High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe 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 ln the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the petitioners are 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 Honorable High court by their judgment in wP No.1600212010 dated 1910212020 and in view of the provision of Rule 5, Annexure ll, Class Xl of the Statutory Rules issued in GOMS No.565, dated 27t18t1979 by modifying the order of the 3rd and 4th respondents regularizing the services of the petitioners from the date of passing of :/ I the Lab Technician Grade ll certificate course to that of therr initial appointment and also set aside tlre order of the 2nd respondent in RC No '1 1221NC812016 daled 1010412017. ordering the recovery of the alleged excess amount said to have pard to the petrtioners and consequently direct the 3ro and 4th respondents to regularize the sr:rvices of the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment with all r;onsequential benefits such as pay and allowance, seniority etc. lA NO: 'l OF 2021 Petition under Sectron 151 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.1 1221NCB12O16, dated 1010412017. ordering recovery of pay and allowances, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI S.RAM REDDY FOR SRI K.S.SUNEEL Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FW The Court made the following: ORDER .; HON'BLE MRS. ]USTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.4986 OF 2OZL ORDER Heard Sri S.Ram Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri K.S.Suneel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners on record and learned Government Pleader for Medical & Health, Family Welfare appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The oetitioners aooroache the Court seekinq oraver as under: "...to issue an order, direction or an appropriate writ more pafticularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the petitloners are entitled for regularization oF their services as Lab Technician Grade II 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 W.P.No.16002/2010 dated Lgl02/2020 and in view of the provision of Rule 5, Annexure II, Class XI of the Statutory Rules issued in GOMS No.565, dated 27/08/L979 by modifying the orders of the 3'd and 4th respondents regularizing the services of the petitioners from the date of passing of the Lab Technician Grade II certificate course to that oF their initial appointment and also set aside the order of the 2nd respondent in RC No.11221/vCB/2016 dated 2 SN, J 7O/04i /Ol7 ordering the recovery of the alleged excess amounr said to have paid to the petitioners and conseq -iently direct the 3'd and 4th respondents to regula ize the services of the petitioners from the date of thcir initial appointment with all consequential benefit,; such as pay and allowance, seniority etc and pass...'

3. It is specific case of the petitioners that the government for the composite state of Andhra pradesh by GO.MS. No.243, HM and FW Department have sanctioned the posts of Lab Techniclan Grade II for all the districts. The basic quarification for the post is that the (iandidate 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 Technic an is not available, a candidate with a certificate of lab attendant may be appointed but he/she should pass the certiFied lab technician course within the period of probation. As there is no,rny candidate with the rab technician certificate, the respondent no.3 appointed the petitioners, who are with lab attendant certificate, as lab attendants on temporary basis with no probatiorr. 3 SN, J It is further the case of the petitioners that the training course For Lab Technician was not conducted by any competent institutions till the year 2001. Thereafter the petitioners have undergone the said course and obtained the certificate and subsequently, on 03.09.2016, respondent No. 3 regularized the services of the petitioners in the cadre of Lab Technician Grade II. It is further the case of the petitioners that some candidates of Kurnool district have approached the Tribunal by filing OA No.54612006 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.16002/2010, but the same was dismissed by the Dlvision bench of this court on 19.02.2020. Thereafter the District medical officer , Kurnool vide order dated

23.O9.2020 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 petitioners heretn are 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 r-- 4 SN, J apply to the petitloners too. Hence the petitioners preferred the present writ petition 4, PERUSED THE R CORD: A. The order of the Di vrslon Bench of thEA dhra Pradesh Hiqh Court. date d L9.O2.2O2O oassed in W.P.No .16O02 of 2010 and in o a rticu la r o a ra Nos.l 1 and I.2 are extra cted h ereu n der:-

11. A perusal oF the order passed by the Tribunal discloses, in clear terms, that the Tribunal took the said aspec.- into consideration and also considered the effect of Rule 17 (iii) (b) and 1B(ii) (b) of the Generat Rutes, 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 se-vices of the respondents herein/applicants were not terminated by the respondents for not acquiring the req u irr.:d q ua lification.

12. Having regard to the cogent and convincing reasons assign3d by the Tribunal in the order impugned, this Court is nol inclined to take a view different from the view expressed in the impugned order. It is also signiFicant to note that in respect ot 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 record, 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 discrinrination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of I nd ia. 5 SN, J B The counter affidavit has een filed on behalf of the resoondent No.3 and in oa icular oara Nos.6 to 11 are extracted ereu nder: - 6) In reply to Para NO.6, it is submitted'that it was the policy of the Government to conduct training of Lab- Technology (Diploma) as it is mentioned in their letter no. L5326/H2195. dated: 14-08-1995 addressed to the district collector Nalogonda where in it is clarified that Government would consider appropriate measures and train them adequately in due course. Subsequently the appointees (Lab-Attendants) were sent for DMLT to IPM as in service candidates and due to passing the course their services were regularlzed in the cadre of Lab Technician Gr-II from the next day oF the last Examination. 7) In reply to Para No.7, it is submitted that the process for recovery whlch is to start for of excess payment while working as Lab-Attendant paid on par with the salary applicable to Lab-Technician Gr-Il as per the proceedings of R-2 No.11221IVCB/2016, dated 10-04-2017 issued orders for recovery of excess payment in pursuance of the Government Memo No. L2274lVCl/2015 HM&FW (CI) Department Dated: 04-01-2016 which was issued on the Appraisal Report No. 128/C.No. 146lV&E) Department Dated: 04-12-2015 given in the enquiry conducted by the Director General (V &E) Department No.GA (V&E) Dept. B) In reply to Para No.B, it is submitted that the petitioners were appointed as Lab-Attendants against the post of Lab- Technician Gr -II down-graded as Lab-Attendant as per the Government clarification mentioned in the above paras. It is submitted that the contention for regular appointment as Lab-Technician Gr-II with intermediate vocational Lab- Technology Qualification does not have foot to stand as per the orders of the Government which were in force. Regarding conduct of training course for the appointees as 6 SN, J Lab-Attendants it has policy of the Government and it is clearly mentioned in the clarification issued by the Goverr ment that Government would take appropriate measui-es to train the appointees (Lab-Attendants) so the petitioners were sent as in So the petitioners were sent to undergo training (DMLT) as in service candidates. It is further submitted that after selection of the petitioner/petitioners they were appointed as Lab_ Attendrnts (due to down grading of Lab-Technician Gr- II post) and were awarded pay scale applicable to the post of Lab-At:endants the petitioners have accepted the orders and jorned duty as Lab-Attendants. If the petitioners were reluctant to the appointment orders as Lab-Attendants they could have refu sed/rejected at that time orly and would have not joined as Lab-Attendants so contention to this extent rs not correct. 9) In reply to Para No. 9, it is submltted that the petitioners were appointed initially as Lab-Attendant with Vocational Quatification against the post of Lab_Technician Gr -II down -graded by the Government due to non_ availahility of qualified candidates according to the clarification issued by the Government in B/1995 given to all the drstrict collectors. 10) In reply to Para NO.12, it is submitted that the petitiolers were appointed as Lab-Attendant with the intermediate Vocational qualification agatnst the post of Lab-Te,chnician Gr -II (Down graded as Lab-attendant) as per the then standing instructions of the Government. Further it is submitted that the conduct of training to the appointees to pass certificate Course was the matter with the policy of the Government. However Later the Government sent such appointees to undergo training coursc in Medical Lab-Technology as in_service candidates. After the competition of training course the services of the petitioners were regularized in the cadre of Lab_Technician Gr -II, I I I I i I I i ( I I I 7 SN, J r1) It is Submitted that the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. The petltioners having accepted for appointment in the year 1995 at this distance of time turn around and fetching that they were appointed as Lab- Technician Grade-II is no legs to stand for the scrutiny of the law.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that it is true that after completion of training course, the services of the petitioners had been regularized in the cadre of Lab Technician Grade II by the 3'd respondent vide proceedings Rc.No.1786/E7/2OL6, dated O3.O9.2OL6, however, the petitioners are entitled for regularization of services with effect from the date of initial appointment i.e., in the year 1995. 6 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in support of his submissions placed reliance on the order of the Division Bench of this Court on the subject issue, dated L9.O2.2O2O passed in W.P.No.16OO2 of 2O1O and contends that the petitaoners are also entitled for similar relief as extended to the petitioners in W.P.No. 16002 of 201O. .c}r- 8 SN. J 7, Learned Government Pleader for Medical & Health, Family Welfare appearing on behalf of the respondents does not clispute the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

8. Ta kin o into considerataon:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners 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 2O10 (referred to and extracted above). 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 petitioners for regularization of petitioners' services as Lab Technician Grade II from the date of petitioners' initial appointment t: t I I I \ 9 SN, J in the year 1995 i.e., 13.08.1995 in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment, dated 19.O2.2020 passed in W.P.No.16OO2 of 201O without reference to the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Rc.No.ll2L(VCB{2OL6, dated LO.O4.2OL7, duly taking into consideration the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment, dated ,, L9.O2.2O2O passed an W.P.No.16OO2 of 2O1O and to extend the relief as prayed for by the petitioners in the present Writ Petition as extended in respect of similarly situated employees i.e., to the applicants in O.A.No.546 of 2006, , regularizing the services of the said employees from the date of initial appointment in the year 1995, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order in accordance to law and inconformity with principles 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 petitioners' service as Lab Technician Grade II with effect from the date of petitioners' initial appointment as l0 SN. J Medical Lab Attendant vide proc.No.69g 4/E6/95, dated 13.08.1995 issued by the 3.d respondent herein to the petitio n ers. However, there sha be no order as to costs. Miscellilneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-T. TIRUMALA DEVI i GISTRAR OFFICER

1. The Principal {iecretary to Government, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department. Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. Hyderabad.

2. The Director of ltrledical and Health Services. Government of Telangana, Koti, 3 The District [t/edical and Health Officer, lVledak District Sanga Reddy. 4. The District Medrcal and Health Officer, Siddipet District. Sanga Reddy. 5. One CC to SRI K S.SUNEEL, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR IVEDICAL HEALTH & FW, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

7. Two CD Copiers },SK tsS Ya- HIGH COURT DATED:0710412025 ORDER WP.No.4986 of 2021 \ CC TODAY gf- slAr € oA 1 v a 2 , 1s [t$' N6 d (Y:. Dr:'in1f- DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \ot$d &t"