The High Court · 2025

Dr.A.Subodh Kumar,, S/o.late A.Sriramulu, Age. 56 ye: rs, Occ Professor of Plastic Surgeon, Gandhi Medical College, Secunderabar Dr. K. Nagarjuna,, S/o. late K.Ranga Rao, Age. 57 yea-s, Occ. Professor of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College, Secunderalrad Dr.K.Ravi Sekhar Rao,, S/o. late K.Subramanyam, /\ge. 61 years, Occ. Professor of Ophthalmology, Gandhi Medical College, Sccunderabad Dr.Ratnam Andallu,, Wo.Dr.M.Vijaya Kumar, Age. 63 I'ears, Occ. Professor of OBGY, Government Maternity Hospital, Hbnumakonclrr Dr.A.Aparna,, W/o.Dr.K.Ramesh Kumar, Age.61 years Occ. Professor and HOD Paediatrics, MGM HospitaI/KMC, Hanumakonda, r/larangal Dr.Ch.Madhu Babu,, S/o.Ch.Satyanarayana Raju, r\;e. 60 years, Occ. Professor of SrD/DVL, MGM Hospital/KMC, Hanuma$,l,?r{f{ilInfrl,o*=*, Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl may be pleased to vacate the interim order dt.11-07-2025 in W.P.No.20111 o'f 2(25. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI L. RAVI CHANDER, SENIOIf COUNSEL FOR SRI SRINIVAS BOBBILI Counsel for Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION NO.2O111 OF 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri L.Itavi Chander, learned senior couFrS€l, representing Sri Bobbili Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Services-l for respondents. \ \ I 2\ This Court dealt with similar issue in W.P.No.20489 of 2O2S / and allorved the said.,vrit petition vide order dated 26.O9.2025. 3) In view of the above and for the reasons alike in the order dateci 26.C9.2O25 in W.P. No.2O4B9 of 2025, the present Writ Petition is a-lso liable to be allowed in respect of petitioners 2, 4, s and 6 alone. Hou,ever, the case of petitioners 1 and 3 could rrot be considered by this Court since they were promoted as faculty/ teaching members and the respondents have proved the element of public interest in respect of petitioners 1 and 3 as their services are required in the newly established ir4ecical colleges to get over the inspections of National I\iledical Commission. 2 I'I(, J wp 201 t I _ 2025 4) Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed i _r part and the impugned G.o.Itt.No.29g, dated oz.o7.2o2s, is ht: .eby set asidc in respect of thc pctitioner Nos.2, 4, 5 and 6 alorrc. Misccllaneous petitions pending, if any, sh: ll stard closed. No costs 'r SD/-P. PONNA KRISHNA ASS STA NT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// .-_ \* \ \ I sEcfloN oFFICER \l To, 1 . The Principal Secretary, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, 2. The Director of Medical Education,, Government of Telarrgana, Koti, State of Tdlangana Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad Hvderabad

3. The Principal,, Gandhi Medical. College/ Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad 4. The Principal,, GMH, Hanumakonda 5. The Principal,, VlGM/KMC, Warangal 6. One CC to Sri Srinivas Bobbili Advocate IOPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP For Services I ,High Couh for the State trf Telangana [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies (Along witti a copy of Order dated 26.09.2025 in W.P.No.20489 of 2025) MBC BS 4lts HIGH COURT DATI]D: 2610912025 tl .,-,". 10 :ii ;;5 '\'. :'' '.i:' ORDER WP.No.:20111 of 2025 PARTLY ALLOWING THE WFIIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS d, 7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK 1[IRIT PETITION NO.2O489 OF 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri L.Ravi Chander, Iearned senior counsel, representing Sri Bobbili Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents 2l The case of the petitioner is that he is presently working as senior-most Professor of Cardiolory at Osmania Medical College i.e. respondent No.3 College and serving as Head of the Department of Cardiologr. Further, he has successfully completed DM (Cardiologr) and chose to serve in the Government sector' Further, as a Super Specialist in Cardiolory, he treated thousands of heart patients who could not afford private hea.lthcare Further, during Covid-19 pandemic also, he rendered dedicated service and successfully treated numerous Covid- 19 patients. While so, during general transfers-2024, the petitioner requested the respondents to transfer him to Warangal. However, as his services are very much essential in respondent No.3 hospital as he is the senior-most Doctor in the Super Specialty of Cardiolory for PG Teaching and 2 PK, J wp-20489 2025 1 patient care, tlrc respondents have retained hinL in respondent No.3 Hospital. It is further averred that by sho',ving the name of the petitioner', respondents made the National Medical Council to allot cardiolof{y seats. While so, respondent No. 1 J-raving decided to effect promotion s on a temporary basis to the por,ts of Additional Director of l\4e<lical Education including Princip;rl of a Medical College and Supcrintendent of a Teaching Generrll Hospital, has directed all rhc e ligible Professors, including the petitioner, to submit Annu:rl ,]onfidential Reports (ACR) of the candidates to be promoted. As t[-re petitioner is keenly interested n teaching and also due to his mother's health condition, ,vhich requires continuous medication and regular follow-up and rrlso due to other personal and fa mily reasons, he submitted an op ion form dated

28.06.2025 rr:qrrcsting the respondents to considgr his case for promotion to th,-- post of Principal in any one of the five medical colleges at Sangrr Reddy. Quthbullapur, Vikarabad, Hanumakonda and Nalgonda. l{or.vever, without considering the s rid options, the respondents, under the guise of promotion, have transferred the petitioner to ir non-teaching post i.e. Suprrrintendent of Government (]eneral Hospital, Nizamabad, vide impugned G.O. PK, J wp 20489 2O2S dated O7.O7.2O25. But, as the petitioner is not in a position to discharge the administrative responsibilities and aiso lack of interest in administrative work, he submitted a representation dated O9.07.2025 requesting the respondents to permit him to forego the promotion, retain and continue him in the post of Professor of Cardiologr and HOD (Cardiolory), Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad. However, without considering his representation, the respondents are compelling the petitioner to accept the promotion, taking steps to relieve him from the post of Professor of Cardiolory and HOD (Cardiolory), Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad, and also to fiii up the said post with another person. Therefore, the action of the respondents is highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable, without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice and infringement of Articles l4 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to Rule I I of the State and Subordinate Service Rules. 3) Learned senior counsel has contended that as per Rule 11 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules, all the candidates who are promoted are entitled to forego their promotion and nobody can insist the petitioner to join in the promotion post. An option was I PK, J \\,p 2O4a9 2025 \.1 left open to the employee to forego promotion subject to the condition that they would forfeit their promotion for the current panel year. SirLce the petitioner has agqeed to forego promotion, the respondent:j are duty bound to continue t} e petitioner as Professor of Cardiologr and HOD (Cardiolory), Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad. However, contrary to Rule 1 1 ol the State and Subordinate Se rvice Rules as well as contrary t o the terms of G.O.Rt.No.298, rlatcd 07.O7.2025, the respondents' are taking steps to relieve the petitioner from the said post and fill it with another person. This action is highly illegal, arbitrary and rrnjust. Learned senior counsel further contends that under tllt guise of the impugned promotions, senior professors like the petitioner, are being transferred from cmcial posts and junior I tt'ulty members are being posted in their place, which is causing st rious detriment to a large number of needy patients and is contrar,'to the interest of postgraduate students. Learned counsel furth:r submits that though the petitioner made a representation on 09.O7.2025 to the respondents that he will forego the promotion, rerlrested to retain and continue him in the present place, without considering the same, the respondents are taking steps to relieve the petitioner and 5 PK, J w 2O449_2O2s to fill the same with another person. Therefore, the learned senior counsel contends that the action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and unjust. Further, in several .cases where the doctors have opted to forego promotion, the respondents have continued such doctors in their existing posts without insisting upon their acceptance of the promotional post. Learned senior counsel has demonstrated before this court the case of one Dr. surya prakash whose case was considered by the respondents duly retaining him in the same post even after his foregoing the promotion. similarry, in 2024 promotion counseling, in respect of 11 professors, who opted to forego their promotion, were retained in the same posts where they were working. However, in case of the petitioner, the respondents, for the reasons best known to them, are compelling him to accept the promotion, which action of the respondents is ex facie illegal, unconstitutional and amounts to discrimination. Further, certain Professors, whose ACRs have not been forwarded to respondent Nos. I a',d 2 , are being retained in their existing posts without being promoted. Thus, as per the learned senior counsel, the respondents are effecting promotions selectively and in a pick-and-choose manner under the guise of promotion. The (t PK, J wp 20489 _2025 action of the respondents in shifting the petitionet to non-teaching post suffers from arbitrariness 4) Per con trzr, the learned Government Pleader while admitting the fact that thr: petitioner was promoted as Professor of Cardiologz in the year 20lt)-2O11 and working in respondenl. No.3 Hospital as Prolessor of Czrrdiolory and HOD (Cardiologz) s,rbmits that the Government has promoted 44 Professors as Additionai Director of Medical Educalion including Principals of Medical Colleges and Superintendents of Government General Hospi al and posting orders were issrred to the promotees, including th,' petitioner, vide G.O.Rt.No.298, dated 07.O7.2024, wherein t was clearly mentioned at para 4 that the Director of Mertical Education, Telangana, Hyderabad, shall take immediate step:j to communicate the saicl orders; to the Principal of Medical Col ege concerned/ Superintendent of the Hospital concerned irnd relieve the individuals immediately, without seeking their con;ent for relief by granting 15 days time to the individuals for . oining in their respective promoted posts. Learned Government Pleader further submits that the Government of Telangana has sanctioned and established 25 new Medical Colleges and the l otal sanctioned 7 PK, J wp 20489 2025 strength of the post of Additional Director of Medical Education including Principal of Medical College and Superintendent of Teaching General Hospitals is 64 and urorking strength is 15 and for remaining 49 vacant posts, the Government has taken up the promotions of Special Grade Professor and Professors (Clinical, Non-Clinical and Super Specialty) and the Departmental Promotion Committee had cleared 44 names of Special Grade Professor and Professors to the post of Additional Director of Medical Education/ Principal of Medical College / Superintendent of Teaching General Hospitals, wh.ich is a State level post. Hence, the promotees can be posted to anyuvhere in the State keeping in view of administrative exigency. Accordingly, posting orders were issued keeping in view the administrative exigency and NMC requirements duly following the need based assessment as it may affect the recognition of the Medical College in the NMC inspections and the Government Oflicers have to be ready to serve wherever required in public interest. Learned Government Pleader further contends that if the doctors in the State Medical Services on promotion are posted to elsewhere in public interest to Government Medical Colleges to Administrative post and such postings are challenged for one or 8 PK, J \Yp 2O4a9 _2023 the other reason, the running of such Governmenl Nledrcal Colleges will be in question and further, there will be ser.ous observations from the NMC rn continuation of its recognition -o such Medical Colleges in the absence of faculty, which will be irL totai violation of public interest. Learned Government Pleadcr furth:r contends that the contention of the petitioner that the impugned G.O.Rt.No.298, dated O7.O7.2025 is contrary to Rule 11 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules is accepted, every doctor whoever is treinsferred may take a similar stand, rrL which event, it will be difficult for the Government to man the rosts and there would be ch:ros since no doctor would be read5' to join at their place of postlng, if it is not a lucrative posting, vhich would be against the concept of welfare State and injr.L ious to public interest. Learnt'd Government Pleader has placed -eliance on Rule 28 of the State and Subordinate Service Ruk r, and also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State oJ'Uttar Pradesh u. Achal Singht and Sk. Nausad Rahaman u. Unton of Ind.iaz. ' (2018) 17 SCC 578 2 2022 Livelaw (SC) 26() 9 , PK, J wp 20489 2O2S 5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective counsel and perused the material on record. 6l A perusal of the material on record reveals that while the petitioner is working as Professor of Cardiolory and Head of the Department, Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad, he is promoted to the post of Additional Director of Medical Education/Principal of Medica,l College/ Superintendent of Teaching General Hospitals uide impugned G.O.Rt.No.298, dated 07.O7.2025, and posted AS Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Nizamabad, which is a non-teaching post. Para 5 of the said G.O., which is relevant in the present context, is reproduced hereunder "The Professors promoted above, shall join the promotion post within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the orders of promotion. If, they fail to join the new post within the said time limit or evade to join the post by proceeding on leave, they shall forfeit their promotion for the current panel year in terms of Rule 1l (b) of TS State & Subordinate Services Rules, 1996". 7l From the above, it is clear that if the promotees fail to join in the promotion post within a period of l5 days, they will forfeit their promotion for the current panel year in terms of RuIe I I (b) of TS t0 PK, J wp 20489 2025 State & Subordinate Services Rules, 1996, whiclr provision of law reads as under "11. The tinre limit for joining either on first selectioil ot otr promotion or on appointmPnl b) I ra nsfe r:- (a) (b) Time 1o join a post on appointment/ tcmpo r i rV al)pointment under Rule 10 rncluding appointmcnt by transfer r: b1' promotion otherwise than by direct recruitment, sha-ll be allowccl r.ioining time of t5 (fifteen) dalrs to join the post from the date of receiJ I ol the order of appointment sent to the candidate by Regist,' r'rl Post rvith acknowledgement due or by any other means. An enr rlol't'r' not join the post within the stipulated time or evades t I l,rin lhe post by proceeding on leave, shall lose his promotion right/ol1i: fbr the current panel year and the name of the candidate shall be p rrccd before the next Departmcntal Promotion Committee for considcr I L,rn in lhe next year panel suDject to availability of vacancy. [n casc ri non selection posts, the name of the candidate who does not join witlr rr th(r stipulated time in the promotion posts shdl be considered for lrromotion again after a period cf one year from the date of offer of appt ttttment subJect to availabilit5r oI vacancy." "r,ho 8) Para 5 of the impugned G.O.Rt.No.29B, drrred 07.O7.2025, juxtapose to Rule 11 (b) of the Telangana Statc i ncl Subordinate Service Rules, I996, make it crystal clear that nr n joining of the promotee in the promoted post within 15 days tirre would render forfeiture of prornotion by the promotee for the curr rnt panel year. PK, J w_2O449_2025 9) In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioner has expressed his willingness to forego the promotion even before joining in the promoted post, which action of the petitioner is in accordance with Para 5 of the impugned G.O.Rt.No.298, dated 07.O7.2025, as well as Rule 1 1 (b) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, referred supra. Hence, the respondents cannot compel the petitioner to accept the promotion, as is alleged by him. 10) Further, the main ground urged by the respondents is that in view of the establishment of (25) new Medical Colleges across the State, the Government has taken up the present promotion process since the non-availability of required faculty may affect the recognition of the Medical Coilege itself ln the National Medical Commission Inspections, which will also be in total violation of public interest. 11) If really, lhe purport of the present promotions is to get over the inspections of the National Medical Commission and to keep the recognition of Medicai Colleges intact, the respondents ought to have posted the petitioner in such newly established Medical Colleges as faculty/teaching member since the services of the t2 PK, J wp_2o489 2025 petitioner are already being utilized in the capz city of teaching faculty in the present place of work. Instead, the r:spondents have promoted and posted the petitioner in a.,non-tea<; ring post, which has nothing to do with the mdn purpose for effecting promotions. In such circumstances, the respondents cannot r ontend that the promotions and postings are effected in public intr: -est 12\ Further, the petitioner has participated ir the promotion process in his rvillingness to work as a teaching f rculty. Had the respondents readily considered his request, the ult mate purpose of promotion process would also have been achieveC. Instead, the respondents chose to post the petitioner in a nr n-teaching post under the guise of promotion from a teaching-post which action of the respondents, by no stretch of imagination, car be stated to be in public interest. Therefore, the judgment of the IIon'ble Supreme Court in Achal Singh (referred supra/ relie( upon by the respondents rs of no avail to them. Similarly, the jr,rclgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sk. Nauso,d Rahuman (referred. supra) also cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present since the present case is of relinquishment of prorr,)tion t3 PK, J wp_20449 2025 13) For the afore-mentioned reasons, more particularly in view of the relinquishment pleaded by the petitioner, the impugned G.O.Rt.No.298, dated 07.OZ.2O2S, is hereby set aside in respect of the petitioner herein alone. 14) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs Date: 26-09-2025 PULLA KARTHIK, J