Writ Petition No. 24772 of 2024 · The High Court · 2025

Dr.J.Aiava Kumar,, Commissioner, Telangana Vaidya Vidhana Parishad oManitis Campus, Sultan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad. Smt.Christina Z Chongthu, lAS,, Secretary-to Government He.al!!., Medical ,"j ri*itv w"tfJre DEpartmeni, State of Tetangana, secretariat Building, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P V KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.1: S VIJAY PRASHANTH (SC TVVP) Counsel for the Respondent No'2: GP FOR SERVICES - ll The Court made the following: ORDER i i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I , : l 'I I I --------- :'. '_ , THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI CONTEMPT CASE N0.619 0F 2024 ORDER: This Contempt Case is Iiled alleging deliberate ald wilful disobedience of the directions of this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.24ZZ2 of 2023, dated, O8.Og.2023.

2. The interim direction of this Court was to the respondents to review the subject panel considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Civil Surgeon Specialist without relerence to the Charge Memo dated 12.07.2023, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Along with the order of this Court, the petitioner has made several representations dated

15.09.2023 and O9.I0.2O23. Hovvever, alleging no action on the part of the respondents ald therefore non compliance of the directions of this Court, this Contempt Case has been filed.

3. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.l has filed a counter affidavit to the contempt petition stating that after receipt of the representation of the petitioner dated 09. 1O.2023, the respondents could not take immediate action as there was a model code of conduct on TMD,J C C.No.619 ot 2024 a 2 account of the General Assembly Elections in Telangana State from Og.lO.2O23 to 04'12'2023' It is submitted that thereaftertheCommissioner,TelanganaVaidyaVidhana Parishad (TWP) has submitted the proposals for conduct of review of promotions and the petitioner was promoted vide G.O.Rt.No.519, d,ated' O4'O9'2O24 and posted at Area Hospitai, Deverakonda, Nalgonda District' in the existing vacancy and he was relieved on 2O'O9'2O24' It is stated that during the general transfers 2024, only one Anaesthetist who was working at Area Hospital' Deverakonda' was transferred and posted to an other TWP Hospital and at no doctors working at Area Hospital' any cadre i.e., Civil Surgeon Civil Surgeon Specialist and Civil Specialist in Anaesthesia Department Assistant Surgeon and therefore, the services of the senior most Anaesthetist were required for conducting each and €very surgery (Gynec/General) at Area Hospital, Deverakonda' Nalgonda Deverakonda in present there was Specialist/ DePutY District,toservethepoor.WhereastheDistrictHospital, Gajwel, Siddipet District, already has three Anaesthetists were working in different cadres' When these facts were brought to the notice of this Court, the learned counsel for J-..... ,: -./ *; -=.}1.'] /. -- 3 TMD,J C.C No.619 of 2024 the petitioner had submitted that the respondents have wilfully and deliberately posted the petitioner to Area Hospital, Deverakonda, Nalgonda District, for having filed the u'rit petition before this court. Therefore, this court had directed the respondents to submit the procedure adopted by them and also to give the petitioner options availdble for posting him to a station. The petitioner was given the facility of giving the options and thereafter, it was reported that the petitioner has given the option of only District Hospital, Gajwel, Siddipet District and it was not possible to accommodate him at the said place since he has completed five years of service in the said place and there were three other Anaesthetists working in the said area in different cadre.

4. Learned Government pleader for respondent No.2 has also filed a counter affidavit stating the above arrd the procedure of the Selection Committee is also filed before this Court to demonstrate that the procedure has been follor.,r,ed by the respondents in imprementation of the directions of this Court ald tha.t there is no delay on their part. i i I 4 TMD,J C.C.No 619 of 2024 i , 5 Learned counsel for the petitioner' on the other Hon'ble SuPreme hand, relied upon the judgment of the EnterPrises Vs' Court in the case of M/s'Sitaram Prithviraj Vardichand Jain in Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos.198-199 of 2024 it Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.120B3-1 2084 of 2023, to submit ttLat "Contempt of Court is a serious legat infraction that strikes at tle uery soul of justice and tLe sanctitg of legal proceedings" and therefore, the contemnor should be dealt with strictly'

6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the respondents the Petitioner and have have considered the case of of Civil Surgeon promoted the Petrtroner to the Post considerable The grievance of the Petitioner is Specialist on 04'O9'2O24' delay in the that there has been implementation of the directions of this Court and that the respondents have not complied with the directions unless the Contempt Case has been hled by the petitioner' The further grievance of the petitioner is that he has been posted at Deverakonda and not at Gajwel, Siddipet District as per liB .hor"t. This Court finds that the respondents were , I 'r/ 5 ?\4D,J C.C.No.6 t9 of2024 implementing the prevented by reasonable cause in directions of this Court immediately after passing of the order due to General Assembly elections in the Telangana State. However, subsequent thereto and that too after firing of the contempt case, the respondents have taken almost a period of six months in promoting the petitioner. The cause for the delay has not been satisfactorily explained by the respondents. This Court is therefore of the opinion that there was ia-xity on the part of the respondents in compiying with the directions of this Court. Therefore, warning the respondents to be more responsible in future, this Court deems it fit and proper to crose the contempt case as this court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of posting of the petitioner to the Area Hospitar, Deverakonda, as it is the discretion to be exercised by the respondents, particularly when the petitioner has not given any other option but Gajwel, where the vacancy is not available arrd that the petitioner had already worked there for a period of five years.

7. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. TMD,J C.C.No.6 t9 of 2024 c -:'l :, '{: 6 Miscellaleous applications' if any pending' shall 8 also stand closed 'fl;LTS'XLt!3i-=^'J //TRUE COPY'/ L SECTION OFFTCER To, Two CCs to the SYiiay Prashanth' Advocate for Respon 1SC-rwe1 1Ou t1 Two CCs to the GP for Services-ll' Advocate for Respondent One CC to SRI P V KRISHNAIAH Advocate [OPUCI Two CD CoPies 1

2. 3 4 dent No.1 No.2 [OUT] RRJPSL I I i I t t I t I I I I i I I i I I l I I i i I i I I I ! I l I l , I I : i : l I I I l i I I j I I l ; : HIGH COURT DATED:01 tOStZOZs ORDER CC.No.619 ot 2024 S-[ ATE cF ,] C, <) Ns \\t 1": r,) -[' * D=s?r'l CONTEMPT CASE IS CLOSED ) ,t\ lD ,rf'alu (r'