Dr. Uzma Viquar v. The Director

[ 3318 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT APPEAL NO.8O7 OF 2023 Writ Appeal under clause '15 of the Letters Patent Preferred Against the Order Dated 27-04-2023 in W.P.No.37039 of 20'18 on the file of the High Court. Between:

Dr. Uzma Viquar, W/o Mohd Anees Ahmed, Aged about 50 years, Occ Associate Professor Contractual, P. G. Department llmulAdvia Central Research lnstitute of Unani Medicine, Erragadda, Hyderabad.

...APPELLANT/wRtT PETITIONER AND The Director, Department of Ayush State of Telangana Sth. Floor, TSGLI Building, Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad.

2. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government Health Medical and Family Welfare Department Secretariat Hyderabad

3. Dr. Wasefa Kaukab, D/o Mohammed Abdus Salam, Aged about 38 years, Occ Private Practice, Rl/o H No 17 3 311196 Yakuthpura Colony Hyderabad 500023.

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS !A NO:2 OF 2023 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 susperid the impugned Judgment of the Learned Single Judge daled 27.04.2023 in WP.No.37039 of 20'18 pending disposal of the Writ Appeal.

7, lA NO: 3 OF 2023 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 direct Ir the official respondents No.1 and 2 not to fill up the post in question i.e. Assistant Professor issued in Notification dated 28.08.2018 pending disposal of the Writ Appeal.

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI J. SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: GP FOR SERVICES-|| Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI C. SAI REDDY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR STIAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE NATYIAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO Writ Appeal No.8O7 of 2o23 JUDGMENT:

(Pet Hon'ble Si Justice Abhinond Kumat Shauili) Aggrieved by the orders dated 27 .O4.2023 1n W.P.No.37O39 of 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge, the present Writ Appeal is filed.

2.

Heard Mr. J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for Services-ll appearing for the respondents.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant is fully eligible and qualified to be appointed as a Lecturer (Unani) and the respondents have issued a notification on 28.08.2018 inviting applications for the post of Lecturer (Unani). Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that as per the notification, the selections are to be made on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination and 5 marks for each completed year after passing qualifying examination, and another 2O marks are to be allocated towards service weightage for the service rendered on contract basis. Learned counsel for the

AKS,J & RRN,] wa 807 2023 appellant had further contended that the appellant has worked in Unani Medical College from 2OO9 to 2015 and the appellant has worked as a Associate professor in Central Research Institute of Unani Medicine from 2016 to 2018. However, the respondents have not aw-arded the service weightage marks to the appellant on the ground that the appellant has not worked in the State Government Medical college. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not granting the service weightage marks though the appellant has worked on contract basis as a Associate Professor in Central Research Institute of Unani Medicine. The appellant has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.37O39 of 2018 and the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition vide orders, dated 27.Q4.2O23 by clubbing the writ petition along with W.P.No.343B3 of 2018 without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellant.

4.

Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the facts in the present case are different from that of the facts in W.P.No.34383 of 2O18 and the learned Single Judge ought to have adjudicated the matter individually in spite of clubbing W.P.No.37O39 of 20lg along with some \ \ i,

fr AKs,J & R RN,,, wa 807 _2023 other writ petition, which is not at all connected with the case of the appellant. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ appeal by setting aside the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.p.No.37O39 of 2018, dated 27.O4.2O23, and further direct the respondents to consider the case of the appellant for awarding service weightage marks and for appointment to the post of Lecturer (Unani) in pursuant to the notification, dated 28.O8.2018.

5.

On the other hand, learned Government pleader for Services-ll for the respondents had contended that the service weightage marks are liable to be awarded based upon the policy of the State Government taken in G. O.Ms.No.6 1, dated 29.06.2O 18, wherein, the contractual service has been defined as the services rendered by the AYUSH Doctors who were working in Rashtriya BaI Swasthya Kaqrakram (RBSK), ESI Hospital and other Telangana State Government Departments/ Telangana State owned Public Enterprises. As admittedly, the Central Research Institue of Unnani Medicine is not there in the said G.O., therefore, the respondents are justified in not awarding marks to the appellant _as the appellant has I

AKs,J & RRN,J wa 807 2023 rendered service in Central Research Institute of Unani Medicine. If the appellant is aggrieved, he should have challenged the G.O.Ms.No.6l, dated 29.06.201g and as long as the said G.O is in existence, the case of the appellant cannot be considered for service weightage marks and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the case by holding that the appellant has not challenged G.O.Ms.No.61, dated 29.06.2OI9. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6.

This Court having considered the rival submissions made by both the parties is of the view that as long as G.O.Ms.No.61, dated 29.06.2019, is in force, the request of the appellant cannot be entertajned. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition, however, this Court is of the view that if the appellant is aggrieved by G.O.Ms.No.6l, dated 29.06.2018, then the appellant must challenge the said G.O, and the orders passed by the learned Single Judge further will not come against the said G.O without the appellant challenges the said G.O.

\

,t I AKs,] & RRN,J wa 807 2023 7.

With the above said observations, the Writ Appeal is closed, however, liberty is given to the appellant to challenge G.O.Ms.No.61, dated 29.06.2018. No costs. 8.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed WAR U GI SD/. CH. VENKATESH DEPUTY RE //TRUE COPY// FFICER SECTION 'O'1. ON" CC tO SRI J. SUDHEER' AdVOCAIE IOPUC] , Two ccs to Gp for services-t, High court for the state of Telangana at '' HYderabad lOUTl

3. One CC to SRI C' SAI REDDY' Advocate IOPUCI

4. Two CD CoPies MP GJP YfI I I I l

f I HIGH COURT DATED:1 110912023 c s*'

-:

1X 0t1 2ss :j t) JUDGTVIENT I WA.No.807 of 2023 CLOSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS +o{(d tr{,