Medical and Health Officer, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District v. 2 The Director of Health, Andhra Pradesh, Koti, Hyderabad
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 31 Dec 2004
- Bench
- G BIKSHAPATHY, B SESHASAYANA REDDY
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. The petitioner filed O.A. before the Tribunal seeking direction to the respondents to consider his case of promotion for the post of Civil Surgeon and sought promotion as was given to his juniors on 12.12.2001. The said O.A. was dismissed on the ground that…
- Para 66. With this observation, the Writ Petition is accordingly closed. No costs. __________________ G. BIKSHAPATHY, J. ______________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date: 31.12.2004 ES To 1 The Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Director of Health…
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders dated 16-04-2004 passed in O.A. NO. 8104/2002 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal as illegal and arbitrary and consequentially direct the respondents to consider case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Civil Surgeon with effect from 12-12-2001 the date on which the juniors were promoted to such category with all benefits like payment of salary, arrears of salary etc. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.HARINATH GUPTA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following:
ORAL ORDER:-
(PER GB,J.) The Writ Petition is filed challenging the order, dated 16.04.2004 passed by A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.8104 of 2002.
The petitioner filed O.A. before the Tribunal seeking direction to the respondents to consider his case of promotion for the post of Civil Surgeon and sought promotion as was given to his juniors on 12.12.2001. The said O.A. was dismissed on the ground that the matter was already considered by the authorities and therefore, no further orders are necessary. Accordingly, the O.A. was dismissed, against which the present Writ petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the case against the petitioner is pending in the Criminal Court, the authorities are required to follow the procedure as contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.74, GAD, dated 24.2.1994. In the instant case such a procedure has not been followed and hence the order is liable to be set aside.
On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submits that the matter has been considered in pursuance of the directions issued by the Tribunal and the G.O.Ms.No.334, dated 28.9.2004 issued by the Government in which the name of the petitioner figures at Sl.No.4. He further submits that his name is included and it was deferred and also submits that the Writ Petition is not maintainable.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Inasmuch as the Government has passed orders in G.O.Ms.No.334, we do not find any illegality in the order of the Tribunal and we leave it open to the petitioner to challenge the consequential G.O.Ms.No.334, dated 28.9.2004, if he so aggrieved.
With this observation, the Writ Petition is accordingly closed. No costs. __________________ G. BIKSHAPATHY, J. ______________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date: 31.12.2004 ES To 1 The Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Director of Health, Andhra Pradesh, Koti, Hyderabad 3 2 CCs to the G.P. for Services I, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT). 4 2 CD copies.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 31 Dec 2004. The bench was G BIKSHAPATHY, B SESHASAYANA REDDY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.