A.Velangini vs State Of Telangana

1 Heard Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Sri J.K.Anita, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri S.Vijay Prashanth, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos.5 to 7.

2 Petitioner filed the present writ petition aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not considering the claim of the petitioner for repatriation of her service to her parent department i.e. Regional Department of Medical and Health Services, Warangal/ Director of Public Health and Family Welfare i.e., third respondent and fourth respondents herein and not considering her claim for promotion to the post of Lecture in (Nursing) by taking into consideration of her seniority with effect from 28.11.1998 is illegal.

3 The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Staff Nurse in the third respondent Department on 23.11.1998 and her services were regularized and probation was also declared as well. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner was sent on deputation to the fifth respondent Department and during the pendency of her deputation, the petitioner applied for study leave and from 1.10.2008 to 26.07.2011. The petitioner completed and acquired M.Sc Nursing qualification. Meanwhile, the fifth respondent had undertaken process of absorption.

4 Petitioner further submits that the Director of Medical Education, A.P. Hyderabad had issued combined provisional seniority list of M.Sc (Nursing) candidates of Nursing Tutor for the year 2012-2013 wherein her name was placed at Sl.No.94.

5 Petitioner further submits that her name was not included in the Multi Zonal provisional seniority list of M.Sc (Nursing) candidates of Nursing Tutors, Graded-II, Sister Tutor PHN/Staff Nurses for the year 2012-2013 communicated by the Director, Medical Education, A.P, Hyderabad. Her services are under the control of RDM & HS, Warangal, working in the APVVP Hospitals on deputation basis and her service matters like seniority etc, should be maintained at RDM & HS, Warangal and Director, Medical Education, A.P. Hyderabad.

6 Since the respondent authorities have contemplated to take up promotion process for the post of Lecturers (Nursing) with the candidates having M.Sc Nursing qualification, the petitioner made representation, which was denied.

7 The petitioner made representations to the respondent authorities requesting for cancellation of absorption in Telangana State Vidya Vidana Parishath and repatriate her to the parent Department i.e. Director of Public Health and Family Welfare from 2008. The application of the petitioner dated 27.08.2022 for the said relief was rejected on 26.09.2022.

8 On the other hand the fifth respondent filed counter affidavit contending that the petitioner was appointed as Staff Nurse by the respondent No.4 and was posted to the Community Hospital, Mulugu on 23.11.1998 and was later transferred and posted to the District Hospital, Karimnagar by the Commissioner, Vidya Vidhanaa Parishad on 25.04.2006. Her services were absorbed into A.P.V.V.P vide proceedings dated 11.12.2008 and hence she was considered as an APVVP employee only.

9 It is further submitted that the petitioner has submitted representation on 22.01.2013 in which she had informed that as per her option her services were absorbed into the A.P.V.V.Parishad, though she had later requested the Director of Medical Education, Hyderabad to include her name in the seniority list of M.Sc (N) candidates for the year 2012-13. It is specifically submitted that the petitioner is an employee of the Vidya Vidhana Parishad and her seniority is being maintained in the Department as she is an absorbed candidate. Hence the lien of the petitioner in her parent Department is deemed to be terminated. Therefore, it is not feasible to consider the claim of the petitioner for repatriation to her parent unit i.e. RDM & HS, Warangal / Director of Public Health and Family Welfare, Hyderabad and include her name in the integrated list of Nursing Tutor Gr.II/PHN/Staff Nurse and promote her as lecturer on par with her batch mates with all consequential benefits by this respondent. Hence prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

10 The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under the relevant Rules, a person cannot be absorbed without there being consent. Unfortunately, the respondent authorities have without the consent of the petitioner absorbed the petitioner in the Department of APVV Parishad and that the petitioner has never given any consent as alleged. He further submitted that if the document regarding absorption / option form is produced before the Court, the entire issue will be resolved since the said document is in the possession of the fifth respondent.

11 On the other hand, the contention the respondents is that to build the own cadre strength of combined A.P.Vidya Vidhana Parishad, options were called for from the different categories of employees for absorption into APVVP including Staff Nurse category by taking willingness of the individuals through option form signed by the employee. As per the option form, declaration was given by the individuals as they are fully aware and understood that the option once exercised is final and cannot be reversed in future and basing on the option given by the individual absorption orders were issued mentioning that on being absorbed into APVVP their lien in parent department is deemed to be terminated with immediate effect.

12 However, as seen from the proceedings dated 11.12.2008 of the office of the District Coordinator of Hospital Services, Karimnagar, the petitioner had been absorbed into the APVVP. The said proceedings demonstrate that option forms have been obtained from the individuals and upon giving option, the petitioner was absorbed and accordingly the proceedings were issued. The said factum of absorption was also entered in the service register of the petitioner at the relevant point of time itself. So the petitioner has knowledge about all these circumstances. Moreover, entry in the service register pertaining to the year 2009 shows that the petitioner was sanctioned uniform allowance. So having knowledge about all these things, and having opted for absorption in the APVV Parishad, the petitioner cannot now take a U turn and claim for repatriation.

13 Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is devoid of any merit and hence she does not deserve any consideration from this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, since the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 14.02.2023 bringing in certain amendments to G.O.Ms.No.101, HM&FW (M1) Department, dated 04.04.1997, and since the petitioner had acquired the relevant qualification, the petitioner is given liberty to apply for the post of Lecturer in future.

14 Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this writ petition shall also stand dismissed.