AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.Sarath, J
This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent No.2-Corporation in not considering the service rendered by the petitioner as Pharmacist in the said Corporation from 01.09.2018 till the date of filing the writ petition and not issuing the Experience Certificate to the petitioner for the period from 01.05.2019 onwards.
Heard Sri A.Santosh Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Smt. K.Swapna Madhuri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical and Health and Sri Rama Rao Gantannagari, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the record.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner was appointed as Pharmacist in the 2nd respondent-Corporation on 01.09.2018 through an outsourcing Agency. His role in the said Corporation is critical in identifying the drug, in diversion of the same from CMS to Central Medical Stores, stock monitoring and follow up of the stocks. While it being so, the Medical & Health Service Recruitment Board, Government of Telangana issued Notification No.5/2024 dated 24.09.2024 for the posts of Pharmacists. As per the clasue 3.1 of the said Notification, 20 points would be awarded for services rendered in the Government Hospitals/Institutions/ Programs on contract/outsourcing basis. In so far as the non-tribal areas are concerned, 2 points for six months of service would be awarded during the selection process, which is based on 100 points, out of which 80 points to be awarded for percentage of marks obtained in the written examination and other 20 points are the weightage marks for service. The examination for the said post was held on 30.11.2024 and the petitioner is expecting good marks in the written examination. The petitioner applied for issuance of Experience Certificate for the period from 01.09.2018 to 05.10.2024, but the respondent No.2 issued experience certificate only for the period from 01.09.2018 to 30.04.2019, without assigning reasons for restricting the period of service only up to 30.04.2019.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that for the reasons best known to the respondent No.2 the nomenclature of the post of Pharmacist has been changed as Consultant, Drugs Wing and as Data Base Administrator though the petitioner has been working as Pharmacist. Even in the Republic Day Celebrations of 2023, a Certificate of Appreciation was also issued to the petitioner, wherein the designation of the petitioner was mentioned as Pharmacist. In the Attendance Register from August, 2023 to November, 2024 and also in the Attendance Register of the respondent No.2 clearly mentioned the designation of the petitioner as Pharmacist.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that right from 01.09.2018 till date the petitioner is working as Pharmacist only. Though the nomenclature of the post of the petitioner has been changed, the services of the petitioner as Pharmacist cannot go unrecognized and the respondent No.2 ought to have issued experience certificate for the entire period from 01.09.2018 till date. If the entire period of work of the petitioner is taken into account as Pharmacist the petitioner will stand better chance in the recruitment for the post of Pharmacist Grade-II conducted by the Government. If the service of the petitioner is not counted from 01.09.2018 till date, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that though the nomenclature of the post of Pharmacist was changed as Consultant, Drugs Wing and Data Base Administrator, the petitioner continued to discharge his duties as Pharmacist only and requested to allow the writ petition by directing the respondent No.2 to consider the case of the petitioner for issuance of Experience Certificate from 01.09.2018 till date.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, placed reliance on the following citation:
i Chaudari Charan Singhy Vs. Monika and others 2024 SCC Online SC 3540.
The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2 basing on the counter filed by the respondent No.2-Corporation would submit that the respondent No.2 engaged the services of the petitioner as Pharmacist, on outsourcing basis w.e.f. 01.09.2018 and utilized his serves at TGMSIDC-Head Office, Hyderabad. On the request made by the petitioner, Experience Certificate was issued to the petitioner in the prescribed format–Annexure-III-A in accordance with the clause 3.6. of the Notification, restricting to the period of his services as Pharmacist from 01.09.2018 to 30.04.2019.
The learned Standing Counsel would further submit that the petitioner has requested the respondent No.2-Corporation to upgrade his post as per his qualification and considering his request the petitioner was appointed as “Consultant for Hospital Management” in Equipment Wing on contractual basis on a consolidated upgraded remuneration of Rs.25,000/- per month, vide Proc.No.F.64/Estt/ TSMSIDC/418, dated 07.05.2019 and he worked as such from 01.06.2019 to 31.07.2021. Further, while the petitioner was continuing as Consultant, his services were engaged as Data Base Administrator, with a monthly remuneration of Rs.31,493/- w.e.f. 01.08.2021 vide letter No.61/Estt/TSMSIDC/2020/ 1001, dated 28.08.2021. Therefore, the experience certificate was issued to the petitioner restricting the period up to 30.04.2019 for which the petitioner has rendered his services as Pharmacist.
The learned Standing Counsel would further submit that the Certificate of Appreciation was awarded to the petitioner on 26.12.2023 as Pharmacist, for the period from 01.09.2018 to 30.04.2019 since no celebrations and appreciations in the preceding years because of Covid-19 Pandemic effect. The petitioner worked in different capacities with different monthly remunerations and the alleged attendance certificates filed by the petitioner appears to be issued by the Pharmacist of Central Medical Stores (CMS) of Ranga Reddy District and sent to the Executive Engineer and the said certificates were not given by the appointing authorities. The petitioner is insisting for issuance of experience certificate as Pharmacist to till date to avail the benefits of Clause 3.5 of the Notification but as per the records, the nature of the appointment of the petitioner are different categories with different work and monthly remunerations, therefore the respondent No.2 Corporation cannot issue certificate to the petitioner as Pharmacist from the date of appointment to till date and there are no merits in the writ petition and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
After hearing both sides and on perusing the records, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is questioning the action of the respondent No.2 in not issuing experience certificate as “Pharmacist” from 01.09.2018 till the date of filing of the writ petition. The contention of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Pharmacist in the respondent No.2-Corporation on outsourcing basis and is continuing to discharging his duties as Pharmacist from 01.09.2018 in the respondent No.2-Corporaition. Pursuant to the Notification No.5/2024 dated 24.09.2024 issued by the Medical & Health Service Recruitment Board, Government of Telangana, the petitioner applied for the post of Pharmacists. As per the Clause 3.1 of the said Notification 20 points would be awarded for the services in the State Government Hospitals/Institutions/Programs on contract/ outsourcing basis. In view of the same, the petitioner made application to the respondent No.2-Corporation for issuance of Experience Certificate from 01.09.2018 to 05.10.2024 as Pharmacist, but the respondent No.2-Corporation issued certificate on 19.10.2024 for the period from 01.09.2018 to 30.04.2019, in view of the same, the petitioner will lost weightage marks in the regular recruitment process in spite of the petitioner discharged his duties as Pharmacist.
As per the documents filed by the respondent No.2-Corporatition, the designation of the petitioner is shown as Consultant for Hospital Management with effect from 01.05.2019. But, at the same time, the petitioner filed Proceedings dated 30.12.2019 issued by the General Manager (Drugs), TSMSIDC basing on the instructions of the Managing Director, TSMSIDC, wherein the petitioner was designated as Phrmacist-4 (Ph.4) w.e.f. 30.12.2019.
The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2 contended that the proceedings dated 30.12.2019 issued by General Manager (Drugs), designating the petitioner as Pharmacist-4, cannot be taken into account as the appointing authority is the Managing Director of the 2nd respondent Corporation. But the respondent No.2-Corporation in their counter or additional counter, nowhere denied about the instructions dated 30.12.2019 issued by the Managing Director of the TSMIDC with regard to the designating the petitioner as Pharmacist-4. Moreover, the documents filed by the petitioner would show that in the Republic Day Celebrations of 2023, an appreciation certificate was issued to the petitioner by the Chairman and the Managing Director of TSMSIDC as ‘Pharmacist’ in the Head Office. It clearly shows that the respondent No.2 was treated the petitioner as Pharmacist in the year, 2023 also, but denying for issuing experience certificate and stating that appreciation certificate was issued for the years 2018-19 in the year 2023 without any proceedings.
The contention of the petitioner is that he is discharging his duties as Pharmacist along with the duties of the Consultant, Hospital Management as well as the Data Base Administrator is acceptable as there are number of documents i.e. proceedings dated 30.12.2019 issued by General Manager (Drugs), designating the petitioner as Pharmacist-4, Appreciation Certificate dated 26.01.2023 issued to the petitioner on the eve of Republic Day Celebrations and the attendance register shows that the respondent No.2 treated the petitioner as Pharmacist along with other duties. In view of the same, the respondent No.2-Corporation has to issue experience certificate to the petitioner from 01.09.2018 till the date of filing of writ petition.
The Judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in Chaudari Charan Singh Vs. Monika and others (supra) squarely apply to the facts of the instant case. The relevant portion of the said Judgment is as under:
“27. An underlying current throughout the Constitution is the theme of “social justice”. The Preamble, as well as Article 38 of the Constitution, enjoins upon the State instrumentalities the duty to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting, as effectively as it may, a social order, in which justice – social, economic and political – shall inform all the institutions of national life and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities. Whenever a conflict arises between the powerful and the powerless, social justice commands the Courts to lean in favour of the weaker and poorer sections where the scales are evenly balanced”.
In the instant case, the respondent-authorities are not providing any employment to the petitioner in their organization, but the petitioner is seeking an experience certificate for the period from 01.09.2018 to till the date of filing of writ petition as Pharmacist for the purpose of weightage marks for the posts of Pharmacist pursuant to the Recruitment Notification No.5/2024, dated 24.09.2024. It is to be noted that after filing the writ petition the respondents have disengaged the services of the petitioner as per the reply filed by the petitioner to the counter filed by the respondent No.2. In view of the same, the above said findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chaudari Charan Singh Vs. Monika and others (supra) squarely apply to the instant case.
The respondent No.2 obtained the services of the petitioner as Pharmacist in different capacities and now reluctant to issue experience certificate to the petitioner as Pharmacist from 01.09.2018 to till the date of filing of writ petition and such refusal cannot be acceptable and the same is illegal and arbitrary.
In view of the above finding, the writ petition is allowed, directing the respondent No.2-Corporation to issue experience certificate to the petitioner as Pharmacist from 01.09.2018 till the date of filing of writ petition, forthwith. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.