Ch.Rambayamma, vs The Director Of Public Health And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2539 Tel

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 2539 Tel
Judgement Date : 20 September, 2023

Telangana High Court

Ch.Rambayamma, vs The Director Of Public Health And ... on 20 September, 2023

Bench: J Sreenivas Rao

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

              WRIT PETITION No.5238 of 2017

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief;

"to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondents in reverting the petitioners from the posts of MPHS(F) to MPHA(F) by cancelling the promotions orders, vide impugned Proceedings Rc.No.A2/724/2016-17, dated 10.02.2017 without issuing any notice or opportunity as highly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law rules and consequentially, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that the petitioners herein are entitled to continue as MPHS(F) at their respective places by set asiding the impugned order dated 10.2.2017"

2. Heard Sri Shaik Hameed, learned counsel

representing Sri M.R.Tagore, learned counsel for the

petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Services-II, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

3. When the matter was taken up for hearing on

04.09.2023, there was no representation on behalf of the

unofficial respondent Nos.4 and 5. To give one

opportunity, the matter was posted to 08.09.2023. On

08.09.2023 also there was no representation on their

behalf. Therefore, to give one more opportunity, the

matter was posted to 15.09.2023. On 15.09.2023, also ::2::

there was no representation and to afford final

indulgence, the matter has been posted to 20.09.2023.

Today also, there is no representation on their behalf.

Inspite of giving several opportunities, there has been no

representation on behalf of unofficial respondent Nos.4

and 5.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

petitioners were appointed as Multipurpose Health

Assistants(Female)(for short "M.P.H.A.(F)") on 02.12.1996

by direct recruitment under ST category in the agency

area of erstwhile Khammam district. Thereafter, their

services were regularized and probation was also

declared. Subsequently, the petitioners were promoted

on 17.01.2017 to the post of Multi Purpose Health

Supervisor(Female)(for short "M.P.H.S.(F)"). The

petitioners while discharging their duties in the post of

M.P.H.S.(F), respondent No.1 issued impugned

proceedings dated 10.02.2017 reverting the petitioners

from M.P.H.S(F) to M.P.H.A.(F).

::3::

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently

contended that before issuing reversion vide impugned

proceedings, no notice was issued and they were not

given any opportunity, which is in clear violation of

principles of natural justice.

6. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader

for Services-II submits that, the petitioners are junior to

respondent Nos.4 and 5, therefore, respondent No.1 had

rightly issued the impugned proceedings.

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by

the respective parties and after perusal of the material

available on record, which clearly reveals that the

petitioners were appointed to the post of M.P.H.A.(F) on

02.12.1996 by direct recruitment and their services were

regularized. Thereafter, on 17.01.2017, they were

promoted to the post of M.P.H.S.(F) and respondent No.1

issued the impugned proceedings on 10.02.2017

reverting the petitioner from the post of M.P.H.S(F) to

M.P.H.A.(F) and the said impugned proceedings clearly

reveals that in order to accommodate the unofficial

respondent Nos.4 to 5, the petitioners were reverted to ::4::

the post of M.P.H.A. It further reveals that prior to

issuance of the impugned reversion order dated

10.02.2017, respondent No.1 has not issued any notice

and not given any opportunity to the petitioners. Hence,

the impugned proceedings passed by respondent No.1, is

in clear violation of principles of natural justice.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in UditNarain Singh

Malpaharia v. Addl. Member Board of Revenue 1,

relyingon the judgment in King v. London County

Council [(1931) 2 KB 215, 243] held as under;

"Wherever anybody of persons (1) having legal authority (2) to determine questions affecting rights of subjects and (3) having the duty to act judicially (4) act in excess of their legal authority -- a writ of certiorari may issue". It will be seen from the ingredients of judicial act that there must be a duty to act judicially. A tribunal, therefore, exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial act cannot decide against the rights of a party without giving him a hearing or an opportunity to represent his case in the manner known to law. If the provisions of a particular statute or rules made thereunder do not provide for it,

AIR 1963 SC 786 ::5::

principles of natural justice demand it. Any such order made without hearing the affected parties would be void.

As a writ of certiorari will be granted to remove the record of proceedings of an inferior tribunal or authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial acts, ex hypothesis it follows that the High Court in exercising its jurisdiction shall also act judicially in disposing of the proceedings before it.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Allwyn Housing

Colony Welfare Association Vs. Government of

Andhra Pradesh and others 2held as under;

"No adverse orders can be passed without hearing the affected party."

10. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned

proceedings dated 10.02.2017 passed by respondent

No.1 is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside,

and the respondents are directed to consider the claims

of the petitioners for promotion to the post of M.P.H.S.(F)

and other service benefits and pass appropriate orders in

accordance with law, after giving notice and opportunity

to the petitioners as well as respondent Nos.4 and 5