OB.2014 of Sri Diwakal Rao Nadipelli, M.L.A. Mancherial Constituency, Adilabad District. Telangana State addressed to Hon'ble Dy.Chief Minister and representation dated t3.11 .2014 addressed to C&MD requesting to issue orders and regularize Dr.D.Vishnu Murthy as Pathologist. O2.The representation submitted by Sri Diwakar Rao Nadipelii, M.L.A. has been endorsed by Hon'ble Deputy Chief Minister as follows: 'C&MD Singareni/Telangana-Please examine & consider the request positively" O3. The .representation also forwarded by Sri T.RAiaiah, Hon'ble Dy. Chief Minister & Health Minister, Medical & Health Department, Government of Telangana and was endorsed by Chief Minister's Office vide Lr.No. 184/CMP-SM/2O14, dt. 05.12.2014 with an advise to update action website http: / / cmo.telangana. gov. inl tgpms.

04. Dr. D. Vishnu Murthy was appointed in SCCL as Medical Officer on 15.11.L999. He was deputed by SCCL to Indian Red Cross Society in APVVP Government Hospital, Mancherial from 08.11.2O11 on the request of District Collector, Adilabad and his salary is being paid by the Company. 37 JAK, J \Y P.No.9914 of 2017

05. He has been on deputation to IRCS from 0B.ll.2o 11 to 07.O5.2O14 vide oflice order No. CRP/PE.RIC/1312:\77, dt. 22.1O.2O 11 and the period of deputation has been extende<l from O8.05.2014 to 07.08 2OL4 vide office order CRP/PER /C/26/1429, dt. 11.06.2014. O6. The District Collector, Adilabad was informed that there is acute shortage of Medical Officers in SCCL and was requested to submit a proposal to the Government to absorb Dr.D.Vishnu Murthy on permanent basis in the Government to enable SCCL to appoint another Medical Officer in his place. However, his deputation was further extended for periods of 2 years from OB.0B.20 14 to 07.08.2016 vide office order No. CRP/PER I Cl26/2476, dt. 27.9.2014, considering the represerrtation made by Sri Diwakar Rao, Nadipelli Hon'ble MLA, Mancherial.

07. It is to :;ubmit that Dr.D. Vishnu Murthy was promoted to E-6 (irade with effect from O1.O4.2O14 vide Office order CRP/PER|ClO2512862, dt. 18.10.2014 (C:opy placed on file),

08. It is pertinent to mention that Dr.D.Vishnu Murthy was sanctioned study leave for the purpose of purstring MD(PathLologr) Course, by Company from 15.7.20011 to 02.02.2006 and he has completed the MD Pathologr course. O9. The qualification required for the post of Specialist (Patholo;5r) is as follows "PG degree in Pathology and the qualification must be recogniz,ed by the Medical council of India." lO. It is to submit that his request to make use of his specialized services as a Pathologist in Area Hospital, RG- i wils exzunined and was informed vide letter No. CRP/PERlClO2S/716, dt. O2.O4.2O1O that his request can not be agreed to due to administrative reasons (Copy enclosed).

11. It is to s;ubmit that Dr.D.Vishnu Murthy applied for the post of specialist (Pathologr) during the walk-in- intervievrs for the post of specialist (Pathologr) on 9.ll.2O I2 but he was not selected.

12. It is to sr:bmit that the promotion policy of General t)uty Medical Officers (GDMOs) as specialist on acquiring PG Degree/)?G Diploma qualification with specialization was approved by the Board and tl.e career growth for 38 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2017 GDMOS was circulated CRP/PER/C/O2s1113O, dt. reproduced below: vide circular No. L9.5.20L4 which is

1. to promote internal Medical Oflicers with MBBS and PG Degree/Diploma qualification(with specialization) with three years post pG experience as Specialist in E4 grade and those with same qualification and less than 3 years post pG experience as specialist in E3 grade through interview by DpC against vacancies.

2. in case there are GDMOs with pG qualification available and no vacancies exist, they will be accommodated/promoted as Specialists limiting to lO%o of the approved discipline strength of specialty or minimum 1 post, but not exceeding the total approved strength of Specialist Doctors.

3. to fill up available specialist vacancies first rvith internal eligible GDMOS through intervierv by DPC and the remaining vacancies will be filled up through open advertisement/walk-in-Interview, b.v- allowing internal candidates also.

4. to earmark specialty-wise roster points in accordance with GO issued by Govt. of AP on Rule of reservation in internal promotion of GDMOs and also at the time of publication of ernployment notification for Specialists from open market as is being done in the case of GDMOS.

5. to allow 3oh of basic pay as fitment benefit in all internal promotions of GDMOS as Specialists.

6. to allow fitment benelit from 01.01.1997 to internal GDMOS appointed/promoted as Specialists (including those Specialists appointed from GDMO cadre and retired/resigned) with monetan' benefit prospectively from the date of approvai accorded by the Board i.e. 19.4.2014.

7. There will not be any increase in the total rnanpower of medical discipline executives (Speciatist & Non-Specialist Doctors) approved by the Board in the past.

13. The above policy will be effective from the date of approva-l accorded by the Board ie. 19.04.2014 and the DPC will consider the eligible candidates alongwith regular DPCs for the respective panel year. 39 JAK, J lr.P.No.9914 of 2017 L4 ln ,case Dr.D. Vishnu Murthy is promoted .as Pathologist as Specialist, he will be eligible fbr fitment benefit of 3o/o of Basic Pay.

15. Presently, there are 3 Pathologists on the rolls of the Company as shown below and in case no vacimcies exist, the GDMOs with Specialization are to be accommodated/ promoted as Specialist limiting to l0o of the approved disciplirre strength or minimum 1 post, but not exceeding the total approved strength of Specialist Doctors. sl. No. E.Code oo4437 | Name & Designation Dr. G. Sunila MD. Supd (Splst) Qualification MBBS, (Patholory)

2. 00+5 r t5 Dr. P. Prasanna Kumar, Med.Supdt (SPLST) MBBS, (Patholory) o0-5269 l Dr. K. Narayana Reddy Med.supdt (SPLST) MBBS, (Patholog) Place Work MD Main MD MD Hospital Corlorate Area Hospital. RG- I Area Ho:;pital RKP, MMR

56. The contents of document at page No.7'4 are as follows: "As per policA, Sri Vishnu Murthg wilt be promoted to Specialist Cadre a.s per Compang Rules (Flag F) and brought out at para 12. Mag be approued. For necessary action." 57 . The said NOTE is signed (initialed) on 3CI.72.2OL4,

11.01.2015, 13.01.2015 and signed by General Manager, (P)/EE&RC, Chairman & MD

58. On the basis of the contents of the NOTE, it is submitted tl'rat petitioner was not issued orders in spite of the NOTE 40 JAK, J W.P.No.99l4 of 2017

59. It is settled proposition of law that promotion orders will be issued only upon the completion of Departmental Promotion Committee Proceedings and on the recommendations of DPC, but not on the basis of a NorE.

60. Filling up vacancies is subject to available vacancies and their sanction, when there are.sufficient pathologists on the rolls of company, no notifications can be issued. vacancies are notified or advertised in branches where there is shortage of specialist Doctors. As there were sufficient number of Pathologists, the respondent company was right in ngt issuing notifications for the posts of Specialist Doctors in the branch of Pathologr.

61. When the respondent Company has a policy that appointment of specialist's doctors in case of internal candidates is treated as 'promotion' and in case of external candidates is treated as 'recruitment', the same has to be adhered to and it has been adhered by the respondent organization. There is a clear distinction made out in matters of appointment when Specialist Doctors are being recruited from among tfr. i.rtlrnal candidates and external 4L JAK, J l/.P.No.9914 of 2Ol7 candidates. As such, the contention that distinction between recruitment and promotion is not considered, is not a valid contention

62. The policy of reservations of the Company, as observed from the counter affidavit, is that SC/ST internal candidates have reservations and reservation for BC's, Women, Local and non-local is applicable i:e case of recruitment. The averment that, from 2016 roster system is being follovved in walk-in-interviews for specialists in case of external recruitment is not rebutted

63. Petitic'ner's grievance that his case in the branch of pathology has not been considered on par tvith other colleagues, who were considered, in other branches, is not a valid contention. Petitioner cannot compare his branch of specialization with other branches. As observed supra, only when a vacancy arises in a specialized branch that vacancy would be filled up in accordance with guidelines This Courl- cannot find fault with such procedure The s"Verrrrrent in the counter affidavit that there are sufficient pathologists in the Company i.e., three in 42 JAK, J W.P.No-9914 of 2017 number, is not denied. The contention of petitioner that he has to be promoted from the date of his deputation at IRCS is invalid and not tenable and cannot be considered. It is also evident from the record that pursuant to Notification No.4 of 2012, in which a specialist doctor post in the branch of patholory was notified, petitioner appeared and was not selected.

64. On the aspect of promotion to be issued on the IttrOTE of DPC, it is trite law that promotions will be issued only after completion of DPC proceedings and not on the basis of a NOTE approved. tt is pertinent to note that DPC is a recommendatory body and the recommendations made are subject to approval. For valid reasons, sometimes the recommendations made by the DPC.may be disagreed.

65. Petitioner contended that the respondent Company has adopted the policy of CIL Career Growth Plan and as per the policy, petitioner is eligible for being promoted from E6 grade to D7 Grade. Petitioner was promoted to E6 Grade w.e.f. O1.O4.2014 uide order dated LB.LO.2Ol4. 43 JAK, J W P.No.9914 of 20l7

66. It is pertinent to extract the relevant portion of the Minutes of Board of Directors Meeting of the respondent Company hr:ld on 22.02.2013 (Page No.297) to adopt the CIL Growth Plan in SCCL. The relevant portion of the proceedings of the GM Personnel, dated 06.03.2013, are as follows "5:2L.1. The before it.. Board considered the note placcd

5.2L.2. Director (PA&W) stated that the proposal is mutatis mutandis as per the circulars of CIL. FIe stated that a court case is pending in respect of Item No.4 i.e., career growth plan of FMMC holders and whatever is operationalised in ClL, the safile will be implemented in SCCL. 5:21.3. After deliberation the Board accorded approval. a) for modif-rcation of Executives Promo[ion/Recruitment Rules for implementing Career Growth Plan for executives as brought out in the note to thc extent approved and implemented in CIL and b) authorizing C&MD to approve ttre subsequent amendments if any, made in CIL to Execul.ives Promotion/Recruitment Rules etc., from time to time." "Item l,lo: 51 1:5:2 1 (at page No.29B) Sub: CIL Career Growth Plan-To adopt in SCCL-Reg. The fol.lowing are the proposal to adopt in SCCL as regard,s the Career Growth Plan pertaining [o Execut.ive Cadre Employees as under:" in SCCL Board in its meeting held 15.5. 1997 accorded approval for implementation o[ Cluster promotions, as under: I (i) In O.M.No.CILlC6A (vtl/CcC/La9o, it is t3.7.201 dt. 44 JAK, J W.P.No.99t4 of 2017 Cluster Promotions: Promotions under cluster concept are eft'ected on completion of stipulated period of -service in lorver grade(s) as mentioned below by revie,.ving on l"t October & l"t April every year. i) E2 to new E3 5 years service in E2 grade ii) BS to E6-5 years service will be reckoned by considering the aggregate service in E4 grade (Pre-revised) and E5 grade Pronrc"ions undcr Inter Cluster Promotions: Irrter Cluster p.o*otio.,s are eflected on completion of .iip"i"rca pcriod of service in lower grade(s) below by reviewing on lst ."'-""ti".r"a Octobcr every Year. i) El to E2-7 years service in El grade' ii) E4 t<-r E5-7 years service rvill be reckoned Uy1o.,"ia"ring the aggregate- service in E3 giadc (prc-rcvised) and E4 grade (revised)' iii) E3 to E4-7 years servicc in new E3 grade' As pcr Rutc 3.4 of SCCL Promotion P'ules by the Board on 18'7'1988 and "ppl"t"a subscquentlY amended uPto as under: a) As Per the extract of minute No 496:5:15 of Board of Directors meeting 29.3.2O1O, the Cluster Concept Promotions are proposed to abolish from Ol.lO.2Ol2 and lnter- Cluster Promotions are proposed to abolish from o 1. 10.2014. b) The promotion from E2 lO E3 grade will be completion of 3 Years stipulated Period as on 1't October without consideration vacancies. TheY will be promoted based on DPC reco mme ndation s. c) The Promotion from E3 to E4, E4 to E5, E5 to E6, E6 tc; E7 ' E7 to E8 and E8 to E9 grade (from one grade to other grade) would dePend on availabilitY of vacancics' d) The Promotions from Cl upto CO grade shall be based on the PrinciPle senioritY-cum-merit through DPC- e) The Promotions from EO upto E9 shall be positive selection bY Departmental Promotlon Committee on Principle of Merit-cum- SenioritY. fl For E6 to E7 and E7 to Bg, ,t" selection will be based on interview and other merit consideration & Performance.

67. Though there are other proposed growth plan clauses adoptedbySCCL,therelevantclauserelieduponbythe 45 JAK, J Vt.|'.No.9914 of 2OI7 counsel is clause (0 in column No.3 at Serial No.l (Page No.298). O,n the basis of this clause, it is subrnitted that the petitiorLer's case can be considered as petitioner is meritorious and his services are performance oriented.

68. Reliance is also placed on the extract of Minutes of Board of Directors Meeting held on 19.O4.2014 by the GM (P)/EE&RC, dated 05.05.2014. Attention was in'rited to the following portions. "Sub: Career Growth of General Duty Medical Officers (GDMOsl Promotion Policy for GDMOs for promotion as Specialists on acquiring PG Degree/ PG Diploma qualification with specialization. !;.L2.1 The Board considered the note plerced before it Director (PA&W) informed that the att::ition rate arnong Specialist Doctors is on high side and therefore the Management is finding it difficult to provide Specialist treatment in the Company hospitals. He also informed that non-Specialist Doctors (General Duty .Medical Officers) are given Study leave for pursuing specialization courses. Ho'uvever du,: to absenc,e of well laid policy for promotion of non- Specialists on acquiring Specialist qualifications, there is discontentment among non-Specialist Doctors, who are more likely to stick to the organization because of their acclimatisation with the Company's work forcr: and coal lield environment compared to direct recruit.s. He stated that there is an immediate necessity for the aforesaid policy to continue to have Specialist Doctors 5:12.2.After deliberation the Board

1. accorded approval for the following Promotion Policy for General Duty Medical Off,rcers (GDMOs) zrs Specialists on acquiring PG Degree,/ PG Diploma qualification with specialization, 46 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 oI2017 a) To Promote internal Medical Officers with MBBS and PG Degree Diploma qualifrcation with 3 years post PG experience as Specialist in E4 grade and those with same qualification and less than 3 yea-rs post PG experience as Specialist in E3 grade through interview by DpC against vacancies b) In case there ar-e GDi\,IOs with pG qualifrcation available and no vacancies exist, they will be accommodated/promoted as Specialists limiting to lOo/o of the approved discipline strength of specialty or minimum I post but not exceeding the total approved strength of Specialist Doctors,,

69. The contentions raised by the counser cannot be considered in the light of the fact that the sanctioned strength of Specialist Doctors in the branctr of pathologr being three, the petitioner's contention that he be considered as a Pathologist can only arise when a vacancy arises.

70. [t is settled proposition of law that even the selectees do not have any legal right of appointment. It is pertinent to extract the relevant portion of the Honble Apex court judgment in State of Assam & Ors. us. Arabind.a Rabha & Ors (Civil Appeal No.235O of 2025) the Apex Court held as follows: "27. One finds an extensive discussion on the tests required to be satislied to invalidate a decision of a subsequent Government, nullifying a previous Government decision, in Jitendra Kumar a. State of 47 J.AK, J li P No.9914 of 20l7 Haryanar The case involved suspension of the proccss of selection by the Government because, inter alia, the cadre strength was found to be unjustly inflated b1, the previous Government. The appellants before this C)ourt indisputerbly were the selected candidates and the principal question arising for decision, in the given [ercts and circtrmstances, was whether they had a legal right to be appointed. This Court held, "the legal principle obtaining' herein is not in dispute that the selectees d,o not haue any legal right of appointment subject, inter alia, to bona fide action on the part of the State". Noticine the decisions, in Subash Chander Marwaha (supra), Shankarsan Dash (supra) as well as other decisions on the point, this Court further held that whereas the selectee as such has no legal right, the superior cortrt in exercise of its judicial review would not ordinarill' direct issuance of any writ in the absence of any pleading and proof of mala fide or arbitrariness on the part ol- the authorit5,', and each case has to be considered on its own merit. E><amining the point as to whether the imptrgned action o[ the respondent-State lacked bona fide, this Court answered in the negative. Finally, this is what rvas observed: "55. We are not oblivious of the constitutional schr:me that the decisions taken by' one Government in public interest itself cannot be a grotrnd for review thereof at the hands of the sucoessor Government. It is not the Government rvhir:h is in the seat of the povter, matters in this behalf, but what matters is the public intcrest. 56. Mr Dwivedi has drawn our attention to a decision of this Court in State of Karnato,ka a. All India Manufacturers Compang [(2006l a SCC: 683] wherein it was held: (SCC pp. 708-09, para 66) '(i6. Taking an overall vierv of the matter, it appears that there could hardly be a disputc tleat the Project is a mega project which is in t ee larger public interest of the Statc of S.arnataka and merely because there u,as a change in the Government, the re tvas no necessity for reviewing all decisions taken by t.ee previous Government, rr,hich is rvhat appears to have happened. That such an action cannot be taken every time therc is a change of Ciovernment has been clearly laid down in State of U.P. u. Johri Mal |2OOal4 SCC 7l4l and in '1zooa1 2 scc 161 48 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 20t7 I{2OO2] 2 |\"!"-_of Haryana.a. State of punjab SCC 5O7l rvhere this Court oliservei thus, '[lln the matter o[ governance of a State or in the matter of execution of a decision taken by a previous Governmel.lt, on the basis of a consensus arrived at, rvhich does n<lt involve any political philosophy, rhe succeeding Government must l)e held duty_bourrd to continuc and carry on the unfinished job rather than putting a stop to the same.,

57. There carlnot ,be arry doubt in regard to the aforementioned proposition of law but the question herein is whether public interest would .subserved by asking the State to proceed to make appointments. Whereas, on the one hand, an action on the part of the State to interfere with the good work done by the previous Government solcly on the basis of changi in the regime must be deprecated, therc cannot horvever be an5, doubt whatsoever that the successor Government cannot blink over the illegalities committed by the previous Government. If illegalities have been committed, the same should be rectified. When there exists a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the State, having regard to the overall situation including the postlhaste manner in which actions had been taken, to cause an inquiry to be made and su-spend the process of mat<ing appointments till the result oi such inquiry if obtained, such a decision on its part per se cannot be said to be an act of arbitrariness or unreasonableness.,'

71. It is pertinent to take note of the writ petition filed by the Petitioner bearing w.p.No.9941 of 2org with the following prayer: "...to issue a writ order or direction especially one in the nature of writ of mandamus declarirg trr.tl Action of the respondents in not promoting the petitioner as specialistwhile promoting juniors tJthe pltitioners as illegal arbitrary and discriminatory violating article r4 and 16 of the constitution or tndia b dlclare that petitioner is entitlecr to be promoted as Specialist in pursuance of his interview on medical examination held on 4.3.2O19 and S.3.2019 and pass..,, 49 .1!1K, J i''.i'.Io.9914 of 2017

72. A learned Single Judge by order dated 06.12.2021 disposed the writ petition and directed as follows "When the matter is taken up for hearing, lezrned counsel appearing for petitioner had contendect that the pretitioner has frled the present writ pc[ition seeking permission to the post of Specialist antl his case \Mas considered for promotion in the interviews, which were held on O4.03.2019 and 05.O3.201!). He furthe,r pointed out that the respondents have filed counter aflidavit and at page No.79, which is anrrexed to thte counter affidavit, the proceedings rlated 05.03.2019 are filed, wherein the respondents have stated that the petitioner was found suitable for promotion to the post of Senior Spcc ialist (Pathologr)lE-4 Cadre in the pay scale of Rs.70,0OOl- Rs.2,00,000/- with immediate effect. However, the. said order was not implemented on the ground thzrt the petiticrner has liled W.P.No.9914 of 2OL7, wherein the petitioner was seeking retrospective promotion with effect from 2OO4. Therefore, the learned corrnsel appearing for the petitioner had contended thzrt the respondents having found that the petitioner is cligible for promotion, but denying promotion in vir:n, of pendency of W.P.No.9914 of 2017 cannot be a ground. Therelore, appropriate orders be passed in tht: writ petition directing the respondents to give promotion to the petitioner, which was granted vide proce€:rlingg dated O5.O3.2019. In view of the above submissions, this Court is of the c<>nsidered view that when the.respondents have cleared the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post r:f Senior Specialist (Pathologrl /E-4 Cadrr: vide procer:dings dated 05.03.2O19, in all fairness the respondents must give effect to the said procee:(lings withorrt prejudice to the pendency of W.p.No.99Il of 2017 liled by the petitioner seeking retrospt:ctive promotion. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to give promotion to the petitioner, as was granted to the petitioner vide procecdings dated 05.03.20 i9." 50 JAK, J W.P.No.9914 of 2Ol7

73. It is evident from the order of the learned Single Judge that petitioner was found eligible to be promoted to the post of Senior Specialist (Pathologr) E4 Cadre vide proceedings dated 05.03.2019. It is held by the learned Single Judge that petitioner should have been promoted to the post of Senior Specialist with effect from the date of proceedings issued. If petitioner has not been promoted to E4 cadre from 05.03.2019 due to the pendency of the proceedings in W.P.No.9914 of 2017, he be promoted forthwith.

74. The contention of learned counsel that the Growth Plan of CIL adopted by the SCCL speaks of a ratio of 2:I:I to be adopted for promotion from E4 to E5 Grades and the same has not been followed. [t is trite to extract the Note ii, on which reliance is placed (Page No.31O). The Note is as follows "ii. Promotion from E-4 to E-5 grade and above grades will be regulated in the ratio of 2;l:l i.e., 2 Specialist Cadre, 1 General Cadre, who has acquired specialist PG qualifrcation . subsequently and 1 non-specialist with Hospital Administration."

75. If the promotions from E4 to E5 Grade are not regulated as per the ratio, petitioner is always at liberty to 51 JAK, J W.P.lto.9914 of 20l7 raise the said aspect and such other aspects by way of a representatic,n to consider his case. On such representation being made, the authorities concerned shall consider the representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the policy adopted and guidelines, if any.

76. With the above observations, Writ Petition is disposed of. There sherll be no order as to costs Miscelizrneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed. To, SD/.AHMED ABDULLAH KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR @ SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY//

1. Chairman and lrlanaging Director, The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Lakdi-ka-pool; Hyderabad, Telangana State. 2. The Director (PA & W), The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Kothagudem, Badradri - Kothagudem District

3. The General Manager (lMS), Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Kothagudem, . Badradri - Krrthagudem District

4. The Chief Medical Officer, The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Kothagudern, Badradri - Kothagudem District

5. The Presidernt, The District Collector/District [Vlagistrate, lndian Red Cross Society (lRC;S) [Vancherial, fVlancherial District.

6. One CC to lSRl. N V ANANTHA KRISHNA, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SiRl. P SRI HARSHA REDDY (SC FOR SINGARENI COLLIERIES CO.LTD) Advocate [OPUC]

8. Two CD Copies PVL BS HIGH COURT DATED:2610912025 o i=i WP.No.9914 of 2 0 17 r{ES o r 1 0E[ 2U5 * (- * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION HOUT COSTS 0\