| |
CDJ 2026 APHC 1431
|
| Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Case No : Writ Petition No. 15055 of 2025 |
| Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY |
| Parties : Pamulapati Muthyalappa Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary, Guntur & Others |
| Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: G.V.S. Kishore Kumar, For the Respondent: GP for Services I. |
| Date of Judgment : 05-08-2026 |
| Head Note :- |
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
|
| Summary :- |
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders / Regulations, and Sections Mentioned:
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Article 14 of the Constitution of India
- Article 16 of the Constitution of India
- Article 21 of the Constitution of India
- Section 151 CPC
- G.O.Ms.No.565, dated 27.08.1979
- G.O.Ms.No.459, dated 08.09.1994
- G.O.Ms.No.565, dated 24.10.1992
- Rc.No.166-PGRS/E2/2025, dated 16.04.2025
- Rc.No.1407/E4.B/2025, dated 28.04.2025
- The Andhra Pradesh Last Grade Service Rules, 1992
- The Andhra Pradesh Health Laboratories and Food (Health) Administration Subordinate Service Special Rules, 1994
- Rule 2 of Category‑2(a) of Last Grade Service Rules, 1992
- Rule 3 of the 1994 Special Rules
- Rule 5 of the 1994 Special Rules
- Rule 6 of the 1994 Special Rules
2. Catch Words:
- Promotion
- Arbitrary
- Illegal
- Discrimination
- Legitimate expectation
- Equity in service jurisprudence
- Articles 14, 16, 21
3. Summary:
The petitioner, appointed as an Office Subordinate, sought promotion to Medical Lab Technician Grade‑II, invoking G.O. No.459/1994 and G.O. No.565/1992 as the governing rules. Respondent No.4 rejected the promotion, relying on an older G.O. No.565/1979. The petitioner alleged arbitrariness, violation of Articles 14, 16, 21, and breach of legitimate expectation. The Court examined the specific 1994 Special Rules, which require a minimum of three years service as a Laboratory Attendant for promotion. Since the petitioner served as an Office Subordinate and not as a Laboratory Attendant, he did not satisfy the statutory eligibility. The Court held that the general 1992 Last Grade Service Rules could not override the specific 1994 rules. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed |
| Judgment :- |
|
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in rejecting my case for promotion to the post of Medical Lab Technician vide Rc.No.166-PGRS/E2/2025, dated 16.04.2025, solely on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.565, dated 27.08.1979, A superseded rule, while completely ignoring G.O.Ms.No.459, dated 08.09.1994 AND G.O.Ms.No.565, dated 24.10.199 2 which is the governing rule for Lab Technician Grade II, despite the petitioner's representations dt.07.02.2024, 08.07.2024, 15.07.2024, 09.08.2024, 21.03.2025, 07.04.2025, and 08.04.2025 to 3rd and 4th Respondents for promotion to the post of Medical Lab Technician as arbitrary, illegal, blindfolded, non-application of mind, irrational, discriminatory, and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the principles of legitimate expectation, equity in service jurisprudence and it is consequently prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider my eligibility for appointment to the post of Medical Lab Technician in the existing vacancy in terms of G.O.Ms.No.459, dated 08.09.1994 AND G.O.Ms.No.565, dated 24.10.1992 and pass such other orders.
IA NO: 1 OF 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 direct respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representations dt.07.02.2024, 08.07.2024, 15.07.2024, 09.08.2024, 21.03.2025, 07.04.2025, and 08.04.2025 to 3rd and 4th Respondents for promotion to the post of Medical Lab Technician, pursuant to the instructions issued by the Director of Public Health and Family Welfare vide Rc.No.1407/E4.B/2025, dated 28.04.2025, by passing a reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.459, dated 08.09.1994& G.O.Ms.No.565, dated:24.10.1992 within a stipulated time, and pass such other orders.)
1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of Respondent No.4 in rejecting the Petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Medical Lab Technician vide Rc.No.166-PGRS/E2/2025, dated 16.04.2025 and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The Petitioner was appointed as Office Subordinate on compassionate grounds on 01.04.2021, his services were regularized on 01.06.2023 and presently working in the office of Respondent No.3. The Petitioner had completed Certified Lab Technician Course in the year 2004 and registered with the Paramedical Board in the year 2008. Though the Petitioner is eligible for appointment as Medical Lab Technician, the Petitioner was appointed as Office Subordinate. The Petitioner also sought for promotion to the post of Medical Lab Technician Grade-II, which was rejected vide impugned proceedings on the ground that the case of the Petitioner’s case cannot be considered as per the present Rules and Regulations in force. Questioning the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that as per The Andhra Pradesh Last Grade Service Rules, 1992 (for short “Last Grade Service Rules, 1992”), the term ‘Office Subordinate’ was defined and the same includes ‘Lab Attendant’ and that the posts of ‘Office Subordinate’ as well as ‘Lab Attendant’ come under Rule 2 of Category-2(a) of Last Grade Service Rules, 1992 and the Petitioner can be considered for promotion to the post of Lab Attendant Grade-II subject to his qualifications.
4. The Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I Sri S. Raju would submit that for promotion to the post of Lab Technician Grade-II, there is a requirement of three years experience as Lab Attendant and as the Petitioner does not have experience, there is no possibility of the Petitioner being appointed.
5. Heard the counsels.
6. The post of Lab Technician Grade-II is governed by The Andhra Pradesh Health Laboratories and Food (Health) Administration Subordinate Service Special Rules, 1994 framed vide G.O.Ms.No.459, Health, Medical & Family Welfare (L1) Department, dated 08.09.1994. The Method of Appointment and Appointing Authority for the post of Laboratory Technician Grade-II is specified in Rule 3 thereof among other posts. The relevant portion is extracted below;
4.
| Laboratory Technician Grade-II including Chemist (Cholera) Technical Assistant and Sample Custodian
| i) By promotion of Laboratory Attendant
ii) If no qualified candidates by direct recruitment
| DIRECTOR
| 5.
| Laboratory Attendant
| By appointment by transfer of Attenders and other equivalent categories in the Department and if no qualified candidates are available by direct recruitment.
| DIRECTOR
|
7. As per the above extract, the appointment to the post of Laboratory Technician Grade-II is by promotion or Laboratory Attendant and if no Lab Attendant is available for promotion then by direct recruitment.
8. Rule 6 thereof for effecting promotion is that an individual should have put in not less than three years in the feeder category and the same is extracted below;
“6. MINIMUM SERVICE:
No person shall be eligible for appointment by transfer or promotion unless he is an approved probationer and has put in not less than three years of service in the category from which appointment by transfer or promotion is made.”
9. In the present case, the Petitioner is working as Office Subordinate and not as Laboratory Attendant and since the Petitioner does not have experience as Laboratory Attendant, his case cannot be considered for promotion as Laboratory Technician Grade-II. The Last Grade Service Rules, 1992 are general Rules and they do not have any bearing when there are Rules providing specific qualifications and channel of promotions.
10. Further, the duties of Office Subordinate and Laboratory Attendant are different and merely because, the Office Subordinate and Laboratory Attendant come under Rule 2 of Category-II(a) of Last Grade Service Rules, 1992, the same is of no consequence for promotion to the post of Lab Technician.
11. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the Writ Petition and accordingly dismissed.
12. No order as to costs.
13. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
|
| |
