Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

D.Narapa Reddy vs The Tirumala Tirupati Devastanam on 7 August, 2019

Bench: C.Praveen Kumar, Cheekati Manavendranath Roy

   HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

                    Writ Petition No.10785 of 2019

Order:

       Heard Sri P.V. Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the

petitioner; Dr. Majji Suri Babu, learned Standing Counsel for

TTD appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned

Government          Pleader        for   Services-I          appearing          for     the

respondents 2 to 4.

       2. Facts lie in a narrow compass and may be stated as

follows:

       The    petitioner       has       been    working           as    a     Technical

Supervisor in Free Ayurveda Dispensary of Tirumala Tirupati

Devasthanams              (TTD),    Tirumala.             He        possesses           the

qualifications       of    -   (1) B.A.M.S.           from    Sri Venkateswara

University, Tirupati, (2) M.D. from Rajiv Gandhi University of

Health Sciences, Bengaluru and (3) Ph.D. (Ayurvedic Pharmacy

subject),         Thesis       submitted             in      the        year          2019.

As per Rule 9(II) of the TTD Employees' Service Rules, 1989,

the service shall consist of the post under various branches

specified in Annexure-I attached to the Rules. As per the said

Rules, medical services will come under                                 Category       3(6)

i.e.   Sri        Srinivasa        Ayurveda          Pharmacy.                 Similarly,

Sri Venkateswara Ayurveda Dispensary is covered under

Category 3(5).

       3. In the Dispensary, by name Free Ayurveda Dispensary

existing     at     Tirumala,       which       is    under        the       control     of
                                      2




Sri Srinivasa Ayurveda Pharmacy, the posts of "Medical

Officer" and "Technical Supervisor" are carrying the same pay

scale as they are discharging the same functions. As per the

aforesaid Rules, there is no further promotion to the post of

Technical Supervisor/Medical Officer.

        4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions held

that failure to provide promotional avenues/opportunities is

violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India

and further observed that employer shall provide reasonable

opportunity to its employees by creating promotional avenues.

        5. As there is no further promotional avenue for the post

of Technical Supervisor/Medical Officer in Sri Srinivasa

Ayurveda Pharmacy and also in Senior Vaidya in Ayurveda

Dispensary, the inaction of the 1st respondent in providing

reasonable promotional avenues/opportunities is illegal and

unconstitutional.

        6. The TTD Trust Board also passed Resolution No.159,

dated        26-5-2011,   creating       the     posts     of   Pharmacy

Superintendent,      Senior    Medical         Officer    and   Production

Executives       upgrading    the    existing      post    of   Production

Supervisor to Production Manager with the scale. Thus, the

Board has created promotional avenues from the post of

Technical Supervisor to the post of Senior Medical Officer as

well    as    Ayurveda    Pharmacy       Superintendent,        which   is

equivalent to Hospital Superintendent.
                                     3




      7. However, no promotions are being given to the said

next higher post.       The petitioner, therefore, has submitted

representation     dated    10-7-2019      to    the   1st   respondent

requesting him to consider his case for promotion to the post

of Senior Medical Officer, which is vacant. However, the said

representation is not considered till now and it is not disposed

of.

      8. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition

seeking Writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents

1 and 2 in not implementing the resolution dated 26-5-2011

and in not considering the representation of the petitioner and

consequently to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to forthwith

implement the resolution dated 26-5-2011 and to promote the

petitioner as Senior Medical Officer in the existing vacancy.

      9. At the time of hearing the writ petition, the learned

counsel for the petitioner confined the relief of the petitioner to

a direction to the respondents to consider the representation

dated 10-7-2019 and prayed to dispose of the same in

accordance with law.

      10. Therefore, after hearing both the parties, this writ

petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.

      11. The resolution of the Trust Board of the TTD dated

26-5-2011 is made available at page 23 of the material papers.

A perusal of the same discloses that the following decision was

taken by the Trust Board:

      "I. The staffing pattern as proposed in para (11) to (13) duly
      creating the post of Pharmacy Superintendent, S.M.O. and
                                       4




      Production Executives, redesignating the post of Technical
      Supervisor as Medical Officer and upgrading of existing post
      of Production Supervisor to Production Manager with the
      scale."
      12. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner is that even

after creating a promotional avenue, the case of the petitioner

is not being considered for next higher post even though he is

eligible for the said promotion.

      13.       It   is   not   disputed   before     this   Court   that

the petitioner has also submitted a representation dated

10-7-2019 to the 1st respondent to consider his case for

promotion in the existing vacancy.                 Admittedly, the said

representation is not considered and disposed of till now.

Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case,

a   direction        to   the   respondents   to    consider   the   said

representation dated 10-7-2019 of the petitioner and dispose

of the said representation by passing an appropriate order to

that effect according to law would meet the ends of justice.

      14. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of

directing the respondents to consider the representation dated

10-7-2019 submitted by the petitioner and dispose of the said

representation by passing appropriate orders to that effect in

accordance with law within a period of one month from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending applications,

if any, shall stand closed. No costs.


                           _________________________________________
                           CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.

07th August, 2019. Ak 5 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Writ Petition No.10785 of 2019 07th August, 2019.

(Ak)