Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 74
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
Katikala Indira Priyadarsini and Others – Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 7291 Of 2024
Decided On : 17-03-2025
For the Petitioners: Popuri Lakshmi Priyanvita
For the Respondents: GP For Services IV
The spouse preference policy in promotions is valid but must be applied consistently without overriding seniority, ensuring procedural fairness.
Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Promotion Policy - The petitioners challenged condition No.4(2)(i) of G.O.Ms.No.273, asserting it is illegal and arbitrary, violating principles of equality and merit in promotions. The clause prioritizes spouses working in Government, leading to irrational promotion procedures. (Paras 1-3, 9-10)
(B) Judicial Review - The court emphasized the grounds of irrationality and procedural impropriety in administrative actions, stating that a decision must not override seniority without justification. The court found that the application of the spouse preference clause lacked consistency and fairness, constituting procedural impropriety. (Paras 25-29)
(C) Findings: The court ruled that while the spouse preference policy is not irrational, its application has been procedurally improper, overriding seniority unjustly. The court directed adherence to the G.O.'s intended purpose, ensuring seniority is respected in promotions. (Paras 26-38)
(D)
Result: The writ petition is disposed of with directions to implement the G.O. in accordance with seniority principles.
ORDER :
(SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.)
The petitioners, Doctors, working in different Medical Colleges across the State of Andhra Pradesh, under the control of the Directorate of Medical Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, filed the above writ petition, to declare condition No.4(2)(i) i.e. spouses working in Government, in G.O.Ms.No.273, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, dated 21.05.1999, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
2. The averments in the writ affidavit, in brief, are that petitioners 1 to 16 are working as Assistant Professors and petitioners 17 to 25 are working as Associate Professors. The next promotion from Assistant Professor is Associate Professor and from Associate Professor to Professor. The promotion is based on seniority. Respondent No.2 prepared a seniority list of the candidates, eligible for promotion to the next higher post, for the panel year, 2023-2024. All the petitioners were called for counselling. Respondent No.2 informed that priority, to choose places, at the time of the promotion would be given to four categories mentioned in para 4(2) of G.O.Ms.No.273 dated 21.05.1999. The priority is given to the personnel covered under 4(2)(i) of G.O.Ms.No.273 dated 21.05.1999 and the other persons in seniority were not given an option for selecting places. Adopting such a procedure is illegal and arbitrary.
b) The petitioners were informed that priority will be given to the candidates where both the spouses are working in Government, given G.O.Ms.No.273 dated 21.05.1999. Giving priority to the spouses working in the Government for selecting the place is irrational and arbitrary. Such a clause itself is arbitrary and is liable to be struck down.
3. A counter affidavit, deposed by respondent No.2, was filed on its behalf as well as on behalf of respondent No.1. In the counter affidavit, it was not disputed about the promotions affected in the cadre of Associate Professors and Assistant Professors and selected candidates opting the places as per para 4.2.i of G.O.Ms.No.273 dated 21.05.1999. It was specifically contended that petitioner No.1 (Anesthesia), petitioner No.2 (Microbiology), the petitioner No.9 (pharmacology) standing at serial Nos.25, 13 and 6 respectively, in the seniority list, of the respective branches, did not opt for any place. Petitioners, 3 to 8 and 10 to 16, working as Assistant Professors in various Specializations are not included in the list of promotion for the post of Associate Professors for the panel year, 2023-24. Petitioners 17, 18 and 24 were promoted as Associate Professors in their respective specializations in the panel year, 2021-22. Petitioner No.23 was promoted to Associate Professor in the panel year, 2022-23. Petitioners 19 to 22 and 25 were promoted as Associate Professors in their respective specializations in the panel year, 2023-24. Petitioners 17 to 25 were called for counselling in the normal seniority after calling all the priorities as per G.O.Ms.No.273 dated 21.05.1999.
b) During the general transfers, wherever the transfer was affected on priority, on the spouse's ground, the next request can be made only after eight years. However, in the promotions, there is no such condition included.
c) The promotions were affected strictly as per the seniority. After the approval of the promotion list, counselling was conducted for choosing places of postings. The priority was given on the spouse grounds for fostering family stability among the employees and this provision acknowledges the challenges faced by the employees working in different stations, allowing them to remain together or closer, thereby enhancing their quality of life and job satisfaction. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
4. Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Smt. Lakshmi Priyanvita, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri R.S. Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services, for the res
