ORDER :

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief/s :

“….to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not including the names of the petitioners in the seniority lists dated 26.03.2011 and 12.11.2020 of Senior Assistants as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Regulation 4 (d) and 16 (1) of A.P. Vaidya Vidhana Parishad Special Service Regulations, 2000 as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; and consequently direct the Respondents to place the names of the petitioners at appropriate place and pass such other order or orders…”

2. The present writ petition is filed in not considering the case of the petitioners for the post of Office Superintendent/Manager in A.P. Vaidya Vidhana Parishad and not showing the petitioners in the revised provisional seniority list dated 12.11.2020.

3. The facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed on compassionate grounds. The 1st petitioner was appointed by an order dated 24.08.1994 vide proceedings in RC.No.72/C3/94 in the A.P. Vaidya Vidhana Parishad (hereinafter called as “Parishad”) and his services were regularized by an order dated 06.07.1998 vide proceedings in RC No.984/E1A/98. In the similar manner, the 2nd petitioner was also appointed on compassionate grounds vide proceedings No.RC984/E1A/98, dated 06.07.1998 and his services were also regularized w.e.f. 04.05.1995.

4. The case of the petitioners is that both the petitioners were initially appointed as Junior Assistants vide proceedings dated 24.08.1994 and 04.05.1994 respectively. And it is crystal clear that the appointment of both the petitioners is governed by the rules and regulations of Parishad and they originally belong to Parishad from the date of their appointment.

5. Later they were promoted and their probation was declared by the 4th respondent on 25.08.1996 and 03.05.1997 respectively and they are true members of the said Parishad. Though they were appointed and their probation was declared by the Parishad and not including the names of the petitioners for further promotion untenable and hyper technical objections is being questioned before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the 1st and 2nd petitioners were appointed as Senior Assistants vide proceedings dated 10.10.2002 in RC No.67/C2/2002 by the Regional Director of Medical and Health Services, Kadapa and their services were regularized w.e.f. 15.10.2002 in the category of Senior Assistant and placed in probation for a period of one year vide proceedings in RC No.414/C3/2004 and their probation has been completed satisfactorily on 06.11.2003 and issued proceedings in RC No.993/C2/2005, dated 19.05.2005.

7. The grievance of the petitioners is that though the petitioners belongs to the said Parishad, their names were not figured in the seniority list for the post of Office Superintendent/Manager and they have made representations to the respondent authorities separately by dated 06.04.2011, 19.11.2012, 20.10.2020 in the following manner.

“I submit that the Government has formulated Special Service Regulations through G.O.Ms.No.48, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, dated 29.01.2000. Extract of Rule 14 is produced hereunder for favor of kind perusal ‘persons appointed in various categories on contract basis or direct recruitment after formation of the Commissionerate shall be absorbed duly regularizing their services w.e.f. date of their joining duty and their regular services can be taken into account for all the purposes including seniority, probation, pension and leave’.”

8. And in the said representation it was stated and pleaded that their services would have been appointed as Junior Assistant-cum- Typist after formation of the said Parishad. And declaration of probation was also passed by the then District Coordinator of Ho