The High Court · 2025

Petition Under Section 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 circular notification No. ED/752(1) 2O12-FD (Final seniority List) Dt. 16.04.2013 issued by the 1st respondent pending disposal of the writ appeal. |.A.NO:1 OF 2018 Petition Under Section 151 cpc praying that in the cirr:umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to receive the letter, dated 30-03-2009 for the just decision of the appeal as additiona I evidence. Counsel for Appellant : SRI BANKATLAL MANDHANI Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Ms. D.SAI MAHITHA, LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI R.ANURAG Counsel for Respondent No.2 : SRI P.V.S.S.S.RAMA RAO W.A.NO:1821 OF 2017 Writ Appeal under clause '15 of the Letters patent preferred against the order dated 02-11-2017 in WP.Nc.3396 of 2009. on the file of the High Courl. Between: Dr. Ekambari, D/o. Sri K.Bheem fq9, Aged about 44 years, Working as l\,4edical Officer, APS RTC Tarnaka Hospital, Hydeiabad. AND .....APPELLANT/WRIT PETITIONER

1. The A.P.S.R.T.C.. Rep_ by IManaging Director, Bus Bhavan, [\/usheerabad, Hyderabad. 2- Dr. D.Seshakumari, W/o..Not known to. the Appellant, Aged A,4ajor, Retired Senior [\/ed ical Officer, Vizianagaram, Vizianbgaram Dislrict.

3. Smt- Sailaja [\,4urth-y. D/o. Not known to the Appellant. Aged [\/ajor, Occ; Senior [Vedical Officer, ApS RTC Hospital, Tbinaka, Hy-dr,raba8 .....RESPONDENTS/RESpONDENTS Nos.1 to 3 Counsel for Appellant : SRI BANKATLAL MANDHANI Counsel for Respondent No..l : Ms. D.SAI MAHITHA, LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI R.ANURAG Counsel for Respondent No.2 : SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for Respondent No.3 : SRI P.V.S.S.S.RAMA RAO The Court made the fottowing COMMON JUDGMENT : - -1 THE HOMBLE THE CHIEf,'JUSTICE SRI APARESiH KI]MAR SINGH THT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHTT]DDIN AND WRIT APPEAL Nos. 1835 AND 1821 OF 2Ol7 COMMON JUDGMENT: Heard Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. D.Sai Mahitha, learned counsel representing Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel lor Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC)-respondent No. 1 and Sri P.Suresh Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri P.V.S.S.S.Rama Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in W.A.No. 1836 of 2077 and respondent No.3 in W.A.No.1821 of 2Ol7 ar-d perused the record.

2. The present writ appeals are hled challenging the legality and correctness of the common order dated 03.ll.2Ol7 passed in W.P.No. 15773 of 2O13 and W.P.No.3396 ol 2OO9 by the iearned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petitions.

3. The challenge of the appellant/writ petitioner in the two writ petitions was to the effect of promotion of respondent No.2- Smt.Sailaja Murthy to the post of Senior Medical Offrcer by overlooking the seniority of the appellant. i t i i l t : , t.I 6lr L 2

4. The learned Single Judge dismissed the plea of the appellant/ writ pctitioner by common order dated

03.1t.2017 holding inter olia that respondent No.2 joined the service o[ APSRTC as Assistant Medical Officer on 17.O2.2OOO and the appeilant was ilppointecl as Medical Ofhcer on O2.O8.2OO3. The learned Single Judge considering the fact that respondent No.2 was appointed as Assistant Medical Oflicer prior in point of time to the appointment of the appellant as Medical Offir:cr (both of u,hich posts c()nstituted feeder category to the post of Senior Medical Ofhcer (Specialist)) observed that respondent No.2 being senior was rightly promoted to the post of Senior Medical Ofllcer (Specialist).

5. The learned Single Judge further heid that the promotion of respondent No.2 who was senior to the appellant was in accordancc u.ith lhe rules and reservations of the APSRTC and aLso as per Appendix-A of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Recruitment) Regulations, t966.

6. The learned Single Judge did not hnd any reason to interfere with the action of the authorities eflecting the promotion of respondent No.2 and accordingly dismissed the u ndrrlying wri pelitions. J Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the 7. appellant being a Scheduled Tribe (ST) candidale, was unjustly deprived of her rightful seniority as the roster point No 8, specifically earmarked for ST (Women), was erroneously fitled by a general category candidate in the year 2007 instcad of being carried forward for the appetlant. Further, it is contended that thc justification put-forth by the respondents, lhat adequate representation in the cadre already stood sat'isficd owing to thc appointment of another ST(W) czrndidate, namely Dr' Suvarnarnala, is untenable inasmuch as hcr appointmenl was made on open merit and not against a resen'ed vacancy' Consequently, such an illegaliry has resulted in the appellant being relegated to roster point No.25, thereby causing her grave prejudice and substantiai loss of seniority

8. l,earned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant being senior to respondent No 2 in service as Medical Officer and also in qualification as per the common law and the principles of natural justice, the seniorit5r is requ ired to be decided from the date of entitlement to said promotion and the learned Singled Judge erred in rejecting the contentions of the appellant solely on the ground that the appellant and respondent No.2 have been promoted as Senior Medical Ofltcer 4 _ .! (Specialist) on the same day i.e., 20.O2.2OlO and trolding that in the regulations in Road Transport Corporations Act, t95O such specificalion did nor exist

9. It is also contended by the learned cotrnsel for the appellant that in regard to the promotion for the posl o[ Assistant Mcclical Officer and Medical Officer, it cannot be based upon number of years in service but has to be considered from the period of service as Medical Officer which th€ appellant had at the time of promotion. Further, it is contended that the finding of th,: learned Single Judge in respect of the length of service front feeder category being taken into consideration for effecting the promotion to the post of senior Medicsl 916... (Specialist) is incorrect and contrary to the preparation of f-rnal seniority list of Medical Officers.

10. Learnccl counsel for the appeilant also contends that the learned Singk: Judge had failed to appreciate the fact that when lhe roster po;nt regarding ST (W) quota was lying vacant, thc endorsement to carry forward the roster point No.g on 05.11.2004 wls improper and on completing of five,r5ft years of scrvice, the appellant ought to have been promoted. The concerned ofhcer of Social Welfare Department failecl to promotc 5 the appellant by Iitling the said post even after completion of the required period by the appellant. 1 1. It is contended that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the arguments/ submissions made in respect of the qualihcation of respondent No.2-sailaja Murthy i.e., she does not possess any qualihcation for promotion as Senior Medical Officer (specialist) as her PG Diploma is not recognized by the Medical Council of India as per Section 1 1 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short, 'MCI ActJ and alleged the promotion orders are illegal.

12. It is also contended that the learned Single Judge failed to observe the Merits Rating Report dated 31.O3.2OI2 ol respondent No.2 from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 and has erroneously upheld the promotion of respondent No.2 as Specialist Senior Medical Officer. The Merits Rating Reporl wherein it was clearly recorded/ stated that responderrt No.2 lacks skill in the specialization and did not perform any single procedure in the specializati.on which she has claimed to have pursued and on the basis of which, she has been promoted as specialist Senior Medical Ofhcer.

13. It is also contended that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that R.T.C. Regulations do not require P.G. qualification 6 recognized by the Medical Council of India, ignoring the amended A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966, which prescribe medical qualifications under the Schedule to the lndian Medical Council Act, 1956 for recruitment to :he posts of Senior Medical Officer (Specialist), Medical Officer (Specialist) and Medical Officer (General).

14. We havc taken note of the respective contentions urged. 1 5. The fulcrttm of the case of the appellant is the hxation of senioriby betwer:n the appellant and respondent No.2 in the promotional carlrc for the post of Senior Medical Ofhcer, to which both \(cre promoted on the same date t.e. , 2O.O2.2O|O and the dispute arose when the appellant, who was senior in the feeder cadre of Medical Officer, as being placed junior to respondent No.Il in the promotional cadre.

16. In regard to the contention of respondent No.2's eligibility for promotion based on a P.G. Diploma from an open University, it is obsen ed t.hat though the MCI Act governs standards of medical education and practice, it does not regulate service conditions or promotional criteria of an autonomous body like the A.P.S.R.T.C., unless incorporated in its regulations. // -a/ 7

77. Further, it is pertinent to note that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that eligibility for promotion is governed by the A.P.S.R.T.C. Recruitment Regulations, which at thc relevant time, permitted consideration of the said diploma. The Corporation, being bound by its own rules and regulations, acted in accordance therewith, and the appellant, having entered service under the same framework, cannot challenge its applicabilify to another employee. Therefore, the challenge to respondent No.2's eligibility, based on the provisions of the MCI Act, is untenable.

18. Regarding the issue of determination of seniority where promotions under the rule of reservation were effected on the same day, it is to be noted that the seniority in the promoted cadre is to be reckoned with reference to the order of roster points earmarked for reserved vacancies and not on the basis of seniority in the feeder cadre. In the instant case, roster point No.16 precedes roster point No.25 and accordingly, respondent No.2 having been promoted against the earlier roster point was rightly placed as senior to the appellant. i9. It is also pertinent to note that the learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the R.T.C. Regulations do not provide for carrying forward the senioritSz of the feeder category in cases 8 where Promotions Therefore, are made against specific reserved slots' as are not general in nature but based on such, Promotions seniority-cum merit Therefore' the principle of maintatntng feeder-cadrc seniority has no application in the present context 20. On per'-rsa1 of the record' it is observed thal the rule of reservation in Promotlon s took effect on 27 O3'2OO3' and bY 30.06.2OO7, Dr' C. Suvarnamala' belonging to the S T'(W) category, was zrlready serving in the cadre of Senior Medical Ofhcer, therebY' ensuring adequate representation of the the appellant's contention that she communitl' ought to hav': been promo[ed earlier against roster point No 8 is devoid of merit, and the decision of the Corporation not to carry point No.8 during 2O07 forward the S'T (Women) roster selections stands justifi ed' 2l We have noted that the learned Single Judge rightly held that the seLectlon panel ciated Og .O2 '2OlO , which constituted the verv basrs lor the promotions and the resultant seniority 1ist, and 11']risLr had unequivocally placed respondent No 2 at 51' No. 6 and the appellant at SI' No' 15 was never assailed by the appellant. Therefore ' the attempt to question the consequential seniorily list alter several years' without cl-rallenging the 9 foundational panei, is clearly an afterthought and barred by delay and laches.

22. [n conclusion, [his Court is of the view that the promotions were effected in accordance with the reservation policy and the governing service regulations of the Corporation.

23. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the underlying common order of the learned Single Judge as it does not suffer from any perversity, illegaiiry or error of jurisdiction warranting interference of this Court.

24. Accordingly, the Writ Appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. A.V.S.PRASAD- --? DEPUTY REGIS R ECTION OFFICER CC to SRI BANKATLAL MANDHANI, Advocate CC to SRI P.V.S.S.S.RAMA RAO, Advocate [O CC to SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD Advocate [OPUC] CC to SRI R.ANURAG, Advocate (OPUC) CD Copies UC To

1. One 2. One 3. One 4. One 5. Two SA TKS M, HIGH COURT DATED:1910912025 i 5 t[i 2ui5 '\.. ..i. COMMON JUDGMENT WA.Nos.1836 AND 1821 of 2017 DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEALS WITHOUT COSTS. \Dbr