The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 15'1 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 impugned Proc.No.l58/A/SRD/2018, dated Nil/3/2019 and consequential appointment order of the 5th un officra respondent vide Proc.No.B/1 58i2016. dated NiU06/2019 by the '1st respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. R. TAGORE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR SERVICES ll Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI B. KAMALAKARA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER "3'i;lF'r' i I I i I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAXA WRIT PETITTON No.27229 ot 2Ol9 ORDER: This Writ Petition is hled being aggrieved by the action of the 1"t respondent in appointing the 5h respondent as MPHA(F) in the backlog vacancy meant for Person With Disability on regular basis vide impugned Proceedings No'B/ 158/2016'

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned GovernmentPleaderforServices-IlforrespondentNos.lto4. Perused the record.

3.Thefactsofthecasearethatthepetitionerbelongstothe Scheduled Caste (SC) category and also qualifies under the Orthopedically Handicapped (OH) category' According to her educational records, she is a local candidate of Nalgonda District' and now comes under Suryapet District' as she completed her studies in the Thunga Thurty Mandal of Nalgonda District' Furthermore, after completing her intermediate education' the petitioner underwent an 18-month MPHW (F) training course at theJointDirectorTrainingCentreinHyderabad,makingher eligible for the MPHA (F) position in accordance with the statutory rules. ; .l 2 NBKJ W.P.No,27229 of 2019

4. The respondents has issued a Notification No.1/2O16, dated

21.03.2017 for various posts and notified only one post of MPHAIF] for the panel year 2016-2017 for Orthopedically Handicapped (OH) Women category in Nalgonda District. The petitioner has submitted an application for the saitl post under OH Women category on O4.O4.2O17. Therea_fter, a provisional merit list was prepared wherein the petitioner's name was placed €rmong the rejected candidates list and placed at Sl.No.11 stating that the petitioner is a non-local candidate of Nalgonda District and a local candidate of new District of Suryapet. The petitioner secured total marks 54.66 in the selection process but rejected.

5. Aggrieved by the above provisional merit list, the petitioner submitted representations, dated 28.Oa.2OlZ and 04. 12.2Ol7 to the respondents to consider her case as per erstwhile Nalgonda District but ti1l now no action was taken. Therefore, the petitioner frled a W.P.No.436B5 of 2Ol7 before this Court and granted interim order on 21.12.2017 with a direction to the respondents herein to consider the petitioner's case as local caldidate of erstwhile Naigonda District. Following the interim orders, dated 2I.I2.2O17 , the respondents prepared a revised merit list and placed the unofhcial respondent y.prameela name at S1.No. 1 with

72.191 marks and the petitioner name was placed at S1.No.4 ,,r,ith NBK,J W.P.No-27229 of 2019

54.666 ma-rks. Later issued a speaking ordets uide impugned Proc.No. 158/A/SRD/ 2018, dated nil-03-2019 stating that the petitioner was not selected as she was secured z[*' place in the merit 1ist, despite treating her as a loca1 candidate in erstwhile Nalgonda District and consequentially appointed the 51h respondent as MPHA (F) under OH Women category uide proc.No.B/ 15812016, by the 2"d respondent and was posted at Gollapalli Sub-Centre, Kottamgur PHC, Nalgonda District and now she is discharging duties on regular basis.

6. The petitioner's prirnary grievance is that when the respondents issued Notihcation No. 1/2016, dated 21.O3.2017, for the post of MPHA (F) to frll up backlog vacancies reserved for disabled persons for the panel year 2016-2017, they also issued certain guidelines ol 23.03.2017, speci$zing the qualihcations required. According to the notihcation and guidelines under Table- B, Class 4, the required qualifications for the MPHA(F) post are Completion of Intermediate examination and MPHA(F) 18 months training course. However, in the provisional merit list, dated IA.fi.2OI7, the Sft respondent was placed at S1.No.1' She had completed a one-year Intermediate Vocational Training Course but did not fulfil the requirement of the 18-month MPHA (F) training 4 NBU W.P.No.27229 of 2019 course. Despite the merit list explicitly stating that the l8-month training course is required, the respondents considered the 5m unofficial respond.ent's case ald issued an appointment based on the Intermediate Vocational Course in MPHW' Furthermore' the respondents have not clearly disclosed the total marks allotted to the selected candidates and others. Therefore, the petitioner prays that the impugned rejection order, dated Nil'O3 2019 and the consequential appointment orders of the sth respondent' dated Nil.06.2O19 be sel aside.

7. l,earned counsel for respondent No'5 Iiled a counter afhdavit stating that respondent No.S completed her intermediate studies in March, 2009 with B - Grade ald subsequently appeared for the MultiPurposeHealthWorker(Female)Examination.Itisfurther submitted that she obtained a certificate in the Diploma in Multi Purpose Health Worker course in India, which has duration of two (2) years. Therefore, she has completed more than two years of training as a Multi Purpose Health Worker' Consequently, she is fully eligible and qualified for the post of MPHAIF) under the Orthopedically Handicapped Quota, as she is physically disabled at 73ok, with a government-issued certificate to that effect' Moreover, she secured 72.191marks and was placed at Serial No' 1, whereas the petitioner was placed at Serial No'4 with 54 666 5 NBI(J w-P.No.2722S of 2019 I t I \ marks, which is lower than her marks' Therefore' the petitioner has no locus to question her appointrnent as MPHA(F)(oH) and prayed to dismiss the writ petition' respondents have

8. Respondent No. 2 filed a counter afhdavit stating that the issued Notification No' 1 / 2016 for disabled yezr 2016-2017, dated 21'03'2017' and a persons for the clarification was given on 23'O3'2017' A provisional merit list was prepared on 18. 11'2O17. It is submitted that the said notihcation was issued after the formation of new districts' and the petitioner was rejected as she is a non-local candidate of Nalgonda District' According to her educationa'l records' the petitioner belongs to Suryapet District. However, following the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.No.43685 of 2Ol7 ' the case of the petitioner was considered as a local candidate of the erstwhile Nalgonda District' It is further submitted that the petitioner was not selected for the post of MPHA (F) under the OH Category' as she secured 4t' place in the merit list when treated as a local caldidate in the erstwhile Nalgonda District. Respondent No'5 fulfrlled all the requirements was found eligible as a merit of the notifrcation, dated 23 'O3 '2Ot7 ' candidate in the list, and was considered for the post among the other candidates- It is further stated that the petitioner' knowing that there are no grounds or reasons to consider her case' has I 6 N8K,I W.P.No.272z9 of 2019 ,! approached this Court with unclean hands. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the Wnt Petition. g . in view of the submission made by learned counsel appearing on either side, this court is of the considered view that respondent No.5 has completed more than two years of training as a Multi Purpose Health Worker and is fully eligible for the post of MPHA(F) under the Orthopedically Handicapped Quota. She is physically disabled at 73oh and she secured 72.191 marks and was placed at Serial No.l, r,r'hereas the petitioner was placed at Serial No.4 with 54.666 marks. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to set aside the impugned orders dated Nil.O3.2O19 and Nil.06.2O19 sans no merit as the 5th respondent is the competent person for the said post. 1O. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed' ,rRUE coPY// sD/- M' NAGAMANI ASSI.TANT#,I.rRAR ,/ SECTi"ON OFFICER yiJ.'"H8:?' l?..13f; 1? L?iy':le state or reransana' at To i ?'l: 33 Ji"'3 TJ GJ E . gl:"AttS l:uellr'*' t'r"..u Rao' Advocateto Pu cl

4. Two CD CoPies I { HIGH COURT DATED:1110612025 4=\ I 2O AlJ6 ZU ., ORDER WP.No.27229 of 2019 s.-':-...y'Ji.!' ot S,-, {, lll lf:rj * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 3)